^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Featured stories in this issue...
New U.S. Government Report Predicts Dire Consequences of Warming
A new report from the U.S. Climate Science Program concludes that
damage to the U.S. from global warming will likely be widespread and
significant.
There's No Inherent Right To Local Self Government, Says Pennsy AG
The fight by local governments to control corporate behavior is
heating up. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit
against Pennsy towns that have passed local laws stopping corporations
from dumping contaminated sewage sludge on farmland.
Shutting Down Coal Plants Improves Brain Development of Children
"This study provides direct evidence that governmental action to
eliminate polluting coal-burning sources benefits children's
neurodevelopment."
Coal-to-liquid-fuel Plan Means a Kentucky Fried Earth
Plans to construct a $4 billion coal-to-liquid-fuel plant in
Kentucky is a sign of desperate times in the U.S.
Career of a Chemical
Recent media superficialities have concentrated on cancer caused by
dioxin. Many other types of damage, notably birth defects, are also
expected from dioxin dosages. But let us never forget: the main harm
from the USA's chemical warfare in Vietnam was on Vietnamese people
and ecosystems.
Chesapeake Watermen Fear Blue Crab Not Coming Back
It is hard to imagine the Pacific Northwest without salmon or the
Chesapeake Bay without blue crabs. But that seems to be the world our
children will inherit from us. Who is guarding the future?
Trawlermen Cling on as Oceans Empty of Fish...
"Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us
and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a
glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Greenwire, Jul. 17, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
NEW U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT PREDICTS DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF WARMING
By Katherine Boyle, Greenwire reporter
Global warming could have devastating effects across the United
States, harming human health, settlements and welfare, according to a
report (2.4 Mbyte PDF) released today by the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program.
The study arrives in the wake of the Bush administration's decision to
reject the idea of using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse
gases last week. In the past, watchdog groups have accused the White
House of attempting to suppress reports from the climate change
program.
This particular report, which was led by the Global Change Research
Program in EPA's Research and Development Office, concludes the damage
from climate change will likely be widespread and significant.
Changes in the intensity and frequency of precipitation, more frequent
heat waves, more persistent and extreme drought conditions and
associated water shortages are likely to create problems across the
country, the study says. Extreme temperatures, potential increases in
strong tropical storms, sea-level rise and increases in the occurrence
of coastal and riverine flooding also are likely effects of climate
change.
Those challenges will be compounded as the nation struggles to cope
with population growth, aging citizens, migration patterns, and urban
and coastal development, the report notes.
The shifting climate is likely to have a drastic effect on U.S.
residents' lifestyles, affecting where they live, work and play.
Health
The report predicts human health effects will be substantial, though
the United States may skirt some of the illness and death that could
plague the developing world, thanks to its better developed public
health infrastructure and greater wealth.
It is very likely heat-related illness and mortality will rise over
the coming decades, the study says. The United States' rising
population of elderly citizens will be most susceptible to the
temperature extremes. By 2030, about 20 percent of the general
population, more than 50 million people, will be over 65. Poor and
minority populations concentrated in inner city neighborhoods also
would be affected as they are more likely to lack air conditioning.
Higher temperatures, which lead to a spike in ozone levels, are likely
to cause or exacerbate cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses if
current regulatory standards are not attained, the report notes. Air
pollution in urban centers may also increase thanks to stagnant air
masses related to climate change.
The rising temperatures may lead to an increase of disease caused by
food and water-borne pathogens as well, particularly among vulnerable
populations.
Physical features of communities, like housing quality and green
space, can help or hurt the United States' efforts to cope with global
warming. Social programs that affect access to health care and
additional social and cultural factors also will have an effect, the
study says.
As a result, climate change will probably accentuate the disparities
in the nation's health care system, the report notes.
Extreme weather events, including hurricanes, floods and wildfires,
also have the potential to affect public health. They also could take
a toll on public infrastructure, such as sanitation, transportation,
supply lines for food and energy and communication.
High energy use, thanks to a growing population and more extreme
temperatures, also probably will result from global warming, the study
says.
Regional variation
Overall, health effects are expected to vary by region, particularly
in those prone to wildfires and flooding.
The northern parts of the nation will probably experience the largest
increases in average temperatures and ground-level ozone and other
airborne pollutants, the report says. As a result, people living in
Midwestern and Northern cities are likely to be disproportionately
affected by heat-related illnesses.
The range of areas in which certain diseases occur is likely to grow,
particularly in a northerly direction.
Forest fires are also expected to increase in frequency, severity,
distribution and duration in the Southeast, the Intermountain West and
the West.
One of the areas most vulnerable to climate change is Alaska, which is
likely to experience increased permafrost melt, flood-risk coastal
zones and river basins, and arid areas. In parts of the state, the
economic base is particularly climate sensitive.
States across the nation will face likely reductions in snowmelt,
river flows and groundwater levels, as well as an increase in saline
intrusion into coastal rivers and groundwater, the report says.
Coastal areas, which have seen a population surge as people move
toward the water, face some of the biggest dangers.
Adaptation and mitigation
The United States is in a position to mitigate some of the effects of
climate change and adapt to others that cannot be avoided, according
to the report.
The most important step the United States can take to adapt to climate
change is to support and maintain its public health infrastructure,
the study says.
The nation's capacity for disaster planning and emergency response
also is a key asset that should allow the United States to adapt to
many of the health effects associated with climate change.
Despite their vulnerability, large cities have a good opportunity to
adapt infrastructure and limit their susceptibility to global warming,
as do coastal areas, the study notes.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program integrates federal research on
climate and global change and is sponsored by 13 federal agencies. The
Science and Technology Policy Office, the Council on Environmental
Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management
and Budget oversee the program.
Click here to read the report (2.4 Mbyte PDF).
Copyright 1996-2008 E&E Publishing, LLC
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Jul. 12, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
THERE'S NO INHERENT RIGHT TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SAYS PENNSY AG
Dozens of communities adopt resolutions defending local self-
government, stand with East Brunswick, Pa. as Attorney General Corbett
sues on behalf of sludge dumpers
By Ben Price
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit to prevent
the town of East Brunswick, Pennsylvania (Schuylkill County) from
passing a local law that stops corporations from dumping sewage sludge
on farmland.
In response, municipal governments across Pennsylvania are voting
their support for the right of a municipality to protect its citizens'
against corporate sludge dumping.
On December 6, 2006, the Board of Supervisors in East Brunswick
Township upheld their oaths to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the community by enacting an Ordinance that prohibits corporate
sludge dumping. Their vote came after months of petitioning and
organizing by residents, who argued that Pennsylvanians retain the
right to make local self-governing decisions for the protection of
their communities, and that those rights cannot be preempted by the
State.
With reports continuing to come in, so far twenty-two local
governments have reported passing Resolutions in support of East
Brunswick, and in opposition to State Attorney General Thomas
Corbett's law suit in which he has asked the Commonwealth Court to
strip the community of its local law.
Five other communities and organizations have signed on as legal
allies of East Brunswick, filing "friend of the court" briefs, and
asking the Commonwealth Court to leave the Ordinance intact. Those
allies include: Tamaqua Borough in Schuylkill County, Donegal Township
in Washington County, Blaine Township in Washington County, the Town
of Barnstead in New Hampshire, the Town of Halifax in Virginia, the
Pennsylvania Farmers Union, the Pennsylvania Family Farm Coalition,
and Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County California.
In a legal brief filed with the Court against East Brunswick on
January 31, 2008, the Attorney General's office had this to say:
"There is no inherent right to local self government." Municipal
officials and Pennsylvanians from a growing list of communities have
made a point to publicly and officially disagree.
On June 27th, Stephen C. Brown, Township Manager for London Grove
Township in Chester County wrote on behalf of that municipality: "The
Board voted 5-0 to support East Brunswick Township in your drive to
support the right of Townships to local self-government. The London
Grove Supervisors believe this basic issue of self-determination is of
the utmost importance to our community and to communities throughout
the Commonwealth."
Bethel Township in Berks County passed a Resolution on June 16th
expressing "concern about actions of certain Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Agencies which seek to limit and/or impair the ability of
local government to enact Ordinances and take actions that directly
impact on the health, safety and welfare of residents within local
government jurisdiction."
Conewango Township in Warren County passed their Resolution on the 9th
of June, explaining their "full support of East Brunswick Township
Board of Supervisors and its residents in their efforts to defend
their sewage sludge Ordinance against the suit filed by the Office of
the Attorney General," saying in part "representatives of agribusiness
and waste disposal corporations succeeded, after years of efforts
opposed by communities and local governments, in driving anti-
democratic legislation through the Pennsylvania General Assembly to
strip municipalities of self-governing authority over issues that
directly effect local citizens..."
On June 5th, York County's Hopewell Township joined others in
prefacing their support for East Brunswick's stand with provisions
like the se: "Whereas, just government is ever at the consent of the
governed, and the People of East Brunswick have taken a clear stand in
enacting said Ordinance indicating that they do not consent to the
disposal of sewage sludge in their community; and Whereas, a denial of
local self-governing authority by the State on behalf of corporations
that will especially benefit from such usurpation is unjust,
illegitimate and beyond the authority of the State or any
government..."
Borough Manager Chris L. Boehm of Macungie wrote on June 13th, "We
agree that the people who reside in the community and are directly
affected by decisions must be the ones to make them. We support East
Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors and its residents in their
efforts to defend their sludge ordinance and wish you all the best."
A partial list of communities that have passed similar Resolutions in
support of Local Self-Government:
London Grove Township in Chester County
Bethel Township in Berks County
Conewango Township in Warren County
Daugherty Township in Beaver County
Eden Township in Lancaster County
Elk Township in Warren County
Hopewell Township in York County
Lancaster Township in Lancaster County
Lausanne Township in Carbon County
Macungie Borough in Lehigh County
Maidencreek Township in Berks County
Maxatawny Township in Berks County
Millersburg Borough in Dauphin County
Oregon Township in Wayne County
Oxford Township in Adams County
Peters Township in Washington County
Shrewsbury Township in York County
Tamaqua Borough in Schuylkill County
Thompson Township in Fulton County
Tilden Township in Berks County
West Brandywine Township in Chester County
West Brunswick Township in Schuylkill County
Since the Attorney General filed his law suit against East Brunswick,
these (and perhaps other) municipalities have adopted Ordinances to
prohibit and make impractical the surface dumping of sewage sludge:
Mahanoy Township in Schuylkill County
Packer Township in Carbon County
Branch Township in Schuylkill County
Other communities are actively considering adoption of similar
Ordinances, including Shrewsbury Township in York County, which has
voted to advertise a public hearing to consider adoption, with a vote
likely in September.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Science Daily, Jul. 15, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
SHUTTING DOWN COAL PLANTS IMPROVES BRAIN DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN
Closing coal-fired power plants can have a direct, positive impact on
children's cognitive development and health according to a study
released by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health
(CCCEH) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The
study allowed researchers to track and compare the development of two
groups of children born in Tongliang, a city in China's Chongqing
Municipality -- one in utero while a coal-fired power plant was
operating in the city and one in utero after the Chinese government
had closed the plant.
Among the first group of children, prenatal exposure to coal-burning
emissions was associated with significantly lower average
developmental scores and reduced motor development at age two. In the
second unexposed group, these adverse effects were no longer observed;
and the frequency of delayed motor developmental was significantly
reduced. The study findings are published in the July 14th
Environmental Health Perspectives.
"This study provides direct evidence that governmental action to
eliminate polluting coal-burning sources benefits children's
neurodevelopment," said Frederica Perera, DrPH, professor of
Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health,
director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health,
and lead author of the study. "These findings have major implications
for environmental health and energy policy as they demonstrate that
reduction in dependence on coal for energy can have a measurable
positive impact on children's development and health -- in China and
elsewhere."
To conduct the study, researchers from CCCEH partnered with physicians
and scientists from the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical
University, the School of Public Health at Fudan University in
Shanghai, and the School of Environmental Science and Engineering at
Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The researchers followed two successive
cohorts of Chinese newborns through age two. Children in both cohorts
were born in Tongliang, a city with a coal-fired power plant that
operated seasonally until it was shutdown by the government in May
2004. The first cohort involved 107 women whose children were born in
2002, prior to the plant closing. The second involved 110 women whose
children were born in 2005, when the coal plant was no longer in
operation.
"This is a unique environmental intervention study using molecular
techniques to demonstrate the relationship between a cleaner
environment and healthier children," added Deliang Tang, MD, DrPh,
associate professor of clinical Environmental Health Sciences at the
Mailman School, director of the Tongliang Project, and co-author of
the study.
Prenatal exposure to plant emissions was measured by a biomarker of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure in umbilical cord
blood. The investigators controlled for exposures to other pollutants,
such as tobacco smoke and lead, which might have contributed to
neurodevelopment problems.
Children in the first cohort had varying exposure prenatally to PAHs
emitted by the coal-fired power plant. This exposure was recorded by
monitoring the levels of PAHs in air during the mothers' pregnancies
and in measuring a marker of PAH exposure in cord blood-- specifically
the levels of PAHs bound to DNA, known as "PAH-DNA adducts". Among
these children, the researchers found significant associations between
the marker of exposure in cord blood and delayed motor and average
development at age two. The second group of children, who were
conceived after the closure of the plant, had significantly lower
levels of the marker in cord blood and their incidence of delayed
motor development was one-third that of the first cohort.
Coal-fired power plants provide the majority of the energy for China's
industry, as well as the electricity needs of the U.S. The Chinese
government has ordered the closure of older, more polluting coal-fired
power plants such as the one in Tongliang.
The study is one of four parallel international cohort studies being
conducted by the CCCEH that examine the health effects of exposure of
pregnant women and babies to indoor and outdoor air pollutants in
urban areas. Additional studies are being conducted in New York City
and Krakow, Poland.
The Center's prior research findings have shown that exposure to air
pollutants are associated with an increase in risk for developmental
delays among children living in New York City. Today's findings
contribute to a further understanding of how air pollution impacts
child health.
Other investigators on the study include Tin-yu Li, Zhi-jun Zhou, Tao
Yuan, Yu-hui Chen, Lirong Qu, Virginia A. Rauh, and Yiguan Zhang.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Huffington Post, Jul. 16, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
COAL TO LIQUID PLAN MEANS A KENTUCKY FRIED EARTH
By Kevin Grandia
An announcement today for plans to construct a $4 billion coal to
liquid fuel facility in Kentucky is a sign of the desperate times
America is in.
Converting coal to liquid fuel has not been used on a large scale
since the 1930's when Nazi Germany developed the technology because
the country had lots of coal but no petroleum of its own.
But the sell-job is well underway right now in Kentucky to re-frame
coal to liquid as a miracle answer to America's energy woes.
One proponent of the Kentucky project went so far as to state that:
"(This) will allow the United States to become energy independent and
free of foreign oil, and money going overseas can actually be invested
back in the United States."
In the same vein is this quote from a local Kentucky newspaper:
"The coal industry and its supporters say such efforts could help wean
the nation from its reliance on foreign oil for transportation. They
insist that the technology would strengthen national security and be
cheaper than petroleum."
The United States currently burns through about 20 million barrels of
oil a day. The Kentucky coal to liquid plant is projected to produce
50,000 barrels a day -- a far cry from the grand promise of energy
independence. Pardon my rough math (and love of simply stated facts)
but based on the coal to liquid model being proposed in Kentucky, we
would need to build at least 120 such projects to produce 6 million
barrels of oil a day -- at a start-up cost for all the plants of
around $480 billion.
Doesn't look like much of a silver bullet to me.
And then there's the costs to our environment -- the one we'll passing
on to our children.
No amount of words will make the processing of coal into a liquid fuel
clean.
But that hasn't stopped Kentucky project cheerleaders, like Pike
County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford from trying:
"Our goal is to not put anything out in the ozone," Ruther--ford said.
"We know there is no concept in this world right now that does that,
but there's a lot of research going on."
And this in the local newspaper:
"... they are committed to having a plant that is as environmentally
conscious as possible. They say they will choose a company that is
also environmentally friendly."
Not much assurance when you consider that we have yet to be able to
make regular-old coal-fired electric plants environmentally friendly.
Now we are to somehow think that an even dirtier process like coal to
liquid will somehow turn into a green, clean energy machine?
Beyond the obvious implications of increased mountaintop removal coal
mining and hazardous pollution (like the ever-increasing amounts of
mercury being pumped into the air) that would result from a coal-to-
liquids scheme, using liquid coal as a transportation fuel would
nearly double the amount of global warming pollution per gallon of
fuel compared to petroleum.
At a time when the world's leading scientists say we need to cut our
emissions by at least 80 percent to curtail destructive climate
change, the idea of nearly doubling global warming pollution from
liquid coal fuels ought to be tossed aside as a no-brainer.
As the folks at the Natural Resource Defense Council (turn your
speakers down, an auto-play video starts when you click) point out,
"it would be the height of folly to invest in just another
technology that drives us further down the path to dependency on
carbon fuels."
==============
Kevin Grandia is the Managing Editor of the award-winning site,
DeSmogBlog. He is also the managing editor of
www.coal-is-dirty.com, a site managed in joint partnership with
Greepeace USA and Rainforest Action Network.
Copyright 2008 Huffington Post
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Investigate, Jul. 1, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
CAREER OF A CHEMICAL
By L. R. B. Mann and R. B. Elliott
On May 28 2008, the prime minister [of New Zealand] stated in
Parliament an Apology to Viet Nam war veterans, giving some emphasis
to monetary compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. Previously
(December 14 2004) a governmental Apology was presented in Parliament
for damage to Viet Nam war veterans by defoliant chemicals.
As the scientists who first (1971) pointed out to the New Zealand
public the potential for birth defects caused by the dioxin in the
herbicide 2,4,5-T, we would like to draw together main facts at this
late stage in the career of a chemical.
Within New Zealand, this particular phenoxy herbicide was for a few
decades widely used -- to varying effect -- on woody weeds e.g. gorse
and manuka. The factory in New Plymouth was greatly expanded, and a
1:1 subsidy created for the manufacturer, at a time when the whole USA
production of 2,4,5-T was being bought by the Pentagon for chemical
warfare which was later stopped under pressure from highly respected
American scientists such as Edsall of Harvard. USA armed forces
medicos had been reporting strong impressions of birth defect
epidemics in the sprayed districts. Some NZ soldiers were also
sprayed.
Some farming districts in New Zealand had higher densities of dioxin-
containing 2,4,5-T aerially sprayed upon them than the total
attributable to Agent Orange (50:50 2,4,5-T/2,4-D) in Vietnam. This
was done mainly in springtime. Aerial drift onto human dwellings in
these sparsely populated areas, as well as into local towns, was
unavoidable, given the lax methods of spraying. Drinking water
collected on roofs could, as we pointed out in 1971, contain dangerous
doses of dioxin.
A rural GP got in touch with his cousin the medical school deputy
dean: "Stop those staff of yours saying 2,4,5-T can cause birth
defects! I've not noticed any increase in my district." Such
statistics as had been voluntarily sent to the Health Dept from that
district did actually show significant increases; and guess who had
sent those figures in?! This illustrates how what you don't know can
hurt you -- considerable increases in harm can go unnoticed. We
continued to press for creation of a mandatory system to report birth
defects accurately.
A decade after this controversy began, statistics of some reliability
were being gathered. One of us (R.E) discovered that the birth defect
rates across Northland were correlated with the 2,4,5-T spray
densities from one coast to the other.
The potential for harm of aerial spraying in New Zealand was always
emphatically denied by the Health Dept and their buddies the
Agricultural Chemicals Board whose dogged mantra intoned "no
scientific evidence from anywhere in the world has yet been presented
to the Board to support the contention that 2,4,5-T has adverse
effects on human reproduction". Attempts to purge one of us (R.M) from
university employment were defeated only after expressions of
resistance by hundreds of colleagues.
New Zealand was the last country to produce 2,4,5-T, and its dioxin
content until the last few years of operation of the factory was high.
Exposure of the factory's neighbours has been studied only very
sluggishly, but looks high (from the partial results recently trickled
out).
It took 18 years of sporadic strife to shut down that last 2,4,5-T
factory. The replacement herbicide is one atom different but has, so
far, escaped comparable scrutiny.
Three decades into this dishonesty-riddled dispute, it is now
recognised that some Vietnam veterans, and some of their children,
have suffered and continue to suffer ill health caused by aerially-
sprayed dioxin in Vietnam. The same should also be recognised for all
those in New Zealand similarly exposed -- many with much higher
exposure than soldiers in Vietnam who were, after all, voluntarily in
harm's way.
Recent media superficialities have concentrated on cancer caused by
dioxin. Many other types of damage, notably birth defects, are also
expected from dioxin dosages imposed on New Zealanders. But let us
never forget: the main harm from the USA's chemical warfare in Vietnam
was on Vietnamese people and ecosystems. Could New Zealand's foreign
aid make at least some gesture to those victims?
==============
Dr Mann was a biochemistry lecturer, and Professor Elliott the head of
paediatrics, in the Auckland medical school.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Associated Press, Jul. 16, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
CHESAPEAKE WATERMEN FEAR BLUE CRAB NOT COMING BACK
By Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press Writer
RIDGE, Md. -- Chesapeake Bay crabber Paul Kellam has advice for the
teenage boys who help tend his traps every summer: You better have a
backup plan.
It's an anxious summer for watermen harvesting the Chesapeake's best-
loved seafood, the blue crab. The way some see it, the crabbing
business here isn't just dying. It's already dead.
Crabs have thrived in the bottom muck of the Chesapeake and its
tributaries even as centuries of overfishing harmed oysters, fish and
other species in the nation's largest estuary. Now blue crabs are in
trouble, too, and when they go, a way of life is sure to go with them.
"There was a time when crabbers were only out here from Memorial Day
to Labor Day. Now, it's about all we have left," says Kellam, 53,
steering his 30-year-old rig "Christy" out of the Potomac River and
onto the bay for a day of crabbing. The contradictory decor in the
cabin sums up the outlook of today's waterman: a red wooden good-luck
horseshoe dangles over a mud-splattered copy of "The Worst-Case
Scenario Survival Handbook."
The bay's blue crab stock is down 70 percent since 1990 due to
overfishing and water pollution, according to Virginia and Maryland
fisheries managers. The states have imposed steep cuts on this year's
female crab harvest, aiming to reduce the number of crabs taken by
more than a third.
For Kellam and his neighbors in southern Maryland, where the working
rigs and crab picking houses that sustained these communities for
generations have been replaced by yachts and vacation homes, hopes are
dim that the blue crabs will ever come back.
"It's looking worse every year," says Bob McKay, who at 74 is the
oldest working waterman in St. Mary's County. He still sells crabs out
of a shed in his yard but doubts the industry will live much longer
than he does. "I don't know what the solution could be."
Watermen have turned to real estate and automobile repair. They've
opened seafood restaurants and bakeries.
The best way to make money on the Chesapeake these days is taking
businessmen from Washington and Philadelphia on charter fishing trips.
Those who still rely on crabbing are further hurt by a double punch of
higher fuel costs and an economic downturn that's meant fewer
consumers dropping up to $200 on a bushel of crabs.
"People don't have the disposable income. They're just not buying,"
says Kellam, who spends up to $150 a day on diesel, which costs about
$5 a gallon at a nearby marina.
There was a time when Chesapeake watermen made their living off the
winter oyster harvest, using hand tongs and later power dredges to
supply most of the world's oysters. But disease and over-harvesting
nearly wiped out Chesapeake oysters in the 1980s, and despite millions
invested in restoration, they've never recovered. Scientists estimate
the Chesapeake now contains about 1 percent of the oysters it once
did.
After the oyster industry collapsed, watermen looked to hardy blue
crabs to make up the slack. But the next generation may not have
another option.
"I want to make a living on the water," says Randy Plummer, a chain-
smoking 19-year-old who works on Kellam's crab rig. "But there ain't
no future in it. Everybody knows that."
Plummer has wanted to crab since he was a boy, but is instead headed
to community college this fall, at the urging of Kellam and his
parents.
Even scientists who called for the harvest reductions say overfishing
isn't entirely to blame.
The main culprit is water pollution and soil runoff from development
throughout a watershed that is home to 10 million people. Excess
nutrients wash into the Chesapeake, causing algae blooms and choking
the native plant life that crabs rely on for food and habitat. In the
summer, large swaths of the Chesapeake contain so little oxygen that
scientists call them "dead zones," because few critters can live
there.
Watermen call it "bad water," and they track it all summer, following
crabs as they skitter to shallower water that contains more oxygen.
Even when watermen luck out and pull up a pot full of crabs, long-
timers say the crabs are nothing like they used to be.
"Sometimes in the summer, you pull the pots up, they've got algae and
mud all over them. The bad water comes in and coats everything and the
crabs can't stand it," Kellam explains.
He now spends hours hauling up the same number of crabs he could catch
in a few pots a decade ago. And what he catches isn't as healthy-
looking as the crabs he caught as a boy. Wholesalers are buying them
anyway.
"They're buying a lot of stuff that 10 years ago they would've turned
away," Kellam says.
Maryland and Virginia officials have responded to the watermen's
plight by asking the federal government for a disaster declaration
that would free up about $20 million to subsidize crabbers and seafood
processors until blue crabs rebound.
Maryland is also working on sweeping revisions to state planning laws
with an eye toward protecting its 3,000 or so miles of shoreline.
Already this year, the state toughened zoning laws dealing with
development closest to the water, a law that aims to reduce sediment
and pollution running into the Chesapeake and its tributaries.
"It's certainly getting more difficult to make a living on the water,"
conceded Lynn Fegley, a biologist in charge of crabs for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources. But Fegley says the cynicism along
the Chesapeake is unfounded. There will always be Chesapeake blue
crabs, she says -- as long as watermen lay off them when the stock
dips.
"As the watershed gets more crowded, the face of the fishery may
change. But people are always going to want seafood, right? It's
healthy and it's delicious. What we have to do is find a way to
harvest seafood that's sustainable for the future," Fegley says.
But Thomas Courtney, who sells Kellam the alewife fish he uses for
bait, laughs when asked whether state efforts to revive blue crabs
will bring them back.
"It ain't what we're pulling out of the water. It's what we're putting
in the water," says Courtney, 62. "You've got a cornfield, 20 acres,
you put 80 or 90 houses on it, hook 'em up to sewer pipes, put roads
and ditches down. That's what's destroyed the bay. It ain't us. They
let development take over and then, that's it, we're done."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Guardian (Manchester, U.K.), Jul. 8, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
TRAWLERMEN CLING ON AS OCEANS EMPTY OF FISH...
...and the ecosystem is gasping
Europe is propping up an unsustainable industry in an extreme example
of short-termism that our children will pay for.
By George Monbiot
All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with
reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn
over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and
governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they've
sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter?
What do we pay our taxes for?
The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world's
fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and
Japan, and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month
in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been
conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of
oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help
them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their
nets. It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt
indifference.
Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and
runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a
glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No east Asian
government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third
of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in
dock for the next few months because they can't afford to sail. The
unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this
year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of
fish. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best
news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen -- who
trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species
- warn that their industry could collapse within a year. Hurray to
that too.
It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable
practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or
the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can
bear. The EU has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service -
the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999 -- but
the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks.
Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to
accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those
proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of
several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.
The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in
coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy
their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over
seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry €3.8bn.
Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find
other jobs for fishermen; but the rest is used to equip boats with new
engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports
and landing sites; and to promote and market the catch. Except for the
funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement,
there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can
argue -- often falsely -- that they are the "stewards of the
countryside". But what possible argument is there for keeping more
fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?
The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help
fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the
decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for
as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the
ecosystem, it's a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our
fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a
perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an
industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate
profit.
But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's
Fishing News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British
government's refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out
fuel subsidies. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing
secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in
Westminster "open the purse strings". He also insists that new money
is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words no more boats should
be taken off the water. Is this really a service to the industry, or
only to its most short-sighted members?
I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will
discuss on Thursday. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under
existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial
reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced
with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews
stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can
start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able
to shell out more money (€100,000 instead of €30,000 per boat) without
breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing
old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be
aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish
rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking
the ecosystem with them.
What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions,
especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn.
While Spanish, French and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption
of bluefin tuna fishing -- knowing that if they are allowed to fish
now this will be the last season ever -- around the UK it has begun to
dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the
survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.
Prompted by Young's seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn
have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British
fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship
Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught. Fishermen
around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at
last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning
grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have
a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many
boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and
that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow
down or even reverse the greening of the industry.
Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of
a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to
ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders
of the fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the
scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard?
If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the
environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &
Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are
often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining
because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who
bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human
health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the
rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among
workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and
therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who
gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what
might be done about it?"
As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,
please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org.
Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as
necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the
subject.
Editor:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
|
