A classy piece from a good man

© 2011 Joshua Stark

If you have not yet read it, please read this piece by Bill Magavern on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which he describes as, "the centerpiece of California's economic democracy."  If you think that is a reach, then definitely read it to understand his position.

California Native Plant Week

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Yesterday kicked off California's first Native Plant Week.  The California Native Plant Society has a list of events going on around the state celebrating this week, which was declared by the California Legislature last year (I'm very close to the person who wrote the resolution). 

Also, if you are interested, you may read the resolution, which talks about the economic, social, and historical importance of native plants to California, here.

Where are all the conservative conservationists? & a quick economics rant

© 2011 Joshua Stark

I know quite a few conservative conservationists, yet I'm completely baffled by the support I hear for their political leadership in recent days.  Everything from dam removal studies to support for the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, whose corporate partners include Altria, Anheuser-Busch, and Bass Pro Shops, is slated for defunding.

And it isn't as if this leadership is trying to curb government spending:  The same folks who decry these programs as too expensive have already suggested building a gigantic dam with federal funds, and are fighting to keep subsidizing money-losing dams on the Klamath.

Nor is it as if the leadership is trying to remove the federal government from local decision-making:  The same leaders who complain that local folks don't have a say are pushing to defund those Klamath plans, plans that locals have arrived at after years of internal negotiations, and after some deep soul-searching and compromise.  By moving funding from removal studies and back into subsidizing those money-holes in the water, conservative leaders are bringing down the heavy hand of D.C. government into the affairs of locals.

So please, my conservative conservationist friends, please contact your leadership and tell them that we all value the wild, that it is part of our shared American experience and spirit.

-----

Now, my economic rant (those of you who know me have heard this from me a million times, but in my defense this is because it's been said a million times):  Every politician talks about putting America's economic house in order, because the typical American family has to balance its budget, and therefore so should our government.

Baloney.  Pure B.S.

First, the typical American family does not balance its budget.  If any of you has a car payment, house payment, boat payment, college loan payment, or credit card payment, then you have deficit spent, and you have an unbalanced budget.  If you don't have any of these, it's probably because you already paid it off, but at one time you deficit spent to get there, and you probably did it to the tune of many times your annual salary.

We all deficit spend in order to build our economic house.  We pay it off, and save, when we are better able to do so.  We save, in part, for those hard times we know will come. 

Second, the typical American family cannot regulate business, nor does its spending influence the overall cost of goods and services in the economy.

To make the analogy is to lie, in a big way, to the American people.

California salmon

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Last week, the Fresno Bee had a very interesting article on the Sacramento/San Joaquin chinook salmon runs.  While giving some "good" news, it held out the notion that all still is not well with our Valley Kings.  Even with a couple of small mistakes, (e.g., the commercial fishery isn't the only source of all wild-caught California salmon), the story is worth the read, and the Fresno Bee needs folks to click over and support such appropriate journalism, especially considering the farmwater slant this could have taken.

The reporter brought up some very important points about reestablishing wild salmon populations, pointing out that hatchery fish stray from their home rivers at far, far higher rates than naturally spawned salmon, and giving a clear-eyed description of this year's numbers.

For their size, king salmon (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) are remarkably short-lived creatures.  The typical fish will live 2-4 years, (hopefully) returning to its birth river to spawn and die.  Yet, these fish are often caught in rivers in the 15-40 lb. range (the record Sacramento line-caught fish was 94 lbs.); the amount of nutrients they bring deep inland from the ocean's depths every year is simply stunning. 

Sadly, equally stunning is the fact that about 90% of their wild spawning habitat has been lost behind the Sierra Nevada foothill dams of California.  Though I'm not a huge proponent of the "keystone species" concept (we usually find out that they are all keystones), the loss of California's biggest native movers of biomass (what a romantic notion, eh?) - large predators and salmonids - must have had a tremendous impact on its biodiversity as well as its total populations of wildlife, plants, fungi, etc.

Imagine:  California has the largest number of climates, biomes, plant species, etc. of all the 50 states.  And the vast majority of these evolved with salmon as a nutrient source, including habitats not directly adjacent to salmon waters, as the creatures that fed upon salmon (from grizzlies and wolves to eagles and crows to bacteria) moved throughout the land. 

As the article points out, the numbers of returning salmon are barely meeting salmon managers' hoped-for numbers, but they are meeting them.  This time the crash was largely due to poor ocean conditions.

I can attest to this reason:  Back in 2006, I worked a stint at a California State Park on the Monterey Bay.  One of my jobs was to collect sick or injured birds that washed ashore on the beach, before they hurt somebody (if you ever get the notion to play hero and save a sea bird, just remember:  cormorants go for the eyes).  That Summer, many, many older and young birds were washing ashore, starving to death: there simply wasn't the food supply that the upwelling from the trench brought every year.  The reason was that there was no upwelling, and so instead of seeing blue whales in the Bay, we saw red tides (microorganisms that thrive in warmer Monterey Bay water and suck the oxygen out of it).  This loss of food obviously hurt salmon populations, helping to decrease their numbers by 95%.

95%.

Of course, ocean conditions won't be the only culprit.  Just as botanists point out that when an oak is born, it's already got 10 things wrong with it, and though the 11th thing might kill it, but it would have survived if not for the other 10, so it is with all things.  Poor breeding, poor freshwater habitat, droughts, etc.,  may all have impacted our kings.  For example, the fact that hatchery-spawned salmon are dumber than wild-spawned ones might lead one to wonder:  Could naturally-spawned salmon have survived the poor ocean conditions at higher rates than hatchery fish?

Last year, ocean conditions were great, and the fish are coming back at slightly higher rates.  However, we are still far, far below the numbers we should expect for healthy California rivers.  The article notes that the numbers of fish returning this year are roughly double those of last year.  What is not noted is that this doubling brings the total up to what is probably about 10-15% of what we should expect in a healthy year.

If these numbers don't send a chill down your spine, I reckon little else could.

It isn't a huge leap to imagine some small, beautiful flowering plant in a valley, perhaps a fuzzy little thing with pink and yellow petals, or maybe a tall, showy number with a long stalk, gone now because it needed that extra bit of food, brought by a bear after having had its fill of fish at the stream over the ridge.  Perhaps its seeds still sit in the soil, patiently waiting that little extra help...

4-H does that? Great!

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Though I grew up rural, I never got into 4-H.  We didn't have land, and we were never an animal-husbandry type family.

As an adult, however, I've become very interested in the agrarian life, and how it can apply to my own condition (if you are interested in reading about my semi-urban homesteading attempts, please read my other blog, Agrarianista).  Most recently, I applied for (and I believe, subsequently did not get) a position with the Sacramento County 4-H.

I was interested in all the work they've done providing experiences to young people, and in researching today's 4-H, I was very impressed with the types of activities and roles they offer kids from pre-school through high school.  4-H focuses on getting kids to "learn by doing", a model for teaching that is dear to my heart, and also an effective pedagogy.  Today, 4-H works to get to urban youth as well as rural kids, with programs that give children the opportunity to practice environmental sciences and sleep out under the stars, as well as learn agricultural and homesteading skills.

Of course, I am especially impressed with the 4-H Shooting Sports category.  I've been interested in getting young people involved in shooting, but without the politics associated with the groups who offer such services, and 4-H offers just that:  the opportunity to teach kids how to shoot and how to interact with the outdoors (both the wild and the farmland), while giving them the breathing room to enjoy the experiences.

If you are interested in passing on your knowledge about the wild, about farming and food, about the interconnectedness of the urban, rural, and wild places, then contact your local 4-H and volunteer today. 

http://www.4-h.org/

Lead bans in California

© Joshua Stark 2010

Phillip at the Hog Blog beat me to it, but I wanted to note here that the proposed lead ammunition ban in California wildlife areas was killed in committee.  I don't expect this decision to be paraded around by opponents as another example of wise leadership on the part of our legislature, but it should.
flx1247rg
That's right, I said that the folks who were opposed to this ban need to acknowledge, vocally and in public, that this decision was a good, wise decision.  Then, they need to take it a step further, and offer a bill that would provide for research on these properties, research that looks for any and all impacts from potential pollutants, including lead, but also other pollutants.  It's time to judo-flip this puppy, lock arms with other members of the environmental and EJ communities, and say, "hey, there is a concern for pollutants on our lands.  We worry, because we love the wild, and we also eat the wild.  We want healthy places for our land and for our children."

Now is the time to step up with some solid language.  I propose the bill language include general research into airborne, soil, and water pollutants with a focus on identifying the toxins and determining their vectors into the habitat.  I also propose that findings be reported by five years' time.  Last, I propose that the research consider each wildlife area individually, that it not be lumped into some general statements.

We are a huge state with many climates, dozens of microclimates, many different watersheds, and a huge diversity of industries.  We also have a gigantic population that is highly urbanized.  All of these factors weigh in on the various pollutants with which we live.

Seriously, this could be the impetus for bringing together those who care about our environment, whether for hunting, for its own sake, or for the pollutants that harm our own neighborhoods.

Editorial note:  I did support the lead ban in condor country, but opposed the proposed lead ban in all wildlife areas.  I also no longer shoot lead at all when hunting, because I have a pregnant wife and a three-year-old daughter.  We need solid science to show that a lead ammunition ban would, indeed, positively impact my wild places, and where this comes to light, I do support lead bans.  But, where it is determined that it is not causing a problem, I do not support a ban.

The sorrowful pessimist in me says that other politics (namely, the grip of huge industries on our political sphere) will keep our groups from organizing on this issue.  But, I try to remain hopeful, and if anyone is interesting in helping out, please let me know.

The meat of Environmentalism

The controversy over meat within the environmental movement is a long-running one.  Not having originated from what is known as the hippy-crunchy enviro. crowd, I'd always considered eating meat a natural human activity, though my own concerns with the sadness of death and the moral implications of causing pain gave me pause in my life, and continue forcing me to consider my actions and impacts.
flx1247rg
Lately, a number of articles and conversations formed the impetus for a post about the environmental consequences of eating meat.  A couple of months ago, I started receiving emails from Grist, an environmental e-zine, and quickly found a number of articles and blog posts on the meat-eating controversy.  Then, David Zetland posted this on vegetarianism, and Ms. Niman wrote this article for the Atlantic Monthly.  Most recently, Tovar Cerulli posted a piece on providing game for the homeless, and Holly at Nor Cal Cazadora just posted a review of the book, "The Vegetarian Myth."

I, too, have posted some thoughts and feelings about eating meat, in particular this post on the Calculus of Death, where I look at the nature of death and sustenance, and compare the environmental impacts of a typical vegetarian vs. a conscious meat-eating diet.

Although I don't mind a person making a choice to eat vegetarian, or even vegan, I do have serious problems with the ethical claim that vegetarianism is environmentally preferable to omnivory.  Vegetarianism may be a religious requirement for some, or a health decision for others, but its impacts on the environment are negligible, at best; and at worst, the practice may lead to an unnatural perspective on the world parallel to our current food industry.  Now, I'm not arguing that it is as bad as our current agricultural system - vegetarianism in the current system, as an individual choice, may have some positive impacts.  But what is lacking in vegetarianism as a system tends to perpetuate the same problems we have under our current regime, though probably on a smaller scale.

For example:  One tendency appearing in 'vegetarian-as-green' arguments is the belief that since feedlots are usually sources of pollution, eliminating meat in the diet eliminates this pollution.  Another argument notes the size of agricultural land needed to feed these animals, land that could be used for growing a veggie diet with room to spare for the wild.  But, these arguments miss a big point.  As Wendell Berry has pointed out:

Nature farms with animals. 

In nature, lands are fertilized and revitalized by animal and fungal activities.  Ms. Niman points out that the very slightly tilled North America prior to European migration maintained at least as many large, hoofed ungulates as it does now.  And yet, there were no gigantic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, no need to process chemical fertilizers, no need to truck food here and there.

Right now, big ag. desperately tries to separate each ecosystem component into its own box, ala other large-scale enterprises, from the belief that this is more efficient.  But this is not more efficient in terms of food production.  The organization 'Co-op Voices Unite' cites a USDA study showing that smaller, multicropping farms are far more efficient at food production than large-scale, monocropping ranches.

Right now, big ag. separates cows from farms and puts them into CAFO's (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).  Their effluent then becomes a waste product that must be contained, cleaned, and trucked out, and much of its nutrients are lost.

Right now, big ag. separates plant species into huge fields, and must artificially plow and apply processed fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides, because nature keeps wanting to creep into these huge chunks of land.  With no real infrastructure in the soil, these lands become susceptible to erosion and quickly slough off much of the artificially produced and applied fertilizers, etc.

And so, due to the tremendous loss of nutrients at the CAFO and the at the field, we are forced to artificially produce more nitrogen and other components to maintain "healthy" plants.  This raises the levels of these nutrients outside of the feedlot and land - these become pollutants, where otherwise they would have been food.  

This is just one example of the problem with specializing and separating ourselves from our food.  Unfortunately, an all-veggie diet doesn't leave this system, it tends to perpetuate it, but without the animal part, which requires more artificial fertilizers.  Much of the protein acquired from plants comes from soy cultivation, which needs this sort of treatment, in addition to the pest eradication that kill many millions of mice, rats and voles each year.

The environmentally aware answer, for me, is to understand that nature puts animals, plants, and fungi together.  Instead of deciding to stop eating cows and drinking milk, for example, we should encourage them closer to home, on grasslands and near plant crops.  We want them working within a system that improves watersheds and provides nutrients where they are needed.  If we pretend we can live without animals, we will find ourselves still trapped in an artificial world of false economy and separation from the land.  Nature needs animal life and death, and we are here a part of nature.

I've not yet heard how the pro-veggie side expects we will fertilize these lands, but if I've missed something, please let me know.  In the meantime, I will take my cues and lessons from nature, which needs animals, life and death, to farm, and not pretend that I know better how to make food.

Uh-oh... buying green makes you an evil, lying, cheating, thief (behavioral economics edition)

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Via Env-Econ., a paper on consumers' choices and subsequent impacts on their moral decisions.

For those who aren't so familiar with the field, behavioral economics is exactly what it sounds like:  Studies on folks' economic behaviors.  It is a very interesting field, and my favorite radio show, Marketplace, usually has a weekly segment about it.

This research indicates that students who participated in a lab experiment, after being merely shown "green" products, were less inclined to do bad things to others (lie, cheat, and steal, basically).  However, if they purchased these products, students became much more likely to do bad things to others.

You really have to read the study to get the whole idea, but it is fascinating.  These researchers were trying to identify yet another place where humans (it is believed) give themselves a kind of moral credit from one behavior, and then spend it on another (even similar) behavior.  My take is a little different - I believe that humans take their moral action to make themselves feel superior to others, and then are able to treat the other inferior individuals in a worse fashion.  But, I'm no psychologist. 

Either way, it opens up a new notion about using moral grounds to get people to buy green... maybe.

On a related note, I guess when you are around me, you should probably keep a tight grip on your wallet.

Wonder why I opposed something called the Delta Stewardship Council?

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The Contra Costa Times reports that Karen Bass appointed a "member of the board of directors of Southern California's largest water wholesaler" last week before stepping down as Speaker.  The seven member board will be responsible for developing a Delta Management Plan by 2012.

Offsets Bad!

© 2010 Joshua Stark

My favorite weekday radio program, Marketplace, reports on offset problems in Brazil. This report adds another problem to the "offsets" concept.

First, a quick definition of "offsets". In a carbon pricing mechanism, government first caps the total amount of carbon allowed, then allows a price to be set for the remaining carbon. In it's most simple and fairest form, this price is set through a government auction of the carbon permits. An offset is a project or action that a company can take that will pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere (called "sequestering") as it is polluting beyond its permits.
flx1247rg
Theoretically, a company would buy a certain number of carbon permits, and if it couldn't cut its carbon pollution to a level below its permits, it would then purchase something that would sequester the carbon above its permitted level.

Examples of carbon offset projects include forests and solar panel projects that replace fossil-fuel generation.

I have written about my dislike of offset projects (look here, for example), and I think this post's title sums up my thoughts pretty succinctly. It isn't the idea in and of itself that offends, but the downstream potential for slacking-off in monitoring its effectiveness, the potential for gaming an already-complex system, and the impacts on co-pollutants that bothered me so much.

A few months ago, my wife asked another vital question: What will these incursions on wildlands have on the people who live there? She had her doubts about these projects, too. Marketplace gave one answer, and you can add that problem to my list of reasons to disapprove of offsets.

Offsets highlight a major problem in our political system: regulatory oversight, both by actual regulators, and also by non-governmental entities. Government regulatory oversight, especially around politically hostile topics like the environment, is often, ironically, irregular. Political powers shift, sometimes within the same administration, and leadership positions within regulatory agencies are often seen as rungs on a ladder, rather than places where permanence and stability are desired.

In addition, the hard slog of maintaining a regular presence at agency meetings and in regards to regulatory measures is very difficult for private individuals and non-profit organizations. The Next Big Bill in the legislature or Congress is far sexier to both media and donors, and nonprofits, like everybody else, are constantly forced to reconcile their hours with their budgets.

Offsets add problems and complications to any carbon-capping mechanism we choose. If international, how can we trust in compliance? If national, how can we trust in regulatory consistency? Plus, if the forests are seen as carbon stands rather than complex systems, how will the ensuing piles of money impact other services we get from these places? (I've written about the impact of pricing carbon benefits in European forests here.)

A major problem the environmental justice community has with carbon offsets concerns major polluters. It so happens that the biggest carbon polluters are also the biggest emitters of other pollution, pollution much more harmful to folks adjacent to the facilities. These companies will also have the hardest time curbing their carbon emissions, and will lean on the offset crutch, buying rights to an Amazon rainforest, instead of installing pollution-reduction equipment at home.

And now we are finding out that the long-term implications for carbon offset projects in that same rainforest can also negatively impact folks living in them.

Offsets bad!

A Cheap Shot at 'Avatar', but I just have to...

© 2010 Joshua Stark

While checking my email today, I noticed a little news blip, something about James Cameron claiming that the production company for Avatar - 20th Century Fox - had first been concerned about the movie's theme being too environmentalist. Cameron claims that he pushed back, they backed down, and the movie was made as he wanted it.
flx1247rg
I would have let this pass, and just thought it some blustering and a way to get more media attention for his movie, except something happened to me a couple of weeks back that made this more than just a passing thought:

While walking through the parking lot of a neighborhood gigantic store, I picked up a piece of litter to throw away, and chuckled to myself at its origin. It was a small, clear plastic bag printed with the words, "Na'vi Dire Horse".

Obviously, this was an inner wrapper, once containing one of Mr. Cameron's "green" warrior's steeds, now blowing across the parking lot and headed, eventually, for the Yolo Bypass and Sacramento Delta.

I'm a big fan of toys, and I was going to let this slide. But, reading about Mr. Cameron's claim to defend his movie's green message, and then to see the money he and 20th Century Fox will make on the merchandising, I'm left a little perturbed.

This was a perfect opportunity for Mr. Cameron to help usher in a new, green production era. For example, he could have used manufacturing facilities close to the markets for the toys, or he could have insisted on 100% biodegradable materials, or perhaps make them all from 100% recycled materials. The COOLEST would have been 100% plastic from the Pacific Trash Vortex, where most of them will end up.

Wanting to see the calculations on this marketing scheme's greenhouse gas emissions, and hoping to find some articles shaming Mr. Cameron, et. al., for this anti-environmentalism, I googled the potential controversy, but found nothing.

So, here's one: Shame on you, Mr. Cameron and 20th Century Fox, for making a fun, if shallow, movie, marketing it as an environmental message, and then helping to trash the environment a little more, when you could have walked your talk.

Green tech, off-topic on taxes, rainwater capture, and a new blog

© 2010 Joshua Stark

A couple of links for the day, with a bit of commentary.

Dan Walters at the Sacramento Bee has an interesting story on green tech in California, and whether and how we can keep it growing here. He focuses on bureaucracy and taxes as problems in keeping green businesses here. I'd like to add that we've really put ourselves in a pickle by getting used to exorbitantly low property taxes. Yes, I'll touch California's political third rail in my blog, and from an economics angle:

Do you think the total prices paid by people to purchase homes in California, was honestly lower in the subsequent 30 years after its passage? That's rhetorical - no, they weren't any lower than they otherwise would have been. The extra profit that would otherwise have gone into schools, roads, and social programs in the state instead went directly into sellers' pockets, and into inflating a housing bubble. This is because California's greatest, most valuable asset is its location. Property taxes are higher in Ohio, they are higher in Texas. In Texas. Yet, Texas government is considered the new way to do things right. Maybe it is, and we should follow suit by raising our property taxes.

Now, California has to make up for lost revenue because it gave up its share of land prices. In the meantime, our schools are worse, our air quality is worse, our job prospects are worse, and we rely too heavily on regressive (sales) taxes and taxes that the wealthiest among us can more easily opt out of (income taxes don't work at the state level to any great degree). Also, our property values yo-yo terribly, but were still out of the range of the fixed-income folks we pretended to protect when we passed Prop. 13.

On to better news: The L.A. Times reports that the city of Los Angeles will soon (hopefully) require rainwater recapture in new, large building projects. This is great, amazing news, both for their local beaches and ocean, but also for, eventually, those of us in the Delta who would like to see L.A. become even more self-sufficient. We need good, mass technology that provides easy cleaning of rainwater for home use, and I see this as just one more step in that direction.

Tangentially, I've done some dabbling in rainwater capture numbers, and I believe, in Sacramento, a typical small home could capture enough rainwater for two months or so of their typical use from their roof.

Last, I wanted to link to the new Planning and Conservation League blog. These are good folks - any group whose annual symposium can get funded by Tejon Ranch and the National Wildlife Federation is doing something right. They are plugged into the state environmental scene to a great deal.

Economics and the Environment (from December, 2008, & with update)

© 2010 Joshua Stark

(I wrote the first half of this piece a little over a year ago, but I think it's important to consider now. I've added more at the bottom)
flx1247rg
WARNING: Contains economics talk.

I titled my blog with a little bit of wiggle room because I enjoy thinking about economics, and also because it's kind of a default thought-process for me, so I knew it would out itself, eventually.

My Bachelor's degree says, "Social Science", which is a misnomer because it ain't science, and most of us with this title have little social lives, but the degree did encompass some economics (or, like the head of the department said, the degree is like the Platte River: A mile wide and an inch deep). Teaching experience sparked additional interest in me around macroeconomics (as my wife will attest), and, to paraphrase a great mind, I now remember just enough economics to screw me up for the rest of my life. The great mind was Steve Martin, and he was talking about philosophy, but never mind.

This brings me to my post.

I won't go into the specifics for how close our economy looms over the edge; that's everywhere nowdays. I want to look ahead, and mention some problems in the near-future, and use a look at the past to inform our decisions.

First, we are in the midst of what would be a market correction, if that market (housing) hadn't been the rock-turned-to-sand upon which so many financial and personal economic choices were built. With stagnating wages, a shift to the service sector, and past gains based upon efficiency increases, people felt very strong social and market pressures in the past ten years to cash in on their largest investment instead of putting pressure on management to pay higher wages. At the same time, institutions changed the nature of that investment in the larger scheme, asking for self-regulation, and then contriving markets out of re-sale and insurance on what had been the safest long-term investment this side of a T-bill, therefore turning it into a ponzi scheme. It's funny that the term 'hedge fund' is a horrible abomination now, when the original meaning was as a way to minimize loss in other markets. As housing prices shot up and up, quickly out of the range of the typical buyer, we built our market foundation on "easy" credit, started juggling mortgages like hot potatoes, and the music started. When both the buyer and the seller want a higher price, markets get unstable. When the music stopped, millions of homeowners were left without a chair, as were almost all of our largest money-movers.

So, how does this apply to the environment?

The emphasis now is going to be getting people to work as soon as possible. This is a good idea, but brings with it two dangers which can damage habitat and long-term environmental and conservation goals: Downward pressure on wages (which deflation can actually do, too), and shoving aside current environmental protections.

Okay, the second one is easy: If we cut current environmental protections, providing exemptions to NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), for example, then we set ourselves up for big-ticket, long-term infrastructure projects that are inappropriate for our country today and contrary to what the majority of people want for our children and ourselves. We have done these projects better for decades now, and these regulations did not sink our economy.

But, you may ask, how does downward pressure on wages affect the environment? First, understand that we have spent the last ten years basing our combined wealth on debt created by selling our houses back to ourselves (second mortgages). Our economic power should not come from our houses, but from compensation for productive work, ie., wages and earnings. However, because we were making loans on our houses instead of pushing for higher wages, our wages stagnated. Now, consider stagnant wages in light of double digit inflation in health care, postsecondary education, and you guessed it, housing.

Now that people know their true compensation, they are cutting back in spending. This affects the environment three ways: 1) Lower wages mean fewer trips to the outdoors, which translates into fewer dollars for the outdoors, less care for the outdoors, and fewer people with a strong connection to the outdoors (any talk about less impact to the resource from fewer visitors is hogwash, as I wrote here);
-----
(alright, that is where I'd finished in December of 2008. Here is my contemporary addition)
-----
2) lower wages mean fewer tax revenues, which especially affects state and regional governments, because they can't (technically) deficit spend, and because they didn't surplus spend (that is, save) during the good years; 3) lower wages mean fewer donations to environmental causes, and since we've largely turned our (collective) back on the outdoors, opting for indoor entertainment over outdoor adventure, those folks are usually the only ones out there trying to get and maintain protections.

Well, now that it is 2010, and in light of the Governor's current proposal to exempt a ton of private projects from CEQA, I thought I should post this entry, and also revisit the notion. I'll admit (looking at the business real estate bubble and the amount and manner that derivatives markets drove direct investment in housing throughout the country) that the housing crisis was caused in larger degree by gigantic investment engines much more that what you see on HGTV.

Today, jobs is the major concern for most voting folks (MVF's). Not (ashamedly) the war to which we commit tens of thousands of young men and women to kill and die for us. Not education. Not the environment. MVF's are now just thinking about work. Meanwhile, our "fix" for the system allowed some gigantically wealthy financial institutions to claim record profits and "pay back" their loans to the government, in the illusion that they are now sound and healthy, and also to "prove" that they really didn't need the money, anyway (only for as long as they needed it, I suppose).

In the meantime, some people understand that a sound environment and economy are not only not mutually exclusive, but are linked. For example, the Sacramento Bee reports this morning on the success of Continuing Education classes on green business at the California State University.

In addition, by piecemeal eliminating the status quo business climate in California, you create uncertainties in markets, which leads to bad long-term economic conditions.

Economies thrive in transparent, open, clean and consistent climates, whether they be financial, regulatory, or environmental. This is especially true in California, whose greatest asset has always been its location. If we ruin the location, we will ruin our future.

Updates...

© 2010 Joshua Stark

A couple of quick updates from issues I'd mentioned in the past...

First, not so past: The new language for the bright (horrible) idea by our Governor, where he hopes to exempt some special companies from the third and co-equal branch of government, has been changed.
flx1247rg
It's worse.

Instead of 20 companies, it's now at 100, in groups of 25 for four years.

Second, a bit farther back: Last year, I referred to an effort by PG&E to raise the burden the public must meet if it is to have its own, public utility. Right now, it's a majority vote, but PG&E wants it raised to 2/3rds. The reason I'd learned about this effort is because I'd been accosted by a signature-gatherer in front of a store the previous week. Normally, I love signature-gatherers, and the whole public-participation-in-government idea. However, this man came up to me and offered me the chance to sign some kind of Voters' Rights Initiative to protect the Public, or something like that. I read the idea, and told him no thanks. He pushed again, and I again said no. He pushed again, as I was walking away, and I said that, not only would I not sign it, but it was a lie, and he should be ashamed. I asked him if he understood what he wanted me to sign. His last push? He just needed 70 signatures for the bonus, so cut him a break.

How's that for public participation?

Well, those pushy money-grubbers got what they wanted, and the initiative made it to the ballot. It's baloney.

I'm all for protecting the rights of minority views (Lord knows I hold some, myself), and in requiring near-unanimity when it comes to war. Deciding whether your community should get to own its power company is neither.

Unfortunately not the best updates. However, I'll add a positive note... my ducks gave me three eggs yesterday. Yeah, they do that every day (probably today, too, but I haven't checked yet), but it's still good news.

Environmental regulation as straw-man, & the end of our tripartite government

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Yesterday, my Governor outlined his goals for the year. All the normal political statements were dragged out: to get our state out of our horrible economic conditions, to focus on education and reform our prison system, etc. But, I am now immune to the talk; I wanted to see the action.
flx1247rg
On that note, here is one action that stands out for this blog. The Governor has proposed, and it is now a bill (AB 1111, authored by Sam Blakeslee) moving through the State Legislature, that 20 private projects in the State be exempted from California's environmental and public oversight law, The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pronounced "SEE-kwa"). Specifically, the idea is for the Bureau of Transportation and Housing to pick 20 individual projects and declare their approval immune from judicial review. You can read the Governor's handout on the idea here (you need a .pdf reader).

I have four major problems with this bill, to be clear:
1) It weakens and obscures a regulation that has been instrumental in providing Californians a clear, open process for commenting on and fighting construction and planning that may impact them;
2) It has absolutely nothing to do with jobs;
3) It doesn't come close to passing the fairness test of good governance;
4) It abolishes our tripartite government.

Recently, I mentioned in passing about CEQA being something beyond a mere "environmental" regulation, and this is an idea that needs to get some media. Beyond the obvious benefits to our environment, CEQA has had two major, unintended and positive consequences for California: First, it codified an open, conspicuous and transparent process for Californians to comment on and defend their interests when threatened from activities that would impact them; and second, in improving environmental impacts, it improved our land, which in turn improved our standards of living, and the desire for folks to move here ("folks" includes businesses and individuals). I'm willing to bet that CEQA raises real estate values in the medium and long term.

Don't believe for a second that this is a jobs bill. California's economy has done just fine during good economic times with environmental regulations in place. The biggest drags on an economy are uncertainty about the future, and this bill brings all kinds of uncertainty: who will be exempted? Who will have to abide by the law? If company x gets a pass, why can't I? This uncertainty will surely slow up proposed projects who may not otherwise have CEQA troubles, because they might have to compete with projects who don't have to play by the rules. Other companies might think that waiting until they get their turn instead of moving forward on project ideas. What a mess! This bill's impact on "jobs" is a joke.

This uncertainty arises because the bill flies in the face of consistent, equitable government. Governments of laws and not men must abide by being equitable. The legal term for the opposite of this is "arbitrary and capricious", and though the reasons for the exemptions may be spelled out, it's a bad road to go down when you exempt private citizens from laws while binding others to them.

The last concern is a serious concern when taken in the context of our current state government. California is walking dangerously close to being ungovernable, and when we play favorites by exempting some private businesses from the law, we step closer to that boundary; but, when we do so by allowing the legislature and executive branches to declare certain citizens untouchable by the third & coequal branch of government, we actually move away from our constitutional form of government.

Our rabid public environment concerning jobs and debt and the economy is clouding our good judgment as a people, and this bill is one prime example of what might happen if we allow that environment to ruin our government, our progress, and the future of our state.

Man and Fire

last week, a small, once-controlled brush fire outside of Santa Barbara exploded into a house-eating inferno, fueled by 100 degree temperatures and the Shakin Shakin Shakes, those Santa Ana winds. As of today, it is 80 percent contained, although additional winds are probable.

California is blessed with many natural wonders, and cursed, as well. We have mountains so full of snow that they were named it - Sierra Nevada. We have a two-river Delta (one of only a handful) that supplies 20 million people with drinking water. We have a gigantic coastline, huge, rugged, highly variable terrain, and our state claims multiple climates with dozens of microclimates. In the Summer, we are a desert, and in the winter, we are often inundated with deluges. But, we have changed our natural wonders to a great extent, and in these changes comes an increase in variation and intensity. The Sierra Nevada may one day be renamed the Sierra Seca. That river system's wildlife is quickly crashing, and the wonderfully varied and beautiful terrain can't seem to keep folks from wanting to build on it, to better enjoy its beauty, yes, but with the result that we find ourselves living by the whims of fickle Mother Nature.

We have also changed much of the flora of our beautiful state, and the effects of this paradigm-shift are felt most directly in the new nature of our wildfires.

Prior to Europeans, California's flora and fauna developed with a particular relationship to fire and each other. Most of our herbivores were browsers, pushed by a considerably large number of large predators, primarily wolves and very large brown bears, but also mountain lions, bobcats and the like. Our primary flora, therefore, were wildflowers and slow-growing bunch grasses. The animals seeded large areas of land, and many plants only seeded once every few years. Fires regimes, caused by lightning and people, usually burned with a low intensity, because the slow-growing bunch grasses kept green all year, and protected their roots with tight "bunches" of grass blades. Forests of huge oaks, pines, and redwoods required these fires, as their seeds needed heat to open, and their seedlings needed light and nutrients.

This habitat regime changed dramatically with the arrival of Europeans. We brought livestock that ate entire plants, and we kept them protected and in the same places for longer periods of time. We also fed them grass seed from our native lands, grasses which had developed a relationship with very different animals. The new grasses, which grow, seed, and die within a few months, quickly replaced the slower-developing native habitat, which wasn't used to being eaten completely down to the roots. Within a short period of time, much of California changed completely, giving our state its golden hue during the Summer, and bringing on a dramatic shift in the nature of fire.

The new grasses and weeds die quickly, creating fuel from the tip right down into the soil. Fires set in this fuel often burn far hotter, burn soil habitat and seeds, and leave a scorched waste. They also burn into the upper canopies of the trees, killing many adult trees that had survived the previous fire patterns for hundreds of years. This is why we instituted a fire-suppression program over 150 years ago, and in so doing we allowed the buildup of deadwood, leaves, and other combustible materials. Consider this in light of projected hotter and drier weather patterns, and we have a serious problem.

Now that many more of us are living close to these wild and altered landscapes, it is imperative that we do something to both improve habitat and fire. Right now, many are under the impression that a completely barren "defensible space" as far as you can make it is the best thing to do. But, wildland firefighters know that the best thing we can do is to eliminate the non-native grasses and forest duff that fuel these monsters, and build houses that don't catch fire so easily. No amount of defensible space could have saved most of the homes in Santa Barbara, because 40 mile-an-hour winds will carry sparks well past any clearings, and even over large freeways and the like. However, if those sparks land on green plants or metal roofs, and the fires from which they came were burning low and through the underbrush instead of licking hundreds of feet into the air, we would all be much safer.

The answers are easy, but expensive. They also have the great upside of improving ecological habitat as well as human safety. The alternative, however, is a complex series of ever-more-useless attempts to postpone the inevitable, also expensive, while encouraging further ecological degradation. Which way shall we go?

On salmon

A striking image, and as my first attempt for a photograph for my blog, probably not the most uplifting one... but, wait. What you see here is a salmon on the Feather River in 2002, during one of the largest runs in the Sacramento river system's history. This powerful being was probably three years old, had been born in the Feather River, floated and dodged all the way out to the Pacific Ocean, to return and bring the nutrients it had gathered from the deep up to our land.

As a flyfisherman for kings and as a paddler, I've done a lot of contemplating about salmon. Biologists tell us that no tree in B.C. is free of their mark, as the bears and wolves and eagles and ravens and so many other creatures that consume enormous amounts then spread the wealth through the forests. The amount of sustenance that come as a tidal wave of beautiful bodies is near-to-unfathomable, and I've sat at the gravel bars on the Lower American and among the second-growth redwoods of Santa Cruz and wondered what our state must have looked like when we had the salmon and the bears. In a previous post, I've pondered the effects of wild pigs on our land, comparing them to bears that we've extirpated, but I know that they don't pull up the gifts of the ocean and carry them throughout the land, like Ursus horribilis did (for the bio. folks, I know that's the old name, I just prefer it).

About two weeks ago, then, I was attracted to a lecture by a geologist at the California State University, Sacramento. Professor Tim Horner has worked on salmon habitat research and restoration efforts on the American River for at least five years, and the insights he brings to the current salmon runs is fascinating and important for us all.

His general conclusion as to California's current salmon crisis is that food sources in the Pacific Ocean are either disappearing or fluctuating dramatically. As he pointed out, about 1% of the world's ocean habitat supports about half of all fish species, and most of this occurs in places where upwellings occur, like our own Monterey Bay. When he mentioned this, I immediately remembered that, as a Park Interpreter outside Santa Cruz, I experienced two summers without upwelling events, and the subsequent starving birds and shifts in the migratory patterns of different animal species. These occurred two years and three years ago, when the kings now returning to spawn should have been voraciously feeding.

However, Dr. Horner did talk extensively about current fish habitat and habits, and methods of restoration to help returning kings effectively spawn. He spoke of the increases in water exports (to Central and Southern California) from the Delta,and the shifts in tidal flow that they cause. And he spoke of the effects of dams and water management on the fishery. He had good, solid insights and data, and overall I was impressed with his presentation.

Two Sundays past, I stopped by the DFG hatchery at the base of Nimbus Dam on the American River, outside of Sacramento. The lady at the information desk told me that they had pulled just over 500 hen salmon and taken about 4 million eggs. For a comparison, they would have seen, I believe, about 30,000 hens by that time, about five years ago.

The next couple of years will be vital to returning salmon runs to our rivers. Initial numbers show that we expect an uptick in returning fish next year, but getting them out to sea in as large and genetically diverse numbers will be crucial to the long-term survival of the runs. For those of you who have stood hip-deep in waters, watching these giant forms swirl and lunge protecting their redds, smelling the rotting fish in the water, and watching the buzzards and crows feasting, you understand the power, emotion and reflection that these beings can arouse in us: noble sentiments and impulses, a greater understanding of the nature of sacrifice, a sincere awe. And if you haven't had this blessing, then head up to the hatchery at Nimbus Dam, or in Oroville on the Feather River. You won't be disappointed.

The heating climate around the, uh, heating climate

Back at this blog's first post, and in a few others, I've pointed out schisms in the conservation-environmental community. Now, the purpose of highlighting all the breaks in ideas, directions, and actions within our community is not to destroy us, nor is it to sell (you'll notice at this website that I'm not selling anything); the purpose is to illuminate the ethical reasons behind our positions and decisions, and to therefore make us stronger. If we can see where we disagree, we can, hopefully, weed out the bad ideas while increasing tolerances for each others' divergent views. At the same time, we can hopefully strengthen our defense of the wild. The ultimate goal here, then, is greater protection, and I follow a mantra when it comes to that goal, one I learned as a park interpreter: Through education, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.

With that in mind, let's turn to a a major conflict within the community, over how to curb carbon emissions. Last week in, of all places, Washington D.C., this conflict came to a head when a number of environmental justice groups took over the D.C. office of Environmental Defense (article here). Right now, there are two competing views on how to begin curbing carbon emissions, a "carbon tax", or cap, and the creation of a carbon market with caps, or "cap & trade."

This disagreement is primarily between the traditional environmental groups and the environmental justice groups. The former has, for the most part, come down in favor of a market, and the latter in favor of a cap with no market. Personally, I'm on the fence, and so I feel I can adequately provide the arguments for and against both concepts.

First, a quick description of cap & trade: Most simply put, it is the creation of a market for the sale of carbon and other greenhouse gasses (GHG's). Really, though, let's start with the goal, to cut GHG emissions from as many major sources as we can. Right now, people emit GHG's into the atmosphere willy-nilly, as a byproduct of combustion, and nobody wants to own these emissions. As you probably remember from your high school econ. class, all markets require scarcity, demand, and supply. Government creates the demand & scarcity by capping the total amount of GHG's allowed per year below current emissions, and then allowing the GHG's below the capped amount to be traded among emitters (hence the term 'allowances'). Over time, it is expected that government will continue lowering the amount of GHG's being traded, either by lowering the cap, or by buying up allowances in the market, effectively removing them from play. Being a market, it quickly gets more complicated from there, but that is the basic model.

Proponents of cap & trade argue that effective markets have been created to deal with other pollutants, notably SO2 (an acid rain component). They argue that the funds created through an initial sale of allowances (to kick-start the market) can be used by the government to mitigate climate change effects on areas that are hardest hit by climate change and/or the market (say, poor communities, habitat, the state of Florida). They also argue that, since CO2 is not a pollutant that hurts people locally, but is instead a global problem, then it doesn't matter where it gets capped, and so there will be no direct local pollution problem to worry about. Last, they argue that by allowing the market to function on a larger scale, then economies of scale, innovations, and money will drive down GHG emissions, while encouraging corporate buy-in, rather than causing foot-dragging and litigation to slow down emissions cuts.

Opponents argue that contrived markets are easy to game, that the market won't work quickly enough to actually curb GHG's, that compromises with industries for a market will probably exclude the initial sale of allowances, and that the market will affect poor communities the most in a number of ways. This last is the biggest concern of EJ groups, because companies with the worst pollution records operate in their communities, and the co-benefits of having to curb GHG emissions will almost certainly also cut other, more dangerous local emissions. For example, if you cut your CO2 emissions, you also usually cut your ozone emissions, and ozone is a cause of asthma attacks. 1 in 5 children in San Joaquin Valley have asthma, so you can see that communities in SJ Valley have a high stake in seeing these emissions cuts be local.

Instead, opponents argue for an across-the-board cap on carbon emissions through a GHG tax. Each emitter will have to account for their emissions, and if they run over their cap, then they must pay a cost-prohibitive tax for additional carbon. This would require all sources to account for and cut emissions.

Of course, major corporations would prefer nothing, but that is long gone, so they are pushing hard for a cap & trade market with free allowances to start, and to include many offsets, which are carbon trapping mechanisms, like forests, in their GHG totals. So, for example, a company may purchase some allowances, purchase some offssets, and cut whatever is left.

The legal grenade thrown into this? Last year, courts ordered the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant.

The incoming Obama Administration has a lot to work on.

Enviros? Conservationists? Tree-huggers? Killers?

I love the political realm, for the most part, though I also hate it. In fact, my fascination with it probably has nearly as much to do with the emotions it stirs as it does with my personal belief that we are all responsible in our democratic republic. But, one place that really bothers me about political 'discourse' is the prevelance of half-formed ideas, urges and reactionism that get rolled up and kneaded into little soundbites, or worse, labels.

People are labeling creatures, we are ordering creatures. We create boxes of meaning into which we place ideas about people and things. Then we attach words to these boxes, for ease of use. This is very helpful in remembering, for example, that a particular mushroom killed Joe-Bob, or that cars with the word "Hyundai" on them may not be solid purchase decisions. However, when it comes to labeling groups of people in the political realm, we can really step on our own feet and hinder good management decisions.

Let me be perfectly clear here: The number one threat to the environment right now is unfettered development. Were we to efficiently manage our future development, and re-configure existing development, we could:

1) Help to effectively mitigate greenhouse gasses;

2) Much more effectively protect habitat and wildlife corridors;

3) Improve the health of our people;
4) Provide more opportunities for healthy outdoor connectedness, and more of a sense of place.

I could go on, but those are the big four when it comes to our future.

So, why am I seemingly jumping from one topic to another? Because our current political climate has so polarized us on environmental issues that we cannot even speak in civilized tones about the environment, much less push effective legislation.

Hunters, think about it: What is the bigger deal, that you can't shoot a lead round in condor country, or that you can't shoot ANYTHING?
Nonhunters, think about this: Hunters killing deer in a forest managed mostly through their dollars, or no deer at all, because the forest is now a string of Kinkos, Targets, and ticky-tacks?

The political upheavals of the 1960's & 70's completed a great schism in the community of people who love nature. This schism has reached such heights, that now, when I write about these topics, I have to write convoluted sentences about the "environmental-conservation community", and probably stay away from words like "natural resources" or "movement". Even the words "environment" and "conservation" are loaded!

It's downright ridiculous.

Of the four major groups spawned by the first folks loving nature in the late 1800's, three of them can share in an honest attempt to rein in sprawl, protect valuable habitats and corridors, re-establish watersheds, wetlands and prairies, and any number of other important goals for places. These three groups are hunting organizations (like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, SCI, Pheasants Forever), conservation groups (like Defenders of Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy), and environmental groups (like the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity).

The fourth group, believe it or not, is another symptom of unfettered development. In our expanding suburbs, with no real rivers or wild places, there grew a group of people who 'love' nature. They often have had little or no contact with it, with particular places or creatures, because of where they live and how they were raised. They have no experiences with death and life, realities of our world. They only think of these things in the horrific. In this vacuum, fed by an honest longing for nature and the wild, but with no way of getting the genuine experience, the animal rights movement was born. Of course, I'm labeling, and I know that many animal rights' proponents have had many experiences with the wild, but for the most part, of the folks I've run across, most have come from urban or suburban environs, and may have worked in healing or rescuing animals, but haven't really seen a cat catch a bird, and do not understand that death must occur for even their continued survival.

If the three major groups who care about the environment and have experience with it could honestly engage young people by helping to curb sprawl and create living places where kids can respectfully experience the wild, then we can also help develop people with a true understanding, and therefore appreciation, of that wild. To do that, we don't need to put down our differences about other conservative/liberal ideas. We just need to meet and stick to the subject.

Where do you see connections that can be made?

My trip to the White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy

At the last minute I was able to attend the White House Conference on North American Wildlife Policy, organized by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and in response to the President's Executive Order 13443. This order calls on federal agencies to, "facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat..."

The event was spread over two evenings and two days, with fine dinners hosted by major conservation organizations. DU's evening was especially nice, due to the short film they kept re-playing, showing birds flying; I felt like a dog, mesmerized by the cupped wings and slightly rocking descent of two drakes and a hen, orange legs outstretched, putting on the brakes from sizzling through the air to drop down onto some decoys... okay, snap out of it.

One day was dedicated to "plenary sessions", based on a series of white papers prepared by a number of organizations and sent out to participating groups. These papers outlined ideas for achieving the goals of the Executive Order, and also provided the framework for conversations. I was disappointed by this method, as it really framed the questions, rather than opening up the floor to hear ideas from many different perspectives. Of course, folks jumped outside the boundaries when offering ideas or questions, which is always a good thing when you get a chance to talk to the government in a public forum.

Personally, I felt a bit disconcerted by the amount of emphasis on resource extraction, in particular for "biofuels", a controversial topic right now. But, I'm going to accentuate the positive here, and state that I found two points of focus on which groups from the entire spectrum of the conservation and environmental community can focus: Funding and youth involvement.

I defy you to talk to an involved hunter or angler for five minutes about conservation without hearing about how these folks contribute more dollars to the effort than any other group. It's stated so often (and I'm one to blame) within the community, that it starts to feel more like self-aggrandizement, however, so I propose we take it a bit more public. NorCalCazadora has mentioned some recent hunting-related news in some major publications lately. Perhaps we could build on this publicity by reminding the public of the importance of hunting/fishing dollars to conservation efforts, especially as they relate to the current economy?

In the meantime, environmental and conservation groups are looking to help out in funding. Many would love to see an additional funding source, like binoculars taxes, or making people buy duck stamps to access wildlife refuges. Many would love to see an uptick in the numbers of people hunting and fishing, thus buying more excise-taxed items and licenses. These are both areas where coalitions of groups who may not always see eye-to-eye could actually accomplish a shared goal.

The other idea where collaboration potential exists is in youth involvement. There is a movement afoot right now by the moniker, "No Child Left Inside." Folks see that kids these days aren't getting out, they aren't gaining a love and appreciation for a place, and they (and we) are suffering for it. This is just another symptom of unfettered suburban development, the single largest threat to the environment today, and it is one that needs to be addressed in a big way. Requiring the application of outdoors activities to particular curricula is one step, but in poor, urban schools, access to park lands is limited, and pollution is a big problem. We need to combine mandates with the funds and ability for schools to accomplish the goals we set.

Last year, the Sierra Club offered legislation to encourage outdoor education for young people. It didn't make it out of committee. Next year, why not get some kind of bill at the state level which offers outdoor education with an archery component, and possibly some fishing or hunting access? This could garner the necessary bipartisan support (no small task in California) for passage, and could be accomplished through cooperative efforts between groups like the Sierra Sportsmen, Ducks Unlimited, and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance.

Which brings me to the best part of my trip to the conference: I was able to meet some great folks representing a wide array of organizations and interests. In particular, I got to meet a man I highly regard, Jim Posewitz of Orion, the Hunters' Institute. I recommend a trip to that website. I came away hopeful in our ability to gain hunters and anglers, to come up with wise resource and habitat management decisions, and to find some common ground and make some concerted moves toward the goal that all in the conservation and environmental community share: Protecting and preserving our common inheritance, and instilling in our children a love and passion for our places.