http://www.johnsoncontrols.com/publish/etc/medialib/jci/be/case_studies.Par.21254.File.dat/Clackamas_County_08.pdf
The link is to a "case study" (aka advertisement) on Clackamas County OR and their "unique design-build-operate process in partnership with Johnson Controls, Inc. and others, Clackamas County was able to swiftly construct a cost-effective and sustainable building with the County’s financial and environmental goals in mind. The Public Services Building (PSB) at the Red Soils campus combines several departments at a centralized facility to provide better services for citizens."
Thought it was of interest based on our recent assignment.
Javelina in the Front Yard
Our wild piggy neighbors!
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Assignment #7 - Sustainable Tourism
http://mediaglobal.org/article/2010-04-15/encouraging-sustainable-tourism-for-development-in-zanzibar
The article tells us that tourism in Zanzibar is depleting the natural beauty and resources there. There are a few businesses in the tourism industry who decided that this is an economic problem for them and started to act to create sustainability and change. This tourism and sustainability issue was resolved at the local level, by local business in an effort to protect their economic base and improve the quality of their land.
The increase of tourists coming to Zanzibar since the 1990s has impacted the area significantly. A 2007 feature in National Geographic Traveler Magazine rated Unguja at 53 out of 100 in terms of sustainable tourism and development practices. The reviews of Unguja, written anonymously by sustainable tourism experts indicated that the island was suffering from being developed too quickly with too many large investments without benefiting locals. Panelists rated Pemba 67 out of 100 because of its better-preserved environment and more controlled development. Despite criticisms, there are many in Zanzibar who are encouraging healthy and sustainable development that benefits both area residents and the environment.
The local hotels are making a difference through a series of environmental, ecological and economical sustainability changes. For instance, one hotel is offering accommodations where visitors stay in “eco-bungalows” replete with solar-powered lighting, solar heated water, composting toilets, and rainwater catchment systems. Another is serving local produce and encourages the purchase of local handicrafts and commerce while subsidizing medical care and contributing to education for the local population. The inn is committed to conserving energy and recycling all waste products, in addition to planting trees and shrubs in a nursery and distributing them to locals.
This issue could have been resolved by the local government instituting requirements for sustainable use of the land and resources. The local government could have instituted local law requiring the tourism industry to follow the same sustainable goals that the businesses adopted voluntarily. A state run program with laws determining what the hotels should do to meet environmental sustainability could have easily been implemented and policed.
If the government had decided to implement such policies, there would be several negative effects: business push-back because not all tourism business will want to do this or see it as beneficial; cost of creating an agency to oversee this new policy and implement the rules and regulations; costs would likely increase if the changes were implemented by local government because there would likely be an increase in fees and taxes to support implementation of such a policy. I don't think that the Zanzibar government would have been successful with its implementation of the same things the hotels did here. The hotels saw an economic benefit with increased tourism dollars and the government implementing the same would not have the same altruistic and economic benefits that the hotels are currently enjoying.
Ultimately, even if the government had decided to be the instrument of change in Zanzibar, it would likely have been successful. Although as I mentioned earlier, the businesses would probably not see the same level of income from a government run program due to the additional costs of running such a program. This is a great example of what Wheeler was trying to convey in the text when he said that change has to begin with the individual and then stretch out from there. It is genuinely nice to see the residents and businesses of Zanzibar care about the depletion of their resources and the beauty of their nation that they would (whether it be for economic or altruistic reasons) independently take on and successfully solve the problem.
The article tells us that tourism in Zanzibar is depleting the natural beauty and resources there. There are a few businesses in the tourism industry who decided that this is an economic problem for them and started to act to create sustainability and change. This tourism and sustainability issue was resolved at the local level, by local business in an effort to protect their economic base and improve the quality of their land.
The increase of tourists coming to Zanzibar since the 1990s has impacted the area significantly. A 2007 feature in National Geographic Traveler Magazine rated Unguja at 53 out of 100 in terms of sustainable tourism and development practices. The reviews of Unguja, written anonymously by sustainable tourism experts indicated that the island was suffering from being developed too quickly with too many large investments without benefiting locals. Panelists rated Pemba 67 out of 100 because of its better-preserved environment and more controlled development. Despite criticisms, there are many in Zanzibar who are encouraging healthy and sustainable development that benefits both area residents and the environment.
The local hotels are making a difference through a series of environmental, ecological and economical sustainability changes. For instance, one hotel is offering accommodations where visitors stay in “eco-bungalows” replete with solar-powered lighting, solar heated water, composting toilets, and rainwater catchment systems. Another is serving local produce and encourages the purchase of local handicrafts and commerce while subsidizing medical care and contributing to education for the local population. The inn is committed to conserving energy and recycling all waste products, in addition to planting trees and shrubs in a nursery and distributing them to locals.
This issue could have been resolved by the local government instituting requirements for sustainable use of the land and resources. The local government could have instituted local law requiring the tourism industry to follow the same sustainable goals that the businesses adopted voluntarily. A state run program with laws determining what the hotels should do to meet environmental sustainability could have easily been implemented and policed.
If the government had decided to implement such policies, there would be several negative effects: business push-back because not all tourism business will want to do this or see it as beneficial; cost of creating an agency to oversee this new policy and implement the rules and regulations; costs would likely increase if the changes were implemented by local government because there would likely be an increase in fees and taxes to support implementation of such a policy. I don't think that the Zanzibar government would have been successful with its implementation of the same things the hotels did here. The hotels saw an economic benefit with increased tourism dollars and the government implementing the same would not have the same altruistic and economic benefits that the hotels are currently enjoying.
Ultimately, even if the government had decided to be the instrument of change in Zanzibar, it would likely have been successful. Although as I mentioned earlier, the businesses would probably not see the same level of income from a government run program due to the additional costs of running such a program. This is a great example of what Wheeler was trying to convey in the text when he said that change has to begin with the individual and then stretch out from there. It is genuinely nice to see the residents and businesses of Zanzibar care about the depletion of their resources and the beauty of their nation that they would (whether it be for economic or altruistic reasons) independently take on and successfully solve the problem.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Scottsdale parties reach tentative water agreement
by Lynh Bui - Apr. 6, 2010 02:44 PM
The Arizona Republic
A proposal that could inject up to 1 billion gallons of water annually into the region's groundwater supply soon will go to the Scottsdale City Council for consideration.
The council's subcommittee on water resources met Monday to review proposals from Arizona American Water Co., city water experts and Motorola on plans that could reduce the Northeast Valley's reliance on groundwater. The proposals also would lead to cleanup of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale.
Representatives of the three parties supported the proposals as an improvement from previous plans. The agreement is a reversal from the tone last year when stakeholders couldn't see eye to eye on how to manage regional water issues.
The stalemate prompted Scottsdale to examine ways to take over Arizona American Water's customers in the city, either through purchase or condemnation.
Company President Paul Townsley proposed entering into a 40-year agreement with the city to treat the private utility's allocation of renewable surface water, which could be used in place of non-renewable groundwater.
The utility would give Motorola access to its plant on Miller Road to continue treating water from PCX-1, a well owned by Salt River Project that is contaminated with industrial solvent trichloroethylene, Townsley said.
Part of the current problem is that treated water from that well is going into the Arizona Canal and not renewing the region's groundwater supply.
"I really believe that this plan is superior to the plan we heard about a year ago," Townsley said.
The plan, which could take two years to implement, has two parts:
• Arizona American Water and Scottsdale would enter into a "treat-and-transport" agreement in which the water company would pay the city to treat its allocation of Central Arizona Project water. Arizona American Water would design, finance and construct a pipeline between its water system and the city's Chaparral plant to transport the treated CAP water, which would be blended with water from the Chaparral plant and sent into the drinking-water system.
• Motorola would be given access to Arizona American Water's Miller Road facility to treat water from the SRP's PCX-1. That treated water, which would be separate from Arizona American Water operations, would be recharged into the ground to replenish the aquifer.
The concept, which could take two years to implement, was submitted last Thursday to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review. Both agencies are expected to comment on the plan within the next month.
Marshall Brown, executive director of the city's water resources division, called the concept a "sustainable, good, long-term approach" to addressing the region's water issues.
Terry Lockwood, the representative for Motorola and other companies involved in the Superfund cleanup, said the plan proposed would also be beneficial because water recharged into the ground would act as a shield to prevent the Superfund plume from expanding.
But not all were supportive of the proposals.
Richard Alt, a representative for Scottsdale Citizens for Sustainable Water, said two years was too long to wait. He said the city should take over the Arizona American Water Co.
Alt represents a group of Scottsdale residents who are in Arizona American Water's service area. He said the group likely will submit a petition asking the Scottsdale City Council to take over the utility's Scottsdale customers.
"It is definitely the right thing to do to gain control of the entire city of Scottsdale's water-sustainability issue," Alt said.
Arizona American executives have repeatedly said the company is not for sale and would fight any condemnation efforts. Bob Littlefield, chairman of the water issues subcommittee, said he will request the issue go before the council for consideration. That date has not been set.
The Arizona Republic
A proposal that could inject up to 1 billion gallons of water annually into the region's groundwater supply soon will go to the Scottsdale City Council for consideration.
The council's subcommittee on water resources met Monday to review proposals from Arizona American Water Co., city water experts and Motorola on plans that could reduce the Northeast Valley's reliance on groundwater. The proposals also would lead to cleanup of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund site in Scottsdale.
Representatives of the three parties supported the proposals as an improvement from previous plans. The agreement is a reversal from the tone last year when stakeholders couldn't see eye to eye on how to manage regional water issues.
The stalemate prompted Scottsdale to examine ways to take over Arizona American Water's customers in the city, either through purchase or condemnation.
Company President Paul Townsley proposed entering into a 40-year agreement with the city to treat the private utility's allocation of renewable surface water, which could be used in place of non-renewable groundwater.
The utility would give Motorola access to its plant on Miller Road to continue treating water from PCX-1, a well owned by Salt River Project that is contaminated with industrial solvent trichloroethylene, Townsley said.
Part of the current problem is that treated water from that well is going into the Arizona Canal and not renewing the region's groundwater supply.
"I really believe that this plan is superior to the plan we heard about a year ago," Townsley said.
The plan, which could take two years to implement, has two parts:
• Arizona American Water and Scottsdale would enter into a "treat-and-transport" agreement in which the water company would pay the city to treat its allocation of Central Arizona Project water. Arizona American Water would design, finance and construct a pipeline between its water system and the city's Chaparral plant to transport the treated CAP water, which would be blended with water from the Chaparral plant and sent into the drinking-water system.
• Motorola would be given access to Arizona American Water's Miller Road facility to treat water from the SRP's PCX-1. That treated water, which would be separate from Arizona American Water operations, would be recharged into the ground to replenish the aquifer.
The concept, which could take two years to implement, was submitted last Thursday to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for review. Both agencies are expected to comment on the plan within the next month.
Marshall Brown, executive director of the city's water resources division, called the concept a "sustainable, good, long-term approach" to addressing the region's water issues.
Terry Lockwood, the representative for Motorola and other companies involved in the Superfund cleanup, said the plan proposed would also be beneficial because water recharged into the ground would act as a shield to prevent the Superfund plume from expanding.
But not all were supportive of the proposals.
Richard Alt, a representative for Scottsdale Citizens for Sustainable Water, said two years was too long to wait. He said the city should take over the Arizona American Water Co.
Alt represents a group of Scottsdale residents who are in Arizona American Water's service area. He said the group likely will submit a petition asking the Scottsdale City Council to take over the utility's Scottsdale customers.
"It is definitely the right thing to do to gain control of the entire city of Scottsdale's water-sustainability issue," Alt said.
Arizona American executives have repeatedly said the company is not for sale and would fight any condemnation efforts. Bob Littlefield, chairman of the water issues subcommittee, said he will request the issue go before the council for consideration. That date has not been set.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy
Assignment #6 - Frameworks for Environmental Policy and the 21st Century Water Commission
1. The components of the 21st Century Water Commission policy which are most relevant to Cohen’s “values framework” are: a) it is an issue stemming from a fundamental behavior of our lifestyle and b) the problem raises fundamental issues of conflicting values. Humankind needs fresh water to survive. Humans use fresh water to meet basic needs of living and we use water to irrigate farmland, produce electric power and manufacture goods, additionally fresh water is a source of religious practice. Once a commodity believed to have an infinite supply, we are finding that in not only the United States, but worldwide, fresh water is becoming scarce. There needs to be a fundamental change in how the average American views fresh water. It is too easy to turn on the tap and have fresh, drinkable and affordable water. This fact makes water too easy a commodity to take for granted and further makes it prone to waste.
There is a fundamental issue of conflicting values surrounding fresh water. Water is in huge quantities, used and wasted in agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power and manufacturing ventures. In the breadbasket of the country, farmers draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate 30% of the nation’s crops. Water is being withdrawn thirty times faster than it is naturally replenished. Lowering freshwater table levels leads to increased concentrations of pollution, subsidence on land, and smaller quantities of water to be distributed among farmers to feed a growing nation (Reilly et al., 2008). These facts are brought to light in the American Southwest where we are in a constant battle between states for allocation of the fresh water of the Colorado River. Furthermore, the American Southwest is experiencing more land subsidence, development of land fissures and depletion of surface water resources than ever before.
2. The political framework components most relevant to Cohen with regard to this measure before Congress are: a) The status of the issue on the policy agenda is eye-opening. This bill, first introduced in 2003, and every session since is to date, unsuccessful. Representative John Linder (GA-R) and Senator John Isakson introduced legislation, H.R. 135 and S. 2728. The original bills were identical. In 2003 this bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, furthermore it was debated and passed by the House. It failed to pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works before Congress adjourned. Subsequent sessions of Congress saw the bill introduced, but to date is has not passed Congress to become law. b) This issue does act independently of other political issues, yet it appears to be clustered with other key issues. For example, although the Act will create no new laws or mandates, there is concern that it is an attempt to give the federal government more influence over freshwater policy. The most vocal opponents of this position are Representative Candice Miller (MI-R) and Representative Vern Ehlers (MI-R), who has gone so far as to say he would “call out the local militia” in response to any attempt to move Great Lakes freshwater elsewhere. (Columbia, 2008) This concern persists despite the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments which prohibit diversion of Great Lakes freshwater unless all governors of the eight Great Lakes States approve it. This opposition on the grounds of increasing federal power is an important issue to address in order for this Commission to be fully accepted (Spangler, 2007). c) In the U.S. context, which level of government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue (state, federal or local)? State governments hold the primary power over water resources in their respective states. There are several interstate compacts, like the Colorado Compact, which allocates the resources of the Colorado River among the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. This Commission hopes to make recommendations to help resolve interstate conflicts like the Colorado Compact in which California uses more than its equitable share of the water from the Colorado River.
3. Science and Technology: Cohen points out that problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems take a long time to develop, and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between and environmental problem and the introduction of a specific technology. (Cohen, 27) Water is not unique in this realm of environmental issues – clean water was the initial need to be addressed nationally (and globally). We did just that very thing with the Clean Water Act and its progeny. Now we are suffering the consequences of the overuse of water.
The Commission historically is at a juncture that it would be a great national asset to combine all the regional knowledge and ideas into one nationally available resource.
a) There is a certainty about the causes and effects of the overuse of water resources. We know there is a prolific overuse of the nation’s natural water resources and because of the overuse we are creating a deficit in the overall amount of water resources available for the United States and this is further complicated by the knowledge that the overuse is a leading cause of pollution in our waterways and aquifers. b) Control and mitigation technologies are widely available and we have experience with their management. Dr. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, commented on the legislation, pointing out “water technologies and research efforts are scattered among disparate and uncoordinated federal agencies and departments.” Dr. Gleick would like to see a re-evaluation of the control and mitigation technologies presently available across the various federal, state and local levels and have this Commission coalesce these programs into one nationally based, easily accessible program for federal state and local leaders to utilize in their regional water issues.
4. Policy Design Framework – a) The policy design reflects strategic thinking. It is not based on political considerations, stakeholder compromises or lucky guesses. b) The regulated community does not appear to understand what this Commission is asking them to do and while there appears to be limited opposition there is limited support. As was noted in the research done at Columbia University in 2008, this Commission will not create any new laws or mandates. There appears to be concern about the federal government gaining more influence over freshwater policy. Cohen tells us that the goal of regulation is to influence individual or organizational behavior. (Cohen, 31) As previously mentioned, this Commission is about recommending a national strategy to preserve our freshwater resources, not create new “command and control” regulations.
5. Management Framework- a) We have an enormous amount of experience in addressing this issue. The problem is that historically the water resource issue has been primarily focused in regions (southwest, southeast, great lakes) not nationally except for the water commission, federally created and funded in the 1980’s. The legislation requires that the Commission must consider how future climate change may impact freshwater supply and quality, based on scientific projections. The Commission’s recommendations must also consider existing freshwater management programs used by states, municipalities, and the private sector. While the Commission’s broader purpose is to help ensure an adequate and reliable freshwater supply for the US, the legislation requires that the Commission develop a comprehensive national water strategy with five explicit goals regarding existing management systems and four goals aimed at the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and population growth on freshwater availability and quality. (Columbia, 2008) Federal agency cooperation will also play an integral role in the ongoing research. When requested by Commission members, federal agencies are obligated to 1) honor requests of information from the Commission within 30 days, and 2) temporarily assign members of their staff on a reimbursable basis to assist the previously stated duties of the Commission. Id
1. The components of the 21st Century Water Commission policy which are most relevant to Cohen’s “values framework” are: a) it is an issue stemming from a fundamental behavior of our lifestyle and b) the problem raises fundamental issues of conflicting values. Humankind needs fresh water to survive. Humans use fresh water to meet basic needs of living and we use water to irrigate farmland, produce electric power and manufacture goods, additionally fresh water is a source of religious practice. Once a commodity believed to have an infinite supply, we are finding that in not only the United States, but worldwide, fresh water is becoming scarce. There needs to be a fundamental change in how the average American views fresh water. It is too easy to turn on the tap and have fresh, drinkable and affordable water. This fact makes water too easy a commodity to take for granted and further makes it prone to waste.
There is a fundamental issue of conflicting values surrounding fresh water. Water is in huge quantities, used and wasted in agriculture, mining, hydroelectric power and manufacturing ventures. In the breadbasket of the country, farmers draw water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate 30% of the nation’s crops. Water is being withdrawn thirty times faster than it is naturally replenished. Lowering freshwater table levels leads to increased concentrations of pollution, subsidence on land, and smaller quantities of water to be distributed among farmers to feed a growing nation (Reilly et al., 2008). These facts are brought to light in the American Southwest where we are in a constant battle between states for allocation of the fresh water of the Colorado River. Furthermore, the American Southwest is experiencing more land subsidence, development of land fissures and depletion of surface water resources than ever before.
2. The political framework components most relevant to Cohen with regard to this measure before Congress are: a) The status of the issue on the policy agenda is eye-opening. This bill, first introduced in 2003, and every session since is to date, unsuccessful. Representative John Linder (GA-R) and Senator John Isakson introduced legislation, H.R. 135 and S. 2728. The original bills were identical. In 2003 this bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources and the Committee on Environment and Public Works, furthermore it was debated and passed by the House. It failed to pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works before Congress adjourned. Subsequent sessions of Congress saw the bill introduced, but to date is has not passed Congress to become law. b) This issue does act independently of other political issues, yet it appears to be clustered with other key issues. For example, although the Act will create no new laws or mandates, there is concern that it is an attempt to give the federal government more influence over freshwater policy. The most vocal opponents of this position are Representative Candice Miller (MI-R) and Representative Vern Ehlers (MI-R), who has gone so far as to say he would “call out the local militia” in response to any attempt to move Great Lakes freshwater elsewhere. (Columbia, 2008) This concern persists despite the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments which prohibit diversion of Great Lakes freshwater unless all governors of the eight Great Lakes States approve it. This opposition on the grounds of increasing federal power is an important issue to address in order for this Commission to be fully accepted (Spangler, 2007). c) In the U.S. context, which level of government is considered primarily responsible for addressing the issue (state, federal or local)? State governments hold the primary power over water resources in their respective states. There are several interstate compacts, like the Colorado Compact, which allocates the resources of the Colorado River among the Upper Basin and Lower Basin states. This Commission hopes to make recommendations to help resolve interstate conflicts like the Colorado Compact in which California uses more than its equitable share of the water from the Colorado River.
3. Science and Technology: Cohen points out that problems caused by the impact of technological innovation on the environment are not easy to measure. The problems take a long time to develop, and sometimes it is hard to establish a causal relationship between and environmental problem and the introduction of a specific technology. (Cohen, 27) Water is not unique in this realm of environmental issues – clean water was the initial need to be addressed nationally (and globally). We did just that very thing with the Clean Water Act and its progeny. Now we are suffering the consequences of the overuse of water.
The Commission historically is at a juncture that it would be a great national asset to combine all the regional knowledge and ideas into one nationally available resource.
a) There is a certainty about the causes and effects of the overuse of water resources. We know there is a prolific overuse of the nation’s natural water resources and because of the overuse we are creating a deficit in the overall amount of water resources available for the United States and this is further complicated by the knowledge that the overuse is a leading cause of pollution in our waterways and aquifers. b) Control and mitigation technologies are widely available and we have experience with their management. Dr. Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California, commented on the legislation, pointing out “water technologies and research efforts are scattered among disparate and uncoordinated federal agencies and departments.” Dr. Gleick would like to see a re-evaluation of the control and mitigation technologies presently available across the various federal, state and local levels and have this Commission coalesce these programs into one nationally based, easily accessible program for federal state and local leaders to utilize in their regional water issues.
4. Policy Design Framework – a) The policy design reflects strategic thinking. It is not based on political considerations, stakeholder compromises or lucky guesses. b) The regulated community does not appear to understand what this Commission is asking them to do and while there appears to be limited opposition there is limited support. As was noted in the research done at Columbia University in 2008, this Commission will not create any new laws or mandates. There appears to be concern about the federal government gaining more influence over freshwater policy. Cohen tells us that the goal of regulation is to influence individual or organizational behavior. (Cohen, 31) As previously mentioned, this Commission is about recommending a national strategy to preserve our freshwater resources, not create new “command and control” regulations.
5. Management Framework- a) We have an enormous amount of experience in addressing this issue. The problem is that historically the water resource issue has been primarily focused in regions (southwest, southeast, great lakes) not nationally except for the water commission, federally created and funded in the 1980’s. The legislation requires that the Commission must consider how future climate change may impact freshwater supply and quality, based on scientific projections. The Commission’s recommendations must also consider existing freshwater management programs used by states, municipalities, and the private sector. While the Commission’s broader purpose is to help ensure an adequate and reliable freshwater supply for the US, the legislation requires that the Commission develop a comprehensive national water strategy with five explicit goals regarding existing management systems and four goals aimed at the consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and population growth on freshwater availability and quality. (Columbia, 2008) Federal agency cooperation will also play an integral role in the ongoing research. When requested by Commission members, federal agencies are obligated to 1) honor requests of information from the Commission within 30 days, and 2) temporarily assign members of their staff on a reimbursable basis to assist the previously stated duties of the Commission. Id
Monday, March 22, 2010
More are noticing the "tragedy of the commons"
This is an editorial comment from a Flagstaff resident back in 2008 in the Arizona Daily Sun. I found it while doing some research at the office and felt it was thought provoking and wanted to share it with the class.
Editorial Board: Overpopulation beginning to threaten way of life
Topics of discussion this week at the advisory board meeting were: new forest fees; Wing Mountain snowplay area becoming crowded, with mountains of trash left behind, and adequate parking an issue; smog obliterating the pristine vistas of our Grand Canyon; Phoenix seeing a population growth of one million people since the last census. Added to the mix came my own sad realization of a current Flagstaff reality, gridlock traffic, which didn't used to exist, period.
What's behind all this? Ask the authorities who have done the studies — it's overpopulation. If we are not careful, humankind will become like so many rats in a maze. You think oil is a hot-button issue now? It won't be long until we will have water wars. After all, you can't drink oil. (And by the way, are you aware that when 19th century explorer, John Wesley Powell, first encountered the now- Phoenix desert, and was asked his opinion about its suitability for settlement, he answered, "No — there's not enough water."?)
I'm not completely up on what the candidates say about this issue, or if they even address it. I'm asking each individual reading this to start talking about it with others, and begin coming up with solutions. We are an amazing nation of doers and innovators, this is America!
And, yes, I remember that the Lord our God said, "Go forth and multiply." He said that when the Earth was EMPTY.
Heidi Nichols is a 32-year Flagstaff resident and a parent- educator.
Editorial Board: Overpopulation beginning to threaten way of life
Topics of discussion this week at the advisory board meeting were: new forest fees; Wing Mountain snowplay area becoming crowded, with mountains of trash left behind, and adequate parking an issue; smog obliterating the pristine vistas of our Grand Canyon; Phoenix seeing a population growth of one million people since the last census. Added to the mix came my own sad realization of a current Flagstaff reality, gridlock traffic, which didn't used to exist, period.
What's behind all this? Ask the authorities who have done the studies — it's overpopulation. If we are not careful, humankind will become like so many rats in a maze. You think oil is a hot-button issue now? It won't be long until we will have water wars. After all, you can't drink oil. (And by the way, are you aware that when 19th century explorer, John Wesley Powell, first encountered the now- Phoenix desert, and was asked his opinion about its suitability for settlement, he answered, "No — there's not enough water."?)
I'm not completely up on what the candidates say about this issue, or if they even address it. I'm asking each individual reading this to start talking about it with others, and begin coming up with solutions. We are an amazing nation of doers and innovators, this is America!
And, yes, I remember that the Lord our God said, "Go forth and multiply." He said that when the Earth was EMPTY.
Heidi Nichols is a 32-year Flagstaff resident and a parent- educator.
Department of Interior - Climate Change - Alaska
The Department of the Interior announced this month its selection of the University of Alaska as the first of eight planned regional Climate Change Centers in the nation. Seven more will be selected in the next two years, all of which will be designed to give land managers more and better information to protect natural resources and cultural resources from evolving weather patterns.
This strategy also calls for 18 landscape conservation cooperatives that are supposed to look for practical solutions for managing migration patterns, threats to flora and fauna and other related impacts on a regional basin.
See: http://doi.gov/whatwedo/climatestrategy/index.cfm
This strategy also calls for 18 landscape conservation cooperatives that are supposed to look for practical solutions for managing migration patterns, threats to flora and fauna and other related impacts on a regional basin.
See: http://doi.gov/whatwedo/climatestrategy/index.cfm
Assignment #5 - The Task Part 2:
1. Other countries do not have the right to exploit forests and other natural resources as Europe and the U.S. did to increase their economic well-being. This concept reminds me of my mother telling me, “Just because your friends are jumping off the cliff, does not mean that you have to follow.”
Europe and the U.S paid and are paying the costs of the exploitation of their natural resources. While we are slowly “turning the tide,” to allow other nations to destroy the environment for the sake of economic wealth, just because we did is ludicrous. Although, as the author tells us, there is a growing resentment of poorer nations toward the environmental sermons from developed countries like the U.S. (Vig 303)
Ultimately, we globally need to look at the costs past, present and future. As Vig points out the case of China in Chapter 14, its rapid development (touted as economic miracle) is an environmental disaster. As we move to a greater global community, Vig points out in Chapter 15; scholars foresee even wider consequences of global environmental change for the international community. We, as a world population are spiraling out of control and close to catastrophe. (Vig 327) It is only as a global population that we can come together and work on the protection of natural resources to the benefit of all.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Industrialized nations should have high expectations for developing nations in the climate change debate. While Vig points out that the poorer nations are resentful of the U.S. and Europe, it is important to keep the feet of the developing nations to the fire of reducing climate change. The industrial nations should be looking for the developing countries to find cleaner and more efficient means of feeding their populations and stimulate economic development without destroying natural resources.
a) Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? Equity must be a goal in this debate. We are a world at risk, not just a nation at risk. The U.S., according to Vig, is working to follow Obama’s plan to reduce climate change. 1) the need for accelerated R&D on alternative sources of energy, including advanced biofuels; 2) the need to invest far more in existing renewable energy technologies, like wind generation; 3) the need to accelerate energy efficiency programs and conservation programs; 4) the need to create a national cap-and-trade program to control GHG emissions and 5) the need to reengage in international climate change negotiations and to restore U.S. leadership in this area. (Vig 354) The U.S. cannot do it alone. The Kyoto principle and other climate change commitments must be made globally. Of course, simply saying that you are interested in this goal will not do. Developing nations and industrialized alike must demonstrate a willingness to help one another to reach this crucial worldwide goal.
b) What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not? A developing nation that values economic development over reducing emissions should still be required to participate in the global effort to reduce overall emissions. This is an all or nothing quest to save the planet and its valuable resources. As Vig discussed in the readings, China is a recent case study in what can happen when economic pressures outweigh environmental ones. As Vig points out, with China, the U.S. and the rest of the world will have to get much smarter about how to cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, Vig states that the U.S. must devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China’s needs are vast (not unlike many developing nations) and its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. (Vig 322) Industrialized nations need to reach out in significant ways to the developing nations and demonstrate restraint in their own nations to promote environmental change.
c) Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations? Developing nations should also have high expectations of industrialized nations. They are the focus of much consternation and debate in the global market and they have a right to say, hey, you industrialized and wealthy nations need to help us reach the common goal of climate change control and natural resource development. Developing nations should expect and receive guidance and support from the industrialized nations as those nations continue to tweek and change their focus on protecting the environment. Vig points out in the text that within the U.S. there is an effort to find a more integrated approach to environmental regulation instead of the wide range of laws and agencies we have presently to work on the issues. (Vig 363) This point coincides with my opinion that developing nations have the right to demand assistance and guidance from the wealthier and more environmentally experienced industrialized nations. After all, we do not live in the same world that our grandparents did. We are slowly becoming a global state with a global economy. That means we all have to cooperate. It is life or death for the world.
Europe and the U.S paid and are paying the costs of the exploitation of their natural resources. While we are slowly “turning the tide,” to allow other nations to destroy the environment for the sake of economic wealth, just because we did is ludicrous. Although, as the author tells us, there is a growing resentment of poorer nations toward the environmental sermons from developed countries like the U.S. (Vig 303)
Ultimately, we globally need to look at the costs past, present and future. As Vig points out the case of China in Chapter 14, its rapid development (touted as economic miracle) is an environmental disaster. As we move to a greater global community, Vig points out in Chapter 15; scholars foresee even wider consequences of global environmental change for the international community. We, as a world population are spiraling out of control and close to catastrophe. (Vig 327) It is only as a global population that we can come together and work on the protection of natural resources to the benefit of all.
2. What expectations do you think industrialized nations should have for developing nations in the climate change debate? Industrialized nations should have high expectations for developing nations in the climate change debate. While Vig points out that the poorer nations are resentful of the U.S. and Europe, it is important to keep the feet of the developing nations to the fire of reducing climate change. The industrial nations should be looking for the developing countries to find cleaner and more efficient means of feeding their populations and stimulate economic development without destroying natural resources.
a) Should equity between industrialized and developing countries be a goal in this debate? Equity must be a goal in this debate. We are a world at risk, not just a nation at risk. The U.S., according to Vig, is working to follow Obama’s plan to reduce climate change. 1) the need for accelerated R&D on alternative sources of energy, including advanced biofuels; 2) the need to invest far more in existing renewable energy technologies, like wind generation; 3) the need to accelerate energy efficiency programs and conservation programs; 4) the need to create a national cap-and-trade program to control GHG emissions and 5) the need to reengage in international climate change negotiations and to restore U.S. leadership in this area. (Vig 354) The U.S. cannot do it alone. The Kyoto principle and other climate change commitments must be made globally. Of course, simply saying that you are interested in this goal will not do. Developing nations and industrialized alike must demonstrate a willingness to help one another to reach this crucial worldwide goal.
b) What if a developing nation values economic development more than slowing down global warming? In this case should they be required to participate in reducing emissions? Why or why not? A developing nation that values economic development over reducing emissions should still be required to participate in the global effort to reduce overall emissions. This is an all or nothing quest to save the planet and its valuable resources. As Vig discussed in the readings, China is a recent case study in what can happen when economic pressures outweigh environmental ones. As Vig points out, with China, the U.S. and the rest of the world will have to get much smarter about how to cooperate with China in order to assist its environmental protection efforts. Above all, Vig states that the U.S. must devise a limited and coherent set of priorities. China’s needs are vast (not unlike many developing nations) and its capacity is poor; therefore, launching one or two significant initiatives over the next five to ten years would do more good than a vast array of uncoordinated projects. (Vig 322) Industrialized nations need to reach out in significant ways to the developing nations and demonstrate restraint in their own nations to promote environmental change.
c) Conversely, what expectations should developing nations have for industrialized nations? Developing nations should also have high expectations of industrialized nations. They are the focus of much consternation and debate in the global market and they have a right to say, hey, you industrialized and wealthy nations need to help us reach the common goal of climate change control and natural resource development. Developing nations should expect and receive guidance and support from the industrialized nations as those nations continue to tweek and change their focus on protecting the environment. Vig points out in the text that within the U.S. there is an effort to find a more integrated approach to environmental regulation instead of the wide range of laws and agencies we have presently to work on the issues. (Vig 363) This point coincides with my opinion that developing nations have the right to demand assistance and guidance from the wealthier and more environmentally experienced industrialized nations. After all, we do not live in the same world that our grandparents did. We are slowly becoming a global state with a global economy. That means we all have to cooperate. It is life or death for the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)