The Public Trust Blog

EPA Finalizes Standards to Reduce Mercury!

2012-01-06T11:40:00.001-08:00

On December 16, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the first ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. These standards, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, or MATS, are long overdue as more than 20 years after the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments some power plants still do not control emissions of toxic pollutants, even though pollution control technology is widely available. These standards, which fall under Sections 111 (new source performance standards) and 112 (toxics program) of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, are not only overdue, they are also behind the curve as since 1990, two of the three industry sectors which make up approximately two-thirds of total U.S. mercury emissions: medical waste incinerators, municipal waste combustors, have been subject to emissions standards for years and as a result have reduced their mercury emissions by more than 95%. The third sector which hasn’t been subject to emissions standards is power plants, but not anymore. Thus the MATS, which set standards for all Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emitted by coal- and oil-fired EGUs with a capacity of 25 megawatts or greater, finally place standards on the dominant emitters of mercury (50%) acid gases (over 75%) and many toxic metals (20-60%) in the United States.

The MATS requires plants to use maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards which for new sources must be at least as stringent as the emission reduction achieved by the best performing similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources must be at least as stringent as the emission reductions achieved by the average of the top 12 percent best controlled sources. In setting the MACT standard for each source costs may not be considered, and the EPA may regulate beyond this standard where justified, in which case costs and other issues must be considered. Existing sources generally will have up to 4 years to retrofit their facilities if they need it to comply with MATS.

The regulations issued on December 16th, 2011 were done so under a Consent Decree of the D.C. Court of Appeals requiring EPA to issue a proposal by March 16, 2011, and a final rule by December 16, 2011.

It has been projected by the EPA that the new standards will avert up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 heart attacks and 130,000 asthma attacks every year. If one were to put a monetary value on these improvements for people's health alone it would total $37 billion to $90 billion each year. That means that for every dollar spent to reduce this pollution, Americans will receive $3-9 in health benefits.

The Public Trust will remain on the lookout for local violators of these new rules, as The Northside Generating Station on Hecksher and the St. Johns River Power Park on New Burlin are two of the local plants affected by the rules.

-Andrew Miller, Executive Director

No More Rainbows or Fairies

2011-12-07T06:59:00.001-08:00

Two species will no longer be found in Florida, the South Florida rainbow snake and the Florida fairy shrimp were declared extinct by Federal wildlife officials in October. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also declared eight freshwater species as threatened or endangered and agency plans continuing their protection efforts by surveying 374 freshwater species across the southeast, 114 of those native to Florida, to evaluate the need for protection.

Florida houses a multitude endangered and threatened species, included but not limited to: sea turtles, manatees, humpback whales, Florida panthers, gopher tortoises, and beach mice. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hopes that this survey will assist the agency in making a determination as to what further actions must be made to protect threatened and endangered species in Florida.

While some endangered animals, such as the manatee, draw a significant amount of media attention, many environmentalists voice concern for animals that may not have as much publicity. This seems to be the plight of the South Florida rainbow snake and the fairy shrimp. The rainbow snake has not been spotted since 1952, and fairy shrimp were most recently spotted ten years ago. While the rainbow snake and the fairy shrimp may not make great posters or photo opportunities, both were key to ecosystems, and these ecosystems will have to adapt without their presence. The public should not limit preservation to the most popular creatures, but rather should focus their efforts on all the creatures necessary to maintain delicate ecosystems. When a piece of an ecosystem is gone, then the whole ecosystem can be thrown off balance, and many others creatures may die as a result.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with the Center for Biological Diversity will finalize the list by 2018, but this action will come much too late for the South Florida rainbow snake and the fairy shrimp. A place on the list requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to development of a habitat for one of species on the list. The developer then creates a habitat conservation plan protecting the species. Recent developers endanger the habitats of many species unique to Florida through rapid expansion. Developers are not the only threat to species in Florida, the loss can also be due to overhunting, pesticides, vehicle collisions, or even weather conditions and viral infections. Some species have become so fragile that a hurricane or viral infection can cause their extinction. However, some Floridians fear federal involvement will decrease statewide unilateral protection for the species. State legislation has been successful for the gopher tortoise, who if found, must be relocated prior to construction.

Protecting wildlife must be a multi-tiered effort. While the public should support the efforts of state and federal agencies to protect wildlife, it is also important to remember conservation begins at home. Therefore, being of how you rid your home of gasoline, pesticides, and paint thinner, can all be important steps in decreasing the impact that humans have on Florida wildlife. For a list of endangered and threatened species in Florida you can visit: http://animals.about.com/od/onlinecourses/a/esa_florida.htm or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Database.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Who is Taking the LEED is Sports?

2011-11-22T14:18:00.000-08:00

In building the Marlin’s new ballpark, construction showed deference to environmental concerns. The construction manager ensured that the materials were separated and recycled, significantly reducing the waste made in creating this ball park. The crew recycled up to 98% of the construction waste.

The inside of the stadium has also undergone green consideration with the installation of 249 waterless urinals, and the utilization of low energy glass around the stadium. These installations will decrease the stadiums usage of water and electricity. The stadium implements solar lights, reducing energy consumption, as well as a recycling program, to reduce waste.

The company insists that the industry has shifted toward green products, whereas 15-20 years ago, sustainability was not discussed in a project such as this one. The Marlins hope to gain either silver or gold LEED certification by the U.S. Green Council. There are others who are making concerted efforts, such as the Pittsburgh Penguins whose new arena was awarded a LEED gold certification, and the Washington Nationals ballpark which gained LEED silver certification. Other franchises such as the Philadelphia Eagles and the Boston Red Sox have retrofited their stadiums to make energy saving changes.

This concerted effort in creating an environmentally friendly building shows new considerations in construction. Many new residential and commercial buildings also try to achieve LEED certification. An internationally recognized green building certification system, the U.S. Green Building Council LEED was developed in 2000. The Green Building Council believes that LEED can assist builders in identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions. The Green Building Council made requirements flexible enough to apply to both residential and commercial design and these requirements benefit building owners and tenants through economic and social rewards. The U.S. Green Council, awards points for installing everything from solar powered lights, water saving toilets, bike racks, and even low energy glass.

John Knight, a Populous architect, explains that "operators are starting to realize that being smart about design can actually go to the bottom line and make buildings less expensive to operate over the life of the building." Knight continued that once educated, operators are excited to make environmental changes that can also save them money.

Many hope that this move toward LEED certification as regular construction practice in sports stadiums will encourage other buildings to make similar changes in order to be more environmentally friendly and LEED compliant, and hopefully they will also reap the additional economic rewards. Knight states that he hopes that LEED certification will become integrated with building codes, and become ordinary practice for business and builders alike.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Extern

There Are Worse Things than Sharks in the Water

2011-11-11T05:47:00.000-08:00

When the warm weather returns and you prepare for a day of fun in the sun at the beach, add a new step to your routine, check online for water quality reports at the National Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) website. After analyzing three thousand United States beaches the NRDC found serious contamination in the waters. This contamination comes primarily from sewage pipes and storm water runoff that dump fecal waste, oil and other kinds of pollution into lakes and oceans. This contamination from sewage and storm water led to more than 24,000 beach closings and advisories in 2010. The 2010 beach closings and advisories were the second highest number in the last two decades. The contamination affects primarily the elderly, children, and those with compromised immune systems, and can lead to gastrointestinal illnesses, skin rashes, pinkeye and other health problems.

The worst beach contamination offenders: Avalon Beach and all of Cabrillo Beach Station in Los Angeles County; parts of Dohoney State Beach in Orange County; North Point Marina North Beach in Illinois; Beachwood Beach West in New Jersey. Florida's Keaton Beach, and four beaches in Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin, have failed water quality tests more than 25 percent of the time for the past five years in a row. While the Southeast did the best out of all the regions with just 4% of samples exceeding standards, there are still some precautions that should be taken when swimming in the ocean.

Check the NRDC website to see the water contamination at your beach, don't swim near a storm drain, and if the water looks or smells strange do not swim in it, frequently wash your hands, and take a shower after you swim. There also a few things you can do at home to prevent contamination such as fixing old, leaky sewage pipes and adding grass around parking lots to absorb rainwater. Helena Solo-Gabriele, an environmental engineer at the University of Miami in Florida, is hoping for faster testing techniques, the current detection takes twenty-four hours, to assist the public in knowing when waters are safe. She suggests that so long as reasonable precautions are taken, the public’s safety isn’t compromised by swimming at the beach.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Blocking Out the Sun

2011-10-28T05:24:00.000-07:00

Recently mosquito planes have been spraying pesticide over Atlantic
Beach. And while generally this activity is legal, its details are
largely unknown and somewhat hidden from the general public. But why?

Just looking at one area for example, the Mosquito Control Division
(MCD) of the Environmental Resource Management Department responds to
mosquito control issues in Atlantic Beach. The MCD controls adult
mosquitoes by applying ultra-low volume (ULV) sprays containing
malathion, Dibrom, Baytex, or pyrethroids. Sometimes these are
applied as a thermal fog aerially. All pesticides used by MCD are EPA
registered and considered “safe for the environment.” The information
about where the MCD is spraying and where they will spray is available
on their website (http://www.coj.net/Departments/
Environmental-and-Compliance/Mosquito-Control/Where-We-are-Spraying.aspx).
According to the website, Atlantic Beach was treated most recently on
August 17, 2011. But not all cities and counties are as open as
Atlantic Beach, and none are required to be.
Both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
and Florida Statute 388 allow for the spraying of pesticides from
planes. And Florida Statute 388 emphasizes balancing the natural
environment with the potential problems wrought by the insects that
affect the public’s wellbeing or causes annoyance, including all
mosquitoes, midges, sand flies, dog flies, yellow flies, and house
flies. This appears to be a good public policy, weighing the
interests of the environment with those of the citizens, so how is it
accomplished?

Every county in Florida has a committee which deals with these insects
and they retain the power to take whatever action the county requires
in dealing with the public health risks. These control measures apply
to public lands and must be approved by the Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services, and performed by the local control agency
consistent with a public lands control plan. The control measures are
meant to insure that the application of pesticides is made only when
necessary by determining a need, such as a potential for a
mosquito-borne disease outbreak. The committees are supposed to apply
the minimum, economically feasible, option to prevent a public health
or nuisance problem while imposing the least hazard to fish, wildlife,
and other natural resources.

More specifically, Florida Administrative Code Title 5 Chapter
5E-13021 and 13.036 allows aircraft applications of mosquito
adulticide along beaches and bay shores only when there is a
demonstrable three-fold increase over a base population. The only way
to check to see if this rule is followed is to get a hold of the
surveillance and adulticide application records, which must be kept on
file for at least three years. There are also special rules applying
to aircraft control activities conducted over private lands when there
is a possibility of deposition of airborne substances. These rules
require that the control activities be conducted in a manner which
minimizes the deposition of insecticide onto such lands. In addition,
there are timing rules in place including, but not limited to, a rule
stating that the spraying for certain insects shall not occur between
two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset. As mentioned
above, after an aerial operation takes place, records shall be
maintained for a minimum of three years which will include at least
the following: the area treated, the application rate and the material
used, the equipment and technique used, the name of the pilot in
command, the date, time, temperature, and general wind speed and
direction, pretreatment and post-treatment records of mosquito
presence. So it is clear that a citizen may obtain records after the
fact, but what about prior notice? What if one is concerned that
their child may breathe in these chemicals when they’re playing in the
backyard? To get advanced notice, get ready to divulge personal
information.

If a citizen wants notification of these activities, one has to
request to be placed on the notification list. This requires showing:
that a physician has examined the person and determined that the
placement of the person on the registry for prior notification of the
application of a pesticide or class of pesticides is necessary to
protect their health; the distance surrounding the person's primary
residence for which the person requires prior notification of the
application of a pesticide or class of pesticides in order to protect
the person's health; the pesticide or class of pesticides for which
the physician has determined that prior notification to the person is
necessary to protect the person's health; and the license number of
the physician. Such requirements certainly have a chilling effect and
it is worth asking, “Who are these rules meant to protect? The
public, or some other group?”

So while the City of Atlantic Beach appears to be upfront with their
mosquito-spraying, the only way to really tell is to request their
records and check them against their internally generated reports.
And if you live outside of Atlantic Beach, you may need to divulge
information about your health, or your child’s health.

-Sloane Tait and Andrew Miller

The Green(er) Workplace

2011-10-21T08:50:00.001-07:00

Environmentally conscientious behavior can begin in the home, but what about your other home, the office? There are plenty of easy ways in which you can become more environmentally-conscious in the work place. First, you can pack a waste free lunch. This sounds daunting, but really just involves a few simple changes. Start with a reusable carrier, reusable containers, a thermos for drinks, a cloth napkin, and silverware that you can reuse. The key is that none of these items need to be thrown away. It may cost a bit more up front, but since you use these items regularly, you would be surprised how much you can save, and how much less waste you are producing over time. You can also post a sign in the break room to request people to bring in unwanted silverware, plates, mugs, etc. This way other people can use re-usable items at work, and you get to clean out your cabinets.

Another way you can help create a greener workplace is to encourage recycling. If your workplace doesn’t currently recycle, then talk to management and see if it is feasible to put one into place. It will help to remind management that recycling reduces waste disposal costs. If your office already has a recycling program in place, use it. Get an extra trashcan at your desk, and throw away paper separately, so that it will be easier to put it in the bin later. If you separate paper from your other trash you won’t have to root through the trash to separate it later.

You can also encourage management to utilize recycled materials, such as printing paper. Recycled paper can save money, and it’s especially good for inter-office memos and other in-office items that won’t be sent to clients. If you have input on the office supplies that your office purchases, consider green choices such as the Responsible Purchasing Network, the Green Seal of Approval, the Environmental Yellow Pages, the Green Pages Online, and purchasing environmentally-friendly building products. Your office can also utilize environmentally friendly packing material such as Lock n’ Pop. Another suggestion is to buy refurbished computers which are cheaper than new computers, or suggest donating your office’s used computer equipment. Even if every product your office uses isn’t environmentally friendly, small changes can make a big difference.

Reducing energy usage is another great way to help the environment. Energy Star for Small Business will assist you with an energy audit, and tell you ways that you can reduce your consumption. There are also some common sense techniques such as: unplugging things when they aren’t in use, turning off lights when you leave a room, making sure faucets and toilets aren’t leaking.

These are some quick and easy ways to save energy and help the environment at work. For all the resources used in this article go to: http://www.globalstewards.org/work-ecotips.htm, to assist in your efforts for a green workplace.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Eco-Business

2011-10-14T10:49:00.001-07:00

An old proverb says that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. A New Jersey man has made that true for himself in his capitalist venture. Tom Szaky, founder and CEO of TerraCycle, created a company which turns non-recyclable waste into recycled eco-friendly products. They do everything from making juice pouches into school folders and backpacks, and transforming chip bags into couches. He has even incorporated other businesses, such as Old Navy who collects old flip-flops, which TerraCycle then turns into playgrounds.

There are many ways to recycle household items to make them useful. Architecture for Humanity and Rubicon National Social Innovations created a contest encouraging entrants to find alternate uses for mattresses. The winning design was called the Helix, which reused these mattresses as sound absorption devices.

This idea is not new as we have all heard the mantra: reduce, reuse, and recycle, it is just more streamlined and modernized. Today you might find on YouTube a clip from the President of Weisenbach Recycled Products demonstrating how to make jewelry out of bottle caps. Other YouTube videos boast creative recycling options for everything from purses made of gum wrappers to table decorations made from glass bottles or two liter bottles. Recycling decreases the amounts of waste that fill up our land-fills, and these products are creative ways to re-use products for which we have already paid. By re-using what we already have and refurbishing it into something new, there is a satisfaction in gaining a new product, and also an appreciation in saving the environment and your wallet. While we may not all be budding entrepreneurs, these products can change the way that we see trash, and its potential uses in our lives.

See the clips here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/world/americas/terracycle-recycling-waste-szaky/index.html
http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/mattress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hggu5jV5LFc

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Utilizing Brownfields to Revitalize Economies

2011-09-23T12:04:00.000-07:00

The Brownfields Center at the Environmental Law Institute defines a Brownfield as “[a]n industrial or commercial property that remains abandoned or underutilized in part because of environmental contamination or the fear of such contamination.” The Brownfields National Partnership was created in May of 1997, and it brought together approximately fifteen governmental organizations to begin brownfields projects to revitalize communities. One exemplary example is the Brownfield project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This project focused on mothballed properties and allowed for previously un-utilized properties to be restored and assisted the local economy of Milwaukee. Six properties were the primary target of the program, and were able to garner or retain 1,604 jobs and leverage more than $199 million in private investment.

Florida has its own brownfield program called the Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program. This program utilizes economic and regulatory incentives to encourage the use of private revenue to clean up and redevelop sites, which creates new jobs and improves local economies. The Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program has estimated they have created 2,372 new direct jobs, 3,057 new indirect jobs in 2010, and 1,556 new direct jobs, and 1,312 new indirect jobs for 2011. They also boast new capital investments of $76 million dollars from the program. A total of forty-seven sites have been rid of contamination and improved for public use since the program began.

A particular recent brownfield project in Florida has also had great success. In Ft. Myers, a former brownfield cite has been transformed from a coal gasification plant into the “Imaginarium,” which is a campus which includes a children’s museum, theater, outdoor pavilion, lagoon system, and emergency operations center. This center is allowing a previously contaminated site to become a local center for the City and providing an area that is both child-friendly and a great generator of jobs and revenue.

The Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program is an excellent example of how environmentally friendly programs can also revive the economy. These sites, previously subject to excess waste, were unusable land. Being able to rid these lands of contamination and expand jobs improves local economies, allows for efficient use of the land, and improves the communities in which they are located.

-Sloan Tate, Legal Intern

Jacksonville is Unwalkable!

2011-09-15T08:35:00.001-07:00

Jacksonville was just recently named the least walkable city in the United States by Walk Score which is a company that evaluates walkability and transportation in major cities. This is the second year that the City has received this dishonor. Jacksonville earned a score of 32.6 on a scale from zero to 100. Our score was low because many neighborhoods in Jacksonville are completely dependent on cars as their only means of transportation. The silver lining is that downtown, San Marco, and Riverside are the most walkable parts of the City. These areas were moderately walkable for those in the residential areas. However, Walk Score found Eagle Bend near Main Street and Yellow Bluff Road, near Interstate 10 and West Beaver Street and Black Hammock Island near State Road A1A, and the Little Talbot Island State Park, as the least walkable. These neighborhoods were basically un-walkable, and it was almost impossible to get around without a car.

Even though the top five walkable cities in the U.S. were larger cities with more resources than Jacksonville, we can certainly learn from cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Walking is an inexpensive and eco-friendly alternative to driving a car, and Jacksonville should make more strides to become friendlier to walkers. There are a number of benefits overall for those who live in walking-friendly neighborhoods. For example they tend to have residents who are up to eight pounds lighter, residents save on energy, and their neighborhoods tend to be worth more. It makes sense that these neighborhoods have these benefits, it’s easier to stay in shape when it is possible to work out in your own neighborhood. With growing concerns about obesity in families, being able to walk could be a fun, cost-effective way to get from point A to point B.

Jacksonville could increase their score by decreasing the distance between neighborhoods and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, parks, and public transit. The easiest way to do this would be to improve public transit. Public transit can be a cost effective alternative to commuting via car. However, many in Jacksonville feel that it’s hard to travel by bus because it doesn’t reach the areas in which they live. Increasing buses could be overly expensive, in a time when our city lacks funding. Perhaps a more cost effective alternative would be to improve sidewalks and create more walkways to make areas more pedestrian friendly. These changes would require minimal costs but could greatly improve the quality of life for Jacksonville residents. It would decrease the number of cars on our highways, which in turn would decrease traffic. Decreasing traffic decreases pollution, and could lead to an improvement in our air quality. Considering that Jacksonville’s air pollution is among the worst in the Florida, and Duval County was named the most polluted county in Florida, it is important that we begin the discussion about cost effective ways to improve.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Is What's Good for Panthers Bad for People?

2011-09-15T07:33:00.000-07:00

Adult panthers have increased in numbers to now as many as 160 in South Florida. When the restoration project began in the 1970’s there were only 20 adult panthers in Florida. This is great progress for a species that was struggling to survive only a few years ago. The panthers have been seen as far not as the Caloosahatchee River and some have even been seen in Georgia.

However, this promising growth has led to the concern that the population has been encouraged too much. The most significant concerns come from the raisers of livestock that are complaining about increases in losses of the amounts of valuable livestock every year to these predators. The recovery plan by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission calls for 240 adult panthers in Florida. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission wants to work with homeowners as the population of panthers increases to prevent danger to both the human and panther populations, for they believe that it is possible for both to coexist. Many landowners are concerned though that this increase will decrease their profitability as they continue to lose more cattle, goats, and pigs, to panthers.

The solution proposed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is to reimburse these owners of lost livestock from a $25,000 recovery fund. While this seems inadequate to the amount of livestock lost, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission suggests that there has to be a trade off. They also suggest that steps such as building enclosures, installing lighting or electric fencing around enclosures, keeping pets indoors at night or in covered kennels, securing garbage, and fencing in vegetable gardens, can all assist in aiding people and panthers to coexist. Panthers generally do not pose a direct threat to humans because they are creatures that avoid large populations and prefer not to be disturbed. Panthers were however responsible for 12 livestock deaths in 2010, and this year they have been responsible for approximately 14 more. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission also suggests that one reason why panthers may be targeting livestock is that wild hogs and white-tailed deer, which are the preferred foods for panthers, are not as available due to human hunters artificially maintaining their populations.

There is always a tough balance when animal populations that had been depleted begin to grow significantly after being protected. It is important to protect the interests of livestock owners in Florida, but also to protect the panthers who roamed the land first. As populations of endangered animals increase it is important to re-evaluate the feasibility of them being able to thrive in limited space and with limited food supplies.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Competing Interests of Wind Turbines and Wildlife

2011-08-30T07:11:00.001-07:00

Wind turbines are an important method of providing power and generating electricity. It is often thought that this is a one of the more eco-friendly ways to provide power. However, some studies show that wind turbines can greatly affect wildlife such as birds. When balancing these competing interests, are wind turbines really eco-friendly?

According to John Laumer’s article, “Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds,” vehicles in the U.S. kill millions of birds each year, and between 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. Compare that number to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, which revealed that turbines kill 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. These figures would appear to show that wind turbines are far less harmful than both cars and windows to the avian population. But other research argues otherwise.

The article “Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development” by William La Jeunesses suggests that eagles, hawks, and owls often fall prey to wind turbines. He explains that California’s largest wind farms kill more than 80 eagles per year, and this number will increase steadily as the state increases its reliance on wild power. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, another California wind farm, is a state-approved wind farm, and it kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles. These animals are not only majestic, but important to the natural environment of the United States, and balancing these competing interests, even in one of the most eco-forward states, is incredibly difficult. Many complain that as wind farms become larger and more prevalent, it is becoming more and more difficult for these birds to avoid them. On the other hand, the more prevalent these wind farms are the less reliant California is on other sources of power.

The article “Renewable Energy’s Environmental Paradox,” by Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, explains that a new development, the SunZia transmission line that would link sun and wind power from central New Mexico with cities in Arizona, would be a great environmental accomplishment from the perspective of generating solar and wind power for a large area. However, the site that was chosen crosses grasslands, skirts two national wildlife refuges and crosses the Rio Grande, both of these areas have precarious eco-systems and are areas rich in wildlife. The building of this line would specifically affect the Sandhill crane’s winter home. This was poor planning on the part of the builders and planners of this project, and because of its location, it will likely have a greater negative environmental impact then it would have had it been located elsewhere.

Wind energy is one of the strongest alternatives currently available to counteract our reliance on oil. However, the more it is used, the more likely it is to have a larger impact. Wind turbines can be an effective way to decrease our dependence on oil, but if it comes at the cost of wild life, then it may not be worth the expense. More research will have to be done to evaluate whether there are more effective ways of preserving the avian population, and protecting them from their interactions with wind turbines. It is also essential that when these sites are chosen, there is careful evaluation of the location of the site in relation to animal habitats, specifically avian habitats.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

EPA to Issue New Rules Regarding Mercury Pollution

2011-08-03T12:57:00.001-07:00

The EPA Has Proposed New Rules for Mercury and Toxics Emissions

In March of 2011, the EPA proposed a new set of mercury and air toxic
standards. The proposed standards by the EPA would reduce the
emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal- and
oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), an important
development for Jacksonville, FL. A special section of the proposed
standards called the "Toxics Rule" aims to reduce emissions of various
heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, and nickel. The
proposed standards will set numerical emission limits for these toxics
at both existing and new coal-fired EGUs. These toxic pollutants are
believed to be linked to cancer, heart disease, lung disease and
premature death.

Additionally, the new rules will limit emissions of organic air
toxics, including dioxin, by establishing work practices for existing
and new coal and oil-fired power plants. One example is by requiring
an annual performance test program for each EGU. The annual
performance test program will “include inspection, adjustment, and/or
maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion.”

The Benefits of the Proposed Standards

The EPA anticipates that the new standards will prevent 91% of mercury
from entering the air, which will hopefully help reduce the risk of
air pollutants damaging the brains of children, pollutants which are
thought to result in loss of IQ and a diminished ability to learn.
The EPA anticipates that the standards will also protect Americans
from cancer and other health risks that they may have acquired from
exposure to these metals. And of course, the proposed standards are
also expected to protect thousands of lakes, streams, rivers, and
wetlands from mercury and acid rain pollution.

Perhaps unexpectedly, employment rates are also anticipated to benefit
from these new pro-environmental standards. The EPA has predicted
that the new standards will provide employment for tens of thousands
of Americans to build, install, and operate the equipment that will be
used to reduce emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other toxic air
pollutants, a win-win situation for sure.

The Opposition to the Proposed Standards

Some utilities have already implemented the technology that would be
required to meet these proposed standards, but other utilities like
American Electric Power (AEP) have not and they are lobbying Congress
to delay finalizing the proposed rules. Utility companies’ lobbyists
argue that cutting emissions as the proposed standards require will
cause them an economic hardship. And Congressman Ed Whitfield, a
representative from Kentucky, a coal-producing state, said that House
Republicans will introduce legislation in August to postpone the
proposed standards. Whitfield has been on record as saying, "We don't
really have expectations that we can repeal all of this, but if we can
delay the final rule, delay the compliance period and address whether
or not technology is really available, then I think we've accomplished
a lot.” The Public Trust will keep an eye on this proposed
legislation.

When Will we See these New Standards?

Back in June, 2011, due to requests by Congress and in order to
encourage more public comments, the EPA extended the time for the
public to give input by 30 days from its prior deadline of July 5,
2011. Thus the EPA will be accepting comments on the proposed standard
until August 4, 2011. The final standards are scheduled to be
issued in November 2011. This November deadline may be subject to
change if there are continued lobbying efforts and the House
Republicans are able to get legislation passed that will delay the
standards. However, as of now the proposed standards should be
finalized and issued in November 2011. Stay tuned to see who dares to
stand in the way of healthier children, adults, and environment.

-Andrew Miller, Executive Director

City of Jax Beach to "Renurish" Our Beaches

2011-07-08T06:44:00.001-07:00

Another round of beaches “renourishment” will begin in Jacksonville Beach today, Friday July 8, 2011. The last beach “renourishment” project was in 2005. Beach “renourishment” is the process by which sand that has been eroded from the shoreline is being replaced with sand from another source of sand. The Beaches’ shoreline has been eroded due to jetties and dredging of the St. Johns River. The beaches “renourishment” project is expected to replace about 735,000 cubic yards of sand. Sand will be pumped from the bottom of the ocean about eight miles off shore and then the sand will be distributed on the shore. The entire project will cost about 11 million and it is being funded with federal funds (62%), state funds (18%), and Jacksonville City funds (20%).

Work will begin in Jacksonville Beach near 36th Avenue South and it will move north to about one block south of Florida Avenue. Then work will move north towards Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach from Lemon Street to just south of 19th Street in Atlantic Beach. The entire project is expected to last for at least 50 days, including about a month in Jacksonville Beach and about three weeks through Atlantic Beach. Work will be done 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Portions of the beach where work will be conducted will be temporarily closed. However, areas outside of the work will remain open.

Beachgoers may notice that the sand will be a different color than the sand that was there before the project began. However, according to the City of Jacksonville Beach the replacement sand met criteria set by the state of Florida for Duval County beaches including proper “grain size distribution, shell content, and color.” Also, according to the City of Jacksonville Beach, within a few days or weeks the sun will bleach the sand and the sand will turn into a color that is similar to the color of the sand before it was replaced. The City of Jacksonville Beach has concluded that this beach “renourishment” project will “protect us from future tropical storms, hurricanes, and nor'easters” and that the project is important to preserve the beach, recreation, environmental habitat, and property along the shore.

Although there are alleged benefits to beach “renourishment” there are also some consequences that may occur due to beach “renourishment.” Since the replacement sand will be pumped from the bottom of the ocean it can be expected that the pumping will negatively affect organisms and habitats that are in the area where the sand is being pumped. Also the placement of the pumped sand on the shore may negatively affect organisms and habitats where the replacement sand is being distributed. Therefore while it is important to deal with beach erosion, the process of beach “renourishment” may not be the best option. The negative consequences of beach “renourishment” should be taken into consideration and weighed against the benefits that the beach “renourishment” is expected to bring. However, it seems like beach “renourishment” is the only option being exercised and considered by the government, perhaps citizens should examine other ways that the government can best deal with beach erosion.

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Protecting the Atmosphere for Future Generations through Atmospheric Trust Litigation

2011-07-08T06:43:00.001-07:00

Mary C. Wood, an environmental law professor at the University of Oregon argues that the atmosphere is a natural resource that should be protected in trust by the government, making the government trustee of the atmosphere and obligating the government to reduce carbon emissions to protect the atmosphere and combat climate change. This theory is based on the public trust doctrine which is a legal principle that requires the government to protect natural resources that belong to the people, for present and future generations. Under this theory every level of government from federal to state to local governments could be held accountable for protecting the atmosphere as a public trust.

Wood argues that “atmospheric trust litigation” is a way for citizens to bring lawsuits against their governments in order to force governments to meet their obligations to protect the atmosphere. So how does atmospheric trust litigation work? First courts must declare that the atmosphere is in the public trust. Then courts could make a judgment that sets the trust obligations that governments have to comply with. Courts could also order an accounting against governments, which requires governments to measure their carbon footprint and then show courts that they are reducing carbon emissions based on scientific findings. Through this accounting, citizens would be able to see if their governments are really reducing carbon emissions. In addition, if courts find that government officials are not meeting their obligations courts could hold officials in contempt of court or make rulings prohibiting activities that contribute to carbon emissions. In May, 2011, Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit organization based in Oregon filed suit in all 50 states on behalf of children, alleging that government entities violated the public trust doctrine because they failed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Our Children’s Trust asked courts to find that states have a duty to future generations to protect the atmosphere in trust immediately.

The public trust doctrine has usually been used to protect public access to navigable waterways and beaches. Therefore, getting courts to agree to declare the atmosphere within the public trust may be very difficult because this would require courts to accept an untraditional legal argument. Atmospheric trust litigations are currently being litigated, so the public will have to wait and see whether or not courts will find that the atmosphere should be protected in trust. Perhaps if one court agrees that the atmosphere should be protected in trust then other courts will follow suit, but so far no court has made a decision finding the atmosphere to be a resource held in trust by the people. Our Children’s Trust has upcoming hearings in several states with regard to their requests for courts to declare the atmosphere a public trust. The dates and times of those hearings can be found at http://ourchildrenstrust.org/legal-action.

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Selling and Developing Government Land

2011-07-08T06:42:00.002-07:00

Last year the Jamaican government announced that it was going to sell 3,000 acres of property in Font Hill. The property is proposed to be used for the development of a large resort hotel. The land has many environmental features from beaches to agricultural lands to a mangrove forest. The land is also the habitat for wildlife ranging from the American alligator to the West Indian Whistling Duck to migratory birds. This sale has been strongly opposed by environmental lobbyists in Jamaica. These lobbyists are concerned about what will happen to the wildlife that are on the property and the destruction of natural resources. The government officials that support the development of Font Hill believe that the development will create jobs and help the economy. Lobbyists argue that the development may help the economy, but at what risk to an area of biodiversity?

Also in Jamaica, the Urban Development Corporation, a government agency, proposed to develop Winnifred Beach and deny the public access to the beach. The Corporation proposed to put cottages and villas on the beach. The public has opposed the development of the beach arguing that it will degrade the environment of the beach by negatively impacting species habitats and negatively impacting the coral reefs. The public has also argued that the beach has been used by the public for years and therefore the beach should remain open for public access.

Meanwhile, according to Dennis Kravitz, an AP business writer, in the United States in May, 2011, the Obama administration asked Congress to sell off 12,000 government owned properties claiming that they were under underutilized or were no longer needed. The Obama Administration says that taking the properties out of the government’s hands would save the government about $15 billion over a three year period. The United States government owns about 1 million pieces of property and pays about $20 billion a year to operate and maintain the properties. These talks to sell government owned properties came at a time when the government was trying to cut the deficit. The government proposed that the money that would be saved by selling the properties would be used 60% to pay the deficit and 40% to cover the costs to run government facilities. Selling these properties may allow for private entities to purchase and develop the properties causing environmental harms. There are environmental regulations that new developments may be subject to but should the government sell lands that have the potential for development causing environmental harms or does the economic benefit that the government will receive outweigh the potential environmental harms?

Should governments allow government owned lands to be privatized? It seems like every time the sale of government land or privatization of land has come up it almost always is proposed for an economic benefit. In Jamaica government owned property is being sold to develop a hotel to create jobs and a beach is being privatized to bring tourists to stay at cottages and villas on the beach. While in the United States, government land is being proposed to be sold to help pay off the government’s debt. While government economic interests are important I can’t help but wonder how privatization of these lands will impact the environment. Are these governments really taking into consideration the economic environmental benefits that these lands provide now?

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Should the U.S. take action to protect Bluefin Tuna, Or should it be an International Effort?

2011-07-08T06:42:00.000-07:00

The population of bluefin tuna has declined over the years due to overfishing and more recently the western Atlantic bluefin tuna population will be affected by the Gulf Oil spill. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition in May 2010 for protection of bluefin tuna as an endangered species, but in May 2011 the Obama Administration declined to give bluefin tuna endangered species protection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that they would place the species on a watch list as they wait to see how the species is managed through international agreements and initiatives. Larry Robinson, NOAA’s assistant secretary stated that bluefin tuna did not need endangered species protection because the species was “not likely to become extinct.”

Other environmental organizations believe that bluefin tuna should be protected through an international effort instead of the U.S. unilaterally listing the species as an endangered species. However an international attempt last year to protect bluefin tuna at the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species was blocked. Also, according to Lee Crockett, the director of federal fisheries policy for the Pew Environment Group it has been suggested that international protection of the species has not been effective because fishermen still illegally catch more than the legal quota.

It is understandable that the Center for Biological Diversity would want the bluefin tuna to be given endangered species protection, but it seems as if not given the species endangered species protection was not an error because based on the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §1531, in determining whether a species is endangered the Secretary of Interior or Commerce shall give consideration to species that are in “danger of extinction.” Therefore, since bluefin tuna was not in danger of extinction at the time that the Center for Biological Diversity filed its petition, listing the bluefin tuna as an endangered species was not required. Therefore, if environmental organizations seek to protect the bluefin tuna they should either keep monitoring the species to see if it becomes in danger of extinction or push the U.S. government to join in any international agreement that seeks to protect the bluefin tuna. It is difficult in international agreements to get all of the countries to strictly enforce the agreement but just because an international agreement is not as strong or effective as environmental organizations would like them to be does not mean that the U.S. government has to take over regulation in an area that they have found does not need its unilateral protection or that is not required by its laws. However, it can become frustrating if all attempts to protect a species is merely for show on paper and no real protection is being done. Perhaps in a few years the issue of bluefin tuna receiving endangered species protection will be revisited.

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Vote for the Timucua National Park!!!

2011-06-29T12:34:00.000-07:00

America Is Your Park Launches Today, Vote At LivePositively.com For the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park To Win $100,000!

Washington D.C. (June 29, 2011) – If you’re reading this, you should get to
your the Timucuan Ecological and Historical Park – STAT! The National Park Foundation, in partnership with Coca-Cola, America’s State Parks and the National Recreation and Park Association, launched today the second annual America Is Your Park campaign and is encouraging all Americans to get outdoors and embrace a healthy
lifestyle, while also embracing the importance of keeping our parks
protected and preserved.

Families are also invited to vote for their favorite park to win the title
of “America’s Favorite Park” and a $100,000 recreation grant made possible
by the Coca-Cola Live Positively initiative.

“Last year, millions of Americans showed their passion for their favorite
parks by voting, so this year we’ve raised the stakes – more parks can win
and there are more ways to vote,” said L. Celeste Bottorff, Vice President,
Living Well, Coca-Cola North America. “We’re asking people to be ‘digital’
by voting online for their favorite park and then get ‘physical’ by getting
out and having fun with us this summer.”

Throughout the summer, people can help their favorite national, state or
local park win big with just a click of a button and there is no limit on
the amount of times one can vote. There are four different ways people can
vote:
1. Click on their favorite park at LivePositvely.com and vote
2. Upload photos of themselves in their favorite park to LivePositvely.com
3. Starting August 10, they can upload video of themselves in their
favorite park to LivePositvely.com
4. Starting July 11, people also can vote by checking into a park using
Facebook Places

The three parks that receive the most votes by September 6, 2011 will be
awarded grants in the following amounts: First Place - $100,000; Second
Place - $50,000; and, Third Place - $25,000. These grants will help
restore, rebuild or enhance recreation areas in parks where people can play
and be active.

The campaign encourages people to attend active healthy living events at
local parks in select cities this summer. Additionally, people can watch,
download and share fitness-in-the-park videos from LivePositively.com
featuring fitness icon Jake Steinfeld, founder of “Body By Jake.”

“Our national parks are home to our country’s treasures -- from our iconic
landscapes to the hallowed places where history happened,” said Neil
Mulholland, President and CEO, National Park Foundation. “Thanks to
dedicated partners like Coca-Cola and the America Is Your Park campaign,
our nation’s parks can continue to receive the vital support they need.”

Last year, thanks to more than 1.6 million votes cast by its supporters,
Bear Head Lake State Park in Ely, Minnesota was named “America’s Favorite
Park.” The park is using the grant to build a new warming hut to ensure
safety and comfort for winter sports enthusiasts all season long.

For more than 40 years, Coca-Cola has supported America’s parks through
partnerships with individual parks and national park organizations. The
Company has donated more than $14 million for restoration and renovation of
our country’s parks, including the restoration of more than 260 miles of
“Active Trails” for families to hike and explore, and development of the
first sustainable recycling program at The National Mall, a national park
in the heart of Washington, D.C. Most recently, Coca-Cola donated $1
million to The Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation’s Peopling of
America® Center, which helps to oversee the historic restoration of the
national park.

About The National Park Foundation
You are the owner of 84 million acres of the world’s most treasured
landscapes, ecosystems, and historic sites -- all protected in America’s
nearly 400 national parks. Chartered by Congress, the National Park
Foundation is the official charity of America’s national parks. We work
hand in hand with the National Park Service to connect you and all
Americans to the parks, and to make sure that they are preserved for the
generations who will follow.

Join us – This is Your Land. www.nationalparks.org
FACEBOOK http://www.facebook.com/nationalpark
TWITTER http://twitter.com/goparks

Earn Discounts and Deals Just by Recycling

2011-06-10T13:49:00.000-07:00

Recyclebank is a company that gives points and rewards to people who recycle and engage in green activities. Members can use the points that they have earned to claim rewards from places like Bloomingdales and Macy’s or get deals or discounts on products like Dove, Aveeno, and Kashi. These are only a few of the rewards; Recyclebank has over 100 rewards to choose from. If you want to get involved go to http://www.recyclebank.com/ and register now. You can begin to earn points by learning about different recycling activities and taking quizzes or by referring friends to Recyclebank on Facebook or Twitter.

There are many other ways to earn points on Recyclebank after registering. First, members can recycle their electronic devices at recyclebank.flipswap.com. Second, members can apply for a Gconomy Visa Card. Members can earn points by shopping with the card at participating Recyclebank Reward Partners (any company that offers rewards on Recyclebank is a partner) or anywhere Visa cards are accepted. Third, members can participate in conservation challenges on “The Future Friendly Neighbors” Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/futurefriendly. Fourth, members can earn points by recycling Kashi boxes and Ziploc bags. There will be a points code on the products that members can enter on recyclebank.com to earn points. Fifth, members can earn points monthly by making a pledge on Aveeno’s Facebook page at https://www.face book.com/aveeno?sk=app_192486454119700. Sixth, members can earn points by recycling at home. Only some communities and waste haulers participate in Recyclebank’s Home Recycling program. Members will have to provide Recyclebank with their address, and Recyclebank will determine if the member is eligible for home recycling. The items that members can recycle at home are dependent on what each City accepts for recycling, so members should contact their local government to see what their City accepts. If members are in an area where there are no participating communities or waste haulers, then Recyclebank suggests that members send their local government or waste haulers a letter informing them about Recyclebank.

Recyclebank is a great resource because Recyclebank gives points for some of the recycling activities people already engage in. All you have to do now if you already recycle or are interested in green activities is go to recyclebank.com, find what you are interested in and earn as many points as you like. This program is great even for those people who are just beginning to recycle because Recyclebank gives easy step by step instructions and tips for proper recycling. Now people can not only help save the environment but they can be rewarded for their actions. The more people join programs like Recyclebank the more it will get other people interested in recycling and in turn this will help save the environment.

-Antionette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Can Floridians and Their Children Breathe Easy This Summer?

2011-05-24T14:32:00.001-07:00

Florida has many power plants; and according to an Environment Florida report, Dirty Energy’s Assault on Our Health: Ozone Pollution, those power plants are estimated to emit more smog-forming pollution than 45 other U.S. states. Now that the summer has arrived, smog is going to become even more of a problem because sunlight and hot weather cause smog to concentrate. Florida’s children who live in high smog areas and are exposed to the smog are going to be greatly affected by the high levels of smog concentration as they participate in summer activities outdoors. High levels of smog may even cause children to develop a diminished lung capacity. Smog can also affect children even when they are in the womb, by affecting their birth weight and by negatively affecting their growth. Adults are not immune from the health effects that exposure to smog pollution may cause either. This pollution can cause damage to lung tissue and the ability to breathe normally can be diminished.

What is our government doing about this problem? In July 2011 the U.S. EPA is geared up to finalize standards that will reduce emissions that cause the formation of smog. These rules will still allow smog to remain in the air but they are supposed to reduce the allowable level of emissions that create smog so that the air can be safe to breathe. Although the U.S. EPA is set to develop stricter standards they are being opposed by Congress and lobbyists that have threatened to block the rules. Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Congressman Ted Deutch support the stricter rules. Some in Congress feel that the stricter standards are not necessary because there are already smog standards in place from 2008, so they ask “why increase the standards and put pressure on the power plant industry?” They also ask, “if the standards in 2008 were supposed to protect the air that we breathe, then why does EPA need to set stricter standards?”

It can be assumed that the 2008 smog standards were enough to protect the public health but the fact that the U.S. EPA finds it necessary to finalize stricter standards makes me think that those standards are not enough to protect the health of Floridians and their children. Shouldn’t Floridians be able to breathe safely especially in the summer months when people want to enjoy the outdoors? I would say so, and the EPA is set to go ahead and set the stricter standards.

-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Clean Water Jobs Act, the Right Solution?

2011-05-24T14:26:00.000-07:00

Can the State of Washington clean its waterways and create jobs? In Washington, toxic runoff from roads and urban areas is the number one cause of water pollution. The major toxic substance affecting the state’s waterways is petroleum. A proposed bill, The Clean Water Jobs Act (Bill SB 5604 / HB 1735), seeks to clean up the water through the funding of local projects. The idea behind the act is to make polluters pay to clean up the pollution that they have caused. The act allows for a 1 percent fee on the first possession of petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers which contribute to storm water pollution. After fees are collected local governments will have to compete through a grant process to receive a portion of the money that has been collected by the State. It is estimated that the act will raise about $100 million annually.

This bill is designed to strengthen the State of Washington’s economy and create jobs while protecting the State’s waterways. This is a noble course of action by the State of Washington to make polluters pay for the damage they have caused to the environment. While it does seem fair that polluters will have to pay for their actions, the question remains, “how is the State going to distribute this money?”
Though it appears that the local governments will receive a substantial amount of the funds, preference is given to cities and counties that are using low-impact development (LID) like rain gardens and porous pavements, and cities and counties are required to show that they have met a match requirement by showing that they can “provide fifty percent of project or activity costs in matching funds from other nonstate fund sources.” SB 5604, Sec. 4. (2) (iv)(A).

If the act places an emphasis on using the funds for LIDs, then it seems that the job creation from this act will be temporary because all that the workers will be needed for is the construction phase, and then some of the jobs will no longer be needed leaving jobs only for those workers needed for maintenance of the new infrastructure.

Despite the fact that every bill has points that some people like or dislike, Washington believes that this is the best solution to clean up their waterways. If the Clean Water Jobs Act is such a great solution, then why hasn’t the federal government tried to create a similar bill? Well, maybe this type of scheme is best fit on a small scale, or maybe Washington will be a test state and then other states may follow and create similar acts. Nonetheless, this bill has been heavily lobbied against, so it is likely that even if the federal government wanted to try this, lobbyists would make it pretty difficult for it to pass through the U.S. Congress. Well time will tell whether this method that Washington has proposed will pass and if it is passed, whether or not it will work and achieve the goals the legislature has in mind.

-Antoinette Vanterpool, Legal Intern

Cruisin' on a Sunday Afternoon

2011-05-24T14:19:00.000-07:00

As I sat on the deck of a luxury ocean liner not so long ago, I stared out at a pristine horizon where the sky blended into the sea without notice. The smell of saltwater filled the air, with the soft sound of calypso music serenading me as I drifted off to sleep. The peacefulness of this moment is in sharp contrast to what was actually happening below deck, in the hidden confines of this travelling polluter, as well as that which happens once the ship reaches port.

Since its ambitious beginnings in the 1960s, the cruising industry has quickly transformed from an exclusive lifestyle amenity of the rich and famous to a popular vacation alternative for society in general. In fact, the cruise industry is one of the most rapidly growing and highly visible segments of the tourism sector, with the number of cruise ship passengers growing almost twice as fast as any other international tourist representation in the last decade.

In Florida, as surprising as it may seem, there are no state laws to regulate the dumping of cruise ship pollutants into our waters. Instead, the practices of the cruise industry are governed in Florida by voluntary agreements between the State, the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) and the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL). These Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s), as they are known, delineate that member cruise lines agree to discharge wastewater beyond Florida territorial waters (outside 3 miles) and stipulate that cruise ships will not discharge ballast water while in port. However, beyond three miles, dumping may legally be commenced to the detriment of our marine ecosystem.

For many years now, the cruise industry has been successful in veiling its environmental offenses through comforting, glossy pamphlets filled with visions of crystal clear oceans and sleek, appealing ocean liners that hygienically float amidst the horizon. An examination of travel agency brochures, cruise industry websites and television vacation advertisements suggests that the industry is environmentally responsible and that it has always been as such. Furthermore, press releases and promises by the International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL), the official trade organization of the cruise industry, support and persist in this deceptive public relations campaign. Unfortunately, reality is quite different. Most recently, the public attention that has been focused on the environmental impacts of the entire maritime industry has shifted to a particular interest in the cruise industry. This is due in large part because of the cruise industry=s preemptive attack to promote a positive image, but also as a result of the high visibility of these colossal ships and their blatant disregard for the environment on which they rely for business.

While the cruising industry represents a relatively small fraction of the entire maritime industry worldwide, as of January 2008, passenger ships accounted for approximately 12% of the world shipping fleet. It is notable that the environmental effects of the cruise industry is a major issue to many, but the industry is also a major contributor to the U.S. economy as it generates more than $32 billion in total annual benefits and creates more than 330,000 U.S. jobs. Furthermore, cruises are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, as ports of call in the United States handled 8.6 million cruise embarkations in 2008, accounting for 75% of worldwide passengers and 6.3% more than in 2009. However, the line between economic and environmental sustenance is a fine one.

To the cruise industry, a leading priority is demonstrating to the public that their ships are safe and healthy for passengers and the communities at which they harbor. Ironically, these cruise ships have also been dubbed Afloating cities,@ based on the comparison of the volume of wastes produced and disposed to that of many small cities on dry land. As a matter of fact, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that a single passenger aboard a cruise liner will generate approximately 100 gallons of wastewater per day, to include 10 gallons of sewage. More specifically, a Amega-ship@ with 5,000 passengers and crew will produce nearly 500,000 gallons of wastewater and 50,000 gallons of sewage every day of the year. Even further, during a typical week long voyage, a cruise ship carrying 3,000 passengers and crew is estimated to generate 210,000 gallons of sewage; 1 million gallons of graywater (wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundries); more than 130 gallons of hazardous wastes; 8 tons of solid waste; and 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water. If this abundance of waste is not properly treated and disposed of, the effects on human health and the environment could be irreversible. Regrettably, existing laws are inadequate to address these wastes and enforcement of such laws is virtually non-existent. This hardly seems to support the vision of healthy people and vibrant coastal communities that the cruise industry so publicly supports, with their actions and government studies showing otherwise.

A significant step towards acknowledgement of this growing problem took place in 2000, when an alliance of 53 environmental advocacy groups appealed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address cruise ship discharges through regulatory action. The petition requested an investigation into wastewater, oil, and solid waste that was being emitted from cruise ships. In response, the EPA released a long-overdue assessment of discharges from cruise ships in December 2008. This report contained a 162-page summary of recent data collection activities. It examines the five prominent cruise ship waste streams (sewage, graywater, oily bilge water, solid waste, and hazardous waste) and discusses the nature and volume of the waste stream discharge, applicable federal regulations, environmental management (including treatment), potential adverse environmental impacts, and actions by the federal government to address the discharges, while incorporating a range of options and alternatives to regulate cruise industry waste streams.

With this, a new debate has begun to emerge in the United States, concentrating on the need for strict adjustments to the current legal and regulatory structure governing waste disposal practices of the cruise line industry. Until the recent attention given to the industry by the EPA, the environmental impacts of the growing cruise industry had gone unchecked, with proposed legislation failing to look beyond taxation and labor issues. Concerned citizens, environmental groups, federal agencies and legislators have begun to recognize the depth and scope of pollution from the cruise line industry and how much harm is being done to our environment. However, it may be a matter of Atoo little, too late, with regulations still lacking focus and consequences to deter the cruise industry.

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

What's that Smell?....

2011-05-24T14:17:00.001-07:00

As you drive down Interstate 95 through Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas, the smell of paper pulp mills often fills the air. While this brings back nostalgia of trips up and down the eastern seaboard as a child, the adult in me now wonders the current state of regulation against such industries.

I found the most recent answer to begin in April 2010, when the EPA proposed new rules in an attempt to reduce air pollutants such as mercury and dioxin that are emitted from paper pulp mills, refineries and chemical and manufacturing plants. Under the proposed EPA regulations, existing industrial boilers that fail to bring their facilities up to “Maximum Achievable Control Technology” would have to be upgraded or even replaced. This drew immediate concern from industry groups, who flooded the new regulations with over 4,800 comments, objecting to the cost burden imposed upon them and claiming that is was unreasonable. The industry groups vehemently urged the EPA to delay the air emissions regulations for industrial boilers so that they could further analyze the cost burden and impact on the economy that may result from these new restrictions.

In the wake of this opposition, the EPA responded by reconsidering the standards proposed in the initial regulations. At the time, the American Chemistry Council President, Cal Dooley, stated that, “[the] EPA is reconsidering major portions of these rules, and businesses should not be asked to comply until final requirements are clear, otherwise, businesses would be forced to unecessarily spend millions, if not billions, to comply with rules that may change.” Thus, industry was spared for the moment, and seemed to have one of the largest agencies in the land in their pocket.

On February 21, 2011, the EPA responded by presenting revisions that would cost the industries 50% less to implement, while also estimating that for every dollar spent to cut these pollutants, the public will see $10 to $24 in health benefits. It seemed like a win-win situation, with little room for complaining on behalf of industry. Recently, however, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers began spearheading a campaign with industry groups to request that the EPA once again suspend the new rules limiting emissions from boilers for the same reasons. Now, I ask, who was being unreasonable? I suppose industry would simply prefer the EPA to turn the other cheek and ignore their activities.

The industry seems optimistic that they can further influence the EPA to continue to alter its position. “We expect there will be significantly different final rules,” stated Alicia Meads, director of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. “It’s very counterproductive for these facilities to be installing new pollution control devices that they may not have to,” according to Meads. Delay is the friend of industry.

Overall, these regulations are aimed at cutting toxic air emissions such as mercury and soot. Additionally, the EPA has projected that the rules will create 2,200 jobs in excluding, making or installing new pollution controls. Finally, the reduced emissions will prevent 2,600 to 6,600 premature deaths, according to the agency. There doesn’t seem much to complain about within the contents.

Unfortunately, I suppose industry wants to see if it can get more of a financial break, allowing more premature deaths while saving a few bucks.

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

Make Money, by Buying a Tree and Planting it.....

2011-05-24T14:16:00.001-07:00

April 29, 2011, was Arbor Day, so thank a tree and plant one.

You’re breathing oxygen, right? Well, trees produce oxygen. They are your friend. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1 acre of trees produces 4 tons of oxygen annually. That's enough oxygen to keep 18 people alive for one full year. If breathing wasn’t enough for you, how about the fact that buying and planting a tree will save you money!

For instance, "[p]lanting trees on the west and east sides of your house can reduce air-conditioning costs by as much as 20%," asserts Lorna Vogt, manager of One Million Trees for One Million People, a Salt Lake County, Utah, agency who is endeavoring to plant 1 million trees in 10 years. Additionally, in cooler climates, evergreens can create windbreaks, which can cut heating bills by as much as 30%, claims Vogt.

Now hold on. I know you are excited to get keep breathing and start saving cash, but it is important to remember that “proper tree care starts when you select a tree and that what you do to your tree in its first few years of life will affect its shape, strength, and even its life span.” At the suggestion of the Arbor Day Foundation (www.arborday.org), a nonprofit conservation and education organization, you should follow a few simple steps to ensure your tree gets off on the right foot and keep it healthy throughout its life. Follow the links for more information...

1. Find a Tree
2. Selecting a Healthy Tree
3. Tree Planting
4. The Importance of Mulch
5. Tree Watering
6. When to Prune
7. Keys to Good Tree Pruning
8. Annual Tree Pruning Steps from Planting to Maturity
9. How to Identify Pest and Disease Problems

So, run out to your local nursery and transplant a sapling today. The life you save may just be your own!!

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

States, Power Plants and EPA – Oh My!

2011-05-24T14:15:00.002-07:00

The hotly contested global warming case before the Supreme Court this week puts States and environmental groups up against industry. In American Electric Co. v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court must decided if the States can use public nuisance laws in order for a district court to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from the top 5 greenhouse gas producing power plants in the United States. The power plants argued the complexities involved in setting such limits pointed to why the EPA should be responsible for setting emissions and not the court.

Are you asking yourself, “Then where is the EPA in all of this?” Well, in 2007 the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549. U.S. 497, ruled the EPA had the authority
under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. At this time, the EPA has not set limits on carbon dioxide emissions from stationary sources like the power plants. The EPA, however, has begun the initial process of formulating regulations and enacting a rule, though the process takes a long time to complete. The EPA is not expected to issue power plant emission limits anytime before 2012. If the EPA did set emission limits for stationary sources such as the power plants it would displace the federal common public nuisance law and make the States’ case moot. This would mean the States would not be able to bring the claim under the federal common law.

In considering the EPA’s involvement, Justice Ginsburg was skeptical on whether the Court should ignore the EPA’s “first steps” towards regulations and have the judiciary set what might be conflicting limits. The States’ attorney, Barbara Underwood, responded to Justice Ginsburg’s inquiry that the Supreme Court should not conclude “promises” of federal regulations on carbon emissions in fact displace the federal common law. The Justices determined they would look at if the EPA regulations were imminent.

Despite the Justices conclusion, Underwood’s response may not be unwarranted. Underwood said there were a number of things that could delay and setback the EPA from fulfilling the promised regulation. One possible delay to the “promises” of federal regulation could be a shift in political power in Congress or the White House. In fact, at the beginning of April Senate Democrats barely defeated a Republican-backed bill that would prevent the EPA from “taking any action on climate change.”

Since the 2007 EPA case, which had a 5-4 ruling, two new justices have joined the Court. One of the new justices, Sonia Sotomayor, has recused herself because she served on the Second Circuit when it heard the case in 2009.
Speaking on the global warming case now before the Supreme Court, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said the coalition of states and land trusts “took this action because we cannot stand idly by while carbon dioxide continues to be emitted without any controls.” Soon Mr. Jepsen, along with the rest of the country, will know where the Supreme Court stands.

-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern

Supreme Court Hears Global Warming Case – American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut.

2011-05-24T14:15:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court heard the first set of oral arguments this past Tuesday in the controversial global warming case involving a coalition of states, New York City, and three environmental land trusts (States) against 5 coal-burning power plants. This is the Supreme Court’s only environmental case this term. The central issue in the case is whether the plaintiffs can use public nuisance laws to force the power plants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions. The power plants emit 650 million tons of greenhouse gases per year making them the top emitters in the country and a significant contributor to global warming. The States argued they should be able to use the federal common public nuisance law to seek the reductions and protect their citizens and lands from injuries caused as a result of global warming. The States’ alleged injuries include heat related deaths, increased smog, sea level rise, and destruction of wildlife habitat. The power companies argued the States could not directly trace their injuries to the power plants and further that the States’ desired remedy would not curb the global climate change problem.

The States want the power plants to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3% for the next ten years. New York Solicitor General and Supreme Court advocate veteran, Barbara Underwood, argued on behalf of the States that the reductions were feasible and would not pass increased electricity costs onto consumers, which the power plants disputed. During her oral argument on the feasibility of reductions, Underwood paused after saying. “That may seem …” and Justice Scalia interjected with, “Implausible is the word you are looking for.”

Indeed the States are up against a skeptical Supreme Court. The justices questioned whether the case would open a floodgate to subsequent litigation against other energy producers. The justices also seemed to doubt whether a district court judge, without expertise or necessarily the resources to set emission standards for the plants, would be acting as a “Super-EPA” in formulating a decision. As part of deciding the case, a district court judge would have to balance the competing interests of impacts on jobs and energy costs against the benefits of public health and reduced environmental damage.

Initially, the States brought the public nuisance case in district court where it was dismissed. The district court ruled the States lacked standing because the case involved policy questions that the court determined were best decided by the executive and legislative branches of government and not the judiciary. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009 overturned the district court’s decision and held the plaintiffs did have standing because public nuisance cases, as part of well-settled torts law, do not involve political questions.

Interestingly, Obama Administration Solicitor General, Neal Katyal has joined the side of the power companies because the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority is named in the dispute. Katyal’s presence has disappointed environmental advocates particularly because the Supreme Court traditionally gives deference to the Solicitor General’s view. The deference given to the Solicitor General’s position has made some believe the Supreme Court will reverse the Second Circuit’s decision and rule against the States.

As of now, it is unclear which way the Supreme Court will decide. What is clear is that this will be a landmark case both for the States and the power companies.

-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern

The Future of Florida's Growth (Mis)Managment?

2011-05-11T07:18:00.000-07:00

For those interested in Florida's growth management, and considering our current trends we all should be, you need to keep an eye on House Bill 7207.

The following is from our friends at 1000 Friends of Florida, please visit their webpage for even more information.

Some of the most damaging provisions of HB 7207:

HB 7207 significantly speeds up the review process for local comprehensive plans. While growth management advocates supported the concept as described in SB 1122, that bill included a trade-off that gave citizens a reasonable chance to succeed in legal challenges. This standard did not survive in HB 7207, which also removes the ability of the new Division of Community Development (“DCD”) to intervene in these challenges, even when key state resources are at stake.

By eliminating Rule 9J-5, HB 7207 removes a quarter century of legal decisions supporting the rights of communities to address sprawl, urban service boundaries, and other key planning issues. The elimination of Rule 9J-5 also eradicates numerous rulings upholding the rights of citizens to participate meaningfully in their local planning process.

The new legislation also makes it more difficult for citizens to keep up with changes to their local plans. Under previous law, plan amendments were limited to twice a year. Now the local plans can be amended at any time, the new DCD is not required to comment on the amendments, and the amendments go into effect 31 days later unless challenged.

HB 7207 significantly reduces the home rule ability of local governments. It removes their right to require referenda and/or a supermajority vote on key planning issues.

In a state where one in five homes is vacant, HB 7207 removes requirements that developers show the need for new development or that the new development is financially feasible. In an era of rising gas prices, it removes requirements that new development be energy efficient.

HB 7207 also makes it easier for large-scale development to be approved without careful scrutiny. The new process allows for but does not require DCD review or comments for Sector Plans, Rural Land Stewardship Areas, Areas of Critical State Concern, EAR-based amendments, or plans for new communities. If DCA does choose to review these plans, it has only 45 days to comment, no matter the size of the development or community in question.

The legislation also makes substantive changes to a number of these programs. For example, it gives a four-year extension for DRIs, and exempts mining, industrial, hotel/motel and movie theater categories. It also no longer requires DCA approval to establish a Rural Land Stewardship Area.

Some recent media coverage on this issue:

-Time.com -- Florida Loses Its Mind. Again, May 9, 2011
-St. Augustine Record -- Growth bill set to become law, May 8, 2011
-South Florida Sun-Sentinel -- New growth rules could have big impact in South Florida, May 8, 2011.
-Florida Tribune -- Florida's growth management laws overhauled, May 6, 2011
-Miami Herald -- Passage of growth management bill angers environmentalists, May 6, 2011Sarasota Herald-Tribune -- Growth rules rollback goes to Scott, May 6, 2011

-Andrew Miller, Executive Director

Rain Rain...Don't Go Away

2011-04-15T10:13:00.001-07:00

Living in Florida, it is hard to believe that we are under a water shortage, as it seems that everywhere you look there is a waterway of some sort. However, in order to supply water to more than 90 percent of its booming population, as well as keep its golf courses and residential lawns green, Florida relies on groundwater that is extracted from permeable aquifers underground. Unfortunately the harsh reality is that "Florida's groundwater has been over allocated — not just in South Florida, but all over the state," asserts Cynthia Barnett, author of Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern United States. "In addition, we just haven't taken conservation as seriously as other parts of the country," says Barnett, with Floridians pumping groundwater out of our aquifers faster than the state's ample rainfall can refill them. Ultimately, while solutions to quenching the water needs of an increasing human population in Florida are quite difficult, there are simple solutions to meeting the needs of our own front yards, golf courses and the like, which can make a difference. One of these is the rain barrel.

Rain barrels, sometimes referred to as cisterns, are on-site rainwater collection systems by which rainwater can be collected as a valuable resource to irrigate lawns and landscaped areas, while also reducing storm water management costs by easing stress on the public water system and local water supplies. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, for every inch of rain received, about 600 gallons of water can drain from every 1,000-square-foot roof area and into the environment.

In considering irrigation advantages, rainwater is thought to improve the health of your landscaping, lawn and trees, since rainwater is naturally “soft” and devoid of minerals, chlorine and other chemicals found in tap water. However, on the down side, the water pressure will be less than from your outdoor spigot, so a small pump may need to be attached to increase the flow pressure. Furthermore, the general practice is to avoid using the rain barrel water on vegetables and other edible plants, such as herbs for cooking, since roofs may leach pollutants and bacteria that are collected there.

Despite a few shortcomings, another significantly beneficial use of rain barrels is that they may reduce peak volume and velocity of stormwater runoff that reaches our waterways. In most all U.S. communities, rainwater flows over impervious, man-made surfaces such as house roofs and paved roads instead of more natural areas such as forests or grasslands. As a result, when massive Floridian rainstorms dump exponential amounts of water, our sewer systems which carry human and industrial waste become susceptible to overflows and backups creating risks to environmental and human health.

Thus, with growing urbanization in water-scarce areas, including Florida, the increasing water demands for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural purposes exacerbates the situation. While it may seem like a small step, rain barrels can make a huge impact on the environment and our water consumption as a human population at a low personal cost.

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

Sustainable Agriculture – The Future of Food?

2011-04-15T10:10:00.001-07:00

So what does sustainable agriculture really mean? Well, it is defined as an “integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will over the long term,” among other things, “enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends…make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources…[and] enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” This might seem like a lot to take in, but it is not. Stated in a different way, the University of California Sustainable Agricultural Research and Education Program summarizes sustainable agriculture as a meeting of the needs of today without limiting the ability of future generations to meet its needs.

Sustainable agriculture in practice involves responsible management of both natural and human resources. The human resources aspect of responsible management considers the social impacts in the present and future such as consumer health and safety, the conditions for labor workers, and rural community needs. The natural resources aspect involves farming practices that maintain land resources for the long term.

There are groups that promote the use of sustainable agricultural methods to transform our nation’s food system. National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) is a collection of grassroots organizations with a 20-year history. NACS advocates for federal policy reform in order to promote the use of sustainable agriculture and the protection of natural resources and rural communities. The group also works to support research, education, and development of new markets and businesses. NSAC’s goal is to create a food system that is affordable, produced by sustainable agricultural methods, and harvested by local family farmers who receive a fair wage.

Slow Food USA (Slow Food) is another example of a grassroots movement that promotes sustainable agriculture. Its motto is “Good, Clean, and Fair Food.” One of Slow Food’s goals is to “strengthen the connection between the food on our plates and the health of our planet.” Slow Food has 200 chapters across the US. The group is involved with advocacy and public outreach including “identifying, promoting and protecting fruits, vegetables, grains, animal breeds, wild foods, and cooking traditions at risk of disappearance.”

Last week Slow Food and NSAC joined efforts to campaign in Washington D.C. on behalf of sustainable agriculture programs at risk of being cut. Erin Swenson-Klatt, from Slow Food, spoke with congressional representatives to convey the message that sustainable programs “are efficient and effective both at offering greater resources to innovative farmers and at revitalizing rural communities.”

Being a member in organizations like Slow Food and NACS is not the only way to have a say in how our food system works. As a consumer, you have the choice and the power to make an impact that can be felt locally as well as globally. One of the ways to do this is by purchasing your food from local farms and markets. One website that can connect you with grass-fed food is www.eatwild.com. One of the farms featured on the eatwild site is Ashlin Farms. Located in Jacksonville, Ashlin Farms sells only grass-fed, free-range beef. Another great local resource is the Beaches Local Food Network. The group hosts a farmers market every Saturday in Neptune Beach called the Beaches Green Market. By supporting these types of initiatives you are promoting the stewardship of natural and human resources, the goal of sustainable agriculture.

-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern

Watch a Kite Fly....But Perhaps Not For Long

2011-04-06T13:39:00.001-07:00

Swooping low and silent over Lake Okeechobee is the Everglade Snail Kite (Kite), preparing to select an apple snail from a water lily in its critical habitat. Lake Okeechobee is home to the endangered Kite, despite the fact that from the year 2000 until the present, the freshwater wetland has experienced extreme weather patterns and been subjected to new water management protocols which have created record low water levels for record lengths of time at increased frequencies. Lake Okeechobee now rarely provides suitable habitat for Kite nesting, or even foraging for that matter, causing the Kite population in Florida to decline from about 3000 individuals in the year 2000 to less than 700 today. “Who cares?,” you may ask.

Well, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), touted as providing a “framework to restore, protect and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida,” seems to think it is important. You see, CERP, a partnership comprised of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), has more than 50 performance measures used to assess success in water management for the human population. Only three of these measures rank as “Total System-wide Performance Measures,” and the success of the Everglade Snail Kite is one of them due to its reliance on a properly functioning Everglades ecosystem. Thus, achieving Kite persistence is expected to demonstrate system-wide sustainable restoration, resulting in confidence that needs can be met for the human population.

However, in the month of March 2011, according to the South Florida Water Management District, “the region has received only 47 percent of its historic average rainfall through March 22, or 0.95 inches for a deficit of 1.18 inches,” which “follows the driest October-to-February period in 80 years and a dry season deficit that has reached 7.62 inches as of March 22, 2011.” This is concerning when on considers that “The Big O” is not only the seventh largest freshwater lake in the United States, but also South Florida's backup water supply which is relied upon to replenish drinking water supplies for some communities and tapped for irrigation by sugar cane growers and other farmers. Furthermore, according to the U. S. Census Bureau, Florida's human population will grow by about 12 million people between 2000 and 2030.

So, it seems to follow, if we don’t protect the lake’s traditional water level with higher restrictions and increased conservation, then the federally endangered Everglade Snail Kite (Kite) could be in serious trouble. And where the Kite goes, so may we.

-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern

2011 World Water Day Hosted in Cape Town, South Africa

2011-03-24T13:40:00.001-07:00

World Water Day is held on March 22 of every year. The theme this year was “Water for cities: responding to the urban water challenge.” The event consisted of a three-day exhibition and fair held by South Africa’s government.

According to UN’s Rapid Response Assessment Report for World Water Day, Africa is the “fastest urbanizing continent on the planet.” African cities are growing at the fastest rate out of anywhere in the world and as a result of this growth straining the water supplies and compromising sanitation services. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UN-Habitat, “Green Hills, Blue Cities” conducted concluded that out of Africa’s one billion people living in urban areas, 40% do not have an adequate supply of water or sanitation services. The statistics show that the number of urban residents without safe drinking water increased from 30 million in 1990 to 55 million in 2008. During that same time span, the number of citizens without reasonable sanitation services doubled to 175 million. The executive director of UN-Habitat, Dr. Joan Clos, said the goal must be to “improve our urban planning and management in order to provide universal access to water and basic services while ensuring our cities become more resilient to the increasing effects of climate change.” Cities in South Africa are believed to face future crises of drought and water shortage due to climate change. There are also concerns over South Africa’s solid waste management and crop irrigation. One example is in Ethiopia’s capital city of Addis Ababa. The city has increased from 100,000 to 3.5 million in the last 50 years. The UN report finds that only five percent of the collected solid waste in Addis Ababa is recycled. The other 95% is mostly left in piles on the ground often near streams and bridges where the trash then makes its way into rivers. Another alarming finding by the report was that 60% of Addis Ababa urban farmers use wastewater to irrigate their crops. This has raised the concern of food poisoning. There are also infrastructure problems. In Kenya’s largest slum, Kibera, 40% of the 20,000 cubic meters of water a day it receives is lost due to leakage or rundown infrastructure.

UNEP’s executive director, Adam Steiner, says these types of concerns are what need to be addressed at the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 2012. This conference, known as Rio+20, is seen as momentous because it comes 20 years after the conference which “set the environmental agenda for the world”, the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Rio+20 will focus on green economy, particularly sustainable development and poverty eradication. Mr. Steiner said there is increasing evidence from the green economy indicating, “that a different path in terms of water and sanitation can begin to be realized.”

Recommendations by the report call not for the building of costly water purification systems, but for the protection of watersheds and forests. The report finds, “Cities must reduce water consumption and recycle wastewater inside cities, restore adjacent watersheds and improve engineering solutions to supply water from well-managed ecosystems.” The World will be watching.

-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern

There are no Mulligans for Florida's Special Places

2011-03-11T08:24:00.000-08:00

Theodore Roosevelt once said, "I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." Constructing at least five more golf courses in the State of Florida, as proposed by Sen. John Thrasher, R-Saint Augustine, and Rep. Patrick Rooney, R-West Palm Beach, would rob future generations of enjoying the beauty of our many special places in Florida through wasteful development in a State that already boasts nearly 1,300 choices for golfers.

The legislation proposed by Thrasher and Rooney, Senate Bill 1846 and companion House Bill 1239, calls for the construction of an 18-hole or more public golf course in the parks of all five regions of Florida, and requires such construction to be "free from unnecessarily burdensome requirements." The goal: "to stimulate the growth of tourism and the state economy by enhancing the state's reputation as a premier golfing destination and encouraging the location of public golf facilities within Florida's existing state parks." This idea was presented by former professional golfer and course designer, Jack Nicklaus, to Gov. Rick Scott in a private meeting last month to brainstorm ways to improve a struggling Floridian economy. Interestingly, the bill has come to be known as the “Jack Nicklaus Golf Trail of Florida Act,” as Nicklaus will be paid a reported $625,000 to design each course, a quarter of his usual fee. I suppose that is one job that the State can claim to have created if it goes through with the bill, but the only winning economy in that scenario is Jack Nicklaus’ personal economy. The jobs created by this are temporary at best, mostly construction related, and with the number of rounds played on the First Coast down by 9.6 percent last year and dozens of courses being forced to close due to financial loss over the last five years, this hardly seems like the economic stimulus that will carry us through tough times.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that Florida, while it does boast fantastic golf, is better known for its white sandy beaches, lush semi-tropical forests, cultural sites and crystal clear springs, lakes and rivers. Don’t get me wrong, I frequently enjoy playing the game of golf and attend The Players Championship annually. However, golfers are already catered to with nearly 1,300 golf courses in the State, while there are few options for those on a budget who are seeking affordable, family-friendly activities, such as swimming, hiking, bicycling, paddling, diving, fishing, camping, horseback riding, birding, and photography, that our 160 designated State Parks have to offer.

Thus far, only Jonathan Dickinson State Park has been named in the bill. The park has 13 natural communities, including sand pine scrub, pine flatwoods, mangroves, and river swamps, cut by the Loxahatchee River, which is Florida's first federally designated Wild and Scenic River. If the legislation goes through, then at least 200 acres of the park will be taken for the golf industry, moving Nicklaus one step closer to achieving his ultimate goal of hosting a U.S. Open at one of his designed courses.

Sadly, this proposal flies in the face of the Florida Park Service’s goal “to help create a sense of place by showing park visitors the best of Florida's diverse natural and cultural sites. Florida's state parks are managed and preserved for enjoyment by this and future generations through providing appropriate resource-based recreational opportunities, interpretation and education that help visitors connect to ...the Real Florida.” Once the “Real Florida” disappears, there will be no mulligans.

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

Mercury...it's what's for dinner.

2011-03-07T07:46:00.001-08:00

Bioaccumulation is the word of the day, which is a “[g]eneral term describing a process by which chemicals are taken up by an organism either directly from exposure to a contaminated medium or by consumption of food containing the chemical.” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). Quite simply, as humans, we are consuming all of the mercury that has been consumed from the food chain below us. For example, a little fish ingests mercury contaminated plankton, while a bigger fish consumes the mercury contaminated smaller fish, and so on and so forth until we ingest the final product which has been exposed to the toxic substance for its entire lifetime.

A recent study conducted at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio examined Texas school district data and industrial mercury-release data. The study revealed a “statistically significant link between pounds of industrial release of mercury and increased autism rates.” It also showed, for the first time in scientific literature, a relevant association between autism risk and the distance of those affected from the mercury polluting source.

Right about now, you are probably wondering how this toxic substance is entering our food chain in the first place. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), there are several known sources of mercury contributors to our environment, both naturally present and those created by man. Natural sources include volcanoes, natural mercury deposits, and volatilization from the ocean, with the primary human-related sources being: coal combustion, chlorine alkali processing, waste incineration, and metal processing. The USGS notes that the “[b]est estimates to date suggest that human activities have about doubled or tripled the amount of mercury in the atmosphere, and the atmospheric burden is increasing by about 1.5 percent per year.” It is unimaginable to think that we are knowingly and intentionally poisoning ourselves. As you drive along during your commute, or even look out of your home into your own backyard, do you see a potential polluter to your water or seafood supply?

Finally, you may be trying to figure out what can, or is, being done about this problem. Well, the Federal Government has set acceptable mercury levels for water, fish and shellfish, and grain. It is up to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate such mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, with State governments also establishing regulations to control mercury emissions. This begs the question of why we are still seeing fish being contaminated to the point that the EPA felt the need to issue “Your Guide to Eating Fish Caught in Florida” (found here: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/floridafishadvice/Final%202009%20Fish%20Brochure.pdf) as recently as 2009.

If mercury emission is being regulated to the degree necessary to preserve the public health, then should there even be a need to publish such materials? Is enough being done? What will you be having for dinner?

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Intern

Water, water everywhere...or is it?

2011-03-07T06:29:00.001-08:00

As a multibillion dollar industry with many lobbyists, the bottled water industry is an impressive presence throughout the country. In particular, there are over 40 bottled water facilities in the State of Florida, with the attraction to our state stemming from the fact that bottled water companies don’t have to pay for the water that they pump once they pay a nominal $230 fee for a permit. Critics fear that this will lead to a “tragedy of the commons” approach, where bottled water companies will ultimately deplete the shared limited water resource even when it is clear that it is not in anyone's long-term interest for this to happen. Opponents find support in this by noting that Silver Springs, located in Marion County, Florida, has already lost 32% of its historic average flow, with some other springs in the Orlando area predicted to decline in flow by 15% over the next decade.

A proposal sponsored by Sen. Evelyn Lynn, R-Ormond Beach, for the Florida 2011 Legislative Session, will attempt to turn the tide by creating a 6 percent tax on a bottle of water. Introduced as an environmental surcharge to be used as an effort to mitigate the impact of withdrawing vast amounts of water from Florida’s springs, Sen. Lynn will face the hurdle of convincing a legislature, which is led by a Senate President and House Speaker staunchly against new taxes of any kind, that the resolution is necessary for protecting the water resources of the state. However, even some environmental advocates are skeptical of the effectiveness of the proposed legislation. Eric Draper, the executive director of Audubon of Florida, said the group was hesitant to back Lynns’ bill, simply because it might not go far enough. He noted that there are other large users of water, such as golf courses or cities that adversely effect our groundwater supply. In fact, aquifers provide nearly 90% of the state's personal drinking water and more than 60% of the state's freshwater usage in agriculture and industry.

A more appealing water-tax first gained momentum in February 2009 when a version was proposed by then Gov. Charlie Crist. The Crist proposal applied a severance tax to the extraction of water by commercial water-bottlers, rather than passing the cost onto consumers of bottled water products in Florida. However, while environmentalists welcomed the idea, the beverage industry lobbied strongly against the water-tax proposals and it ultimately failed.

In the meantime, while the debate looms once again, one of the 40 bottled water facilities in the State of Florida is pumping 1.47 million gallons of water per day through 2018 with nothing more to pay than the cost of its bottles and the other 39 facilities are likely doing the same as you read this post. Once the resource is depleted, they can pick up and move to a new location to start anew. If you are living in an area where your groundwater resource drys up, can you afford to do the same?

-Timothy Nalepka, Legal Extern

China’s Environmental Minister Releases Warning on Growth and Climate Peril

2011-03-02T13:11:00.000-08:00

On Monday, China’s Environmental Minister, Zhou Shengxian gave a blunt warning that the growth of the country is threatened by pollution. China is the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gases and has the second largest economy in the world making it the biggest polluter and consumer of resources. China uses coal to produce 70% of its energy needs and is becoming increasingly dependent on oil. Minister Zhou’s statements warned that unrestrained development would affect the country’s natural resources, such as water, air and soil, as well as hinder long-term economic growth and social stability. To check this development China will introduce a risk assessment system. The country will consider projected greenhouse gas emissions as part of evaluating proposed development projects, such as approving new factories. This is significant because past economic policies were hesitant to put environmental protection ahead of growth. While the proposed program is to cut energy use for each unit of economic growth, it still will not put caps on emission. This system may be a positive step towards the country’s role in fighting climate change and will be interesting to watch because past promises to curb environmental degradation failed to realize due to lack of will to enforce.

Highlighting the importance of the Minister’s announcements are recent reports on China’s environment finding 10% of domestic grown rice was contaminated with heavy metals and smog at dangerous levels in the capital city. In 2009 a study concluded that 20% of rivers and lakes monitored in China were polluted to such extent they were unfit for consumption, even to irrigate crops.

Minister Zhou stated, “The depletion, deterioration and exhaustion of resources and the deterioration of the environment have become serious bottlenecks constraining economic and social development.” The environmental protection theme will be a focus of the annual Parliament session to being on Saturday.

-Ashley Harvey, Legal Intern

Marcellus Shale Drilling-Friend or Foe?

2011-02-11T12:23:00.001-08:00

Marcellus Shale is a geological formation that is found beneath approximately 60 percent of Pennsylvania’s land mass, buried at depths of up to 9,000 feet. So why is a rock formation so sought after, yet controversial at the same time?

Well, natural gas can be extracted and produced from this formation, leading to economic benefits for a region whose development is at a standstill, as well as take advantage of an abundant energy resource for the nation. Jeff Prowant of the Tiadaghton State Forest says, “The industry has created 80,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.” There is potential for even more jobs as the area, coined America’s next super giant in natural gas production, is twice the size of the Barnett Shale of Texas, whose total effects (based on year-end 2007 levels) were found to include $8.2 billion in annual output, $2.4 billion in annual retail sales, and 83,823 permanent jobs. The process begins when natural gas producers obtain gas and mineral rights from landowners in the region by leasing land for potential drilling activity. Once exploration is complete, seismic testing and geophone instruments are used to locate precise areas and drilling commences if the potential is there.

However, not everyone agrees that this is all a good thing. Opponents fear that the process of “fracking” is not safe for humans, animals or the environment. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is when millions of gallons of water, sand and proprietary chemicals are injected, under high pressure, into a well. The pressure fractures the shale and props open fissures that enable natural gas to flow more freely out of the well. The concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the contamination of ground water, risks to air quality, the migration of gases and bi-product chemicals to the surface, and the potential mishandling of waste which may subsequently contaminate aquifers. However, Pennsylvania law requires drillers to case and grout wells through all fresh water aquifers before drilling through deeper zones known to contain oil or gas. This casing protects groundwater from pollutants inside the well, and keeps water from the surface and other geologic strata from mixing with and contaminating groundwater. Opponents are not confident that this is effective and say that drilling should not commence until safer alternatives are explored.

You decide. Are the unknown environmental and health risks worth the potential economic benefits in a time of financial turmoil?

-Tim Nalepka, Legal Intern

Public Trust Has Joined Good Shop

2010-12-15T13:07:00.000-08:00

The Public Trust has joined Good Shop!

Good Shop is a website where you can shop online and a percentage of your purchase will automatically be donated to the Public Trust! Your item won't cost you any more than normal and it's really easy to do.

You may either
1) Log into www.goodsearch.com (note, NOT goodshop.com), then click on the Good Shop button, and start shopping. When it comes times to place your purchase, simply select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity, and that's it.

Or, even easier...

2) Install the goodsearch.com browser on your computer and select the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute as your charity. Then, anytime you shop from an online store that subscribes to Good Shop, part of your purchase will AUTOMATICALLY be donated to the Public Trust, you don't even have to go through Good Shop's website each time!

Is there an easier way to help raise money for a worthy cause? And it doesn't cost YOU anything! The holidays are in full-swing but you can shop online anytime of year, and when you do, please use Good Shop to help the Public Trust too.

India's Environmental Tribunal

2010-11-15T13:53:00.001-08:00

India is going to be the third country in the world to have a separate judiciary for trying environmental cases. The other two countries with a similar judiciary are Australia and New Zealand. The National Green Tribunal will have twenty members. Ten members will be from the judiciary and ten will be environmental experts. The Tribunal will have four circuits in an effort to hear cases in as much geographical territory of India as possible. Previously, India had a capped penalty of $564 dollars for polluters throughout the country. The National Green Tribunal will be able to order polluters to pay higher amounts.

Some American environmentalists are skeptical of the benefit that the Tribunal will provide. India has had two similar tribunals and both have been widely criticized. In 1995, a hazardous waste tribunal was established, and in 1997, the Nation Environmental Appellate Authority, which the National Green Tribunal will be replacing. Business is growing rapidly in India, and the government is facing pressure to make sure that any environmental regulation will not slow the growth of this business.

India has 5,000 environmental cases currently on file that the National Green Tribunal will be responsible for hearing once it is up and running. One of these cases involves the government’s disposal of toxic waste in 2008 from a chemical spill disaster in 1984. Approximately 350 tons of waste was released from a chemical plant owned by Union Carbide, and 3,800 people were killed as a result. Residual gas from the spill killed an additional 15,000 people and left about 50,000 injured. There are allegations that the 2008 disposal of the waste was done in an improper and secretive manner. With such questionable governmental practices in India, one has to wonder if the National Green Tribunal will do its part to change the situation.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Turtle Harvesting in Madagascar

2010-11-12T14:16:00.001-08:00

A recent study has revealed that villages in the southwestern region of Madagascar are responsible for harvesting up to 16,000 of the world’s rarest turtles. The turtles being harvested are marine turtles. All species of marine turtles are on the IUCN Red List of endangered species, which is arguably the most well-known and comprehensive list of endangered species. The majority of the turtles caught in this region of Madagascar are green turtles, which are the most common of the marine turtles. However, a good percentage of the turtles being caught are the hawksbill, which are much more endangered than the green.

The government of Madagascar has banned the harvesting of marine turtles, but the ban is hardly enforced because of tradition and practical reasons. For example, the coastal villagers of Madagascar rely on turtle meat as a staple of their diet. A conservation group called Blue Ventures has established a partnership with this region of Madagascar in order to address this issue as well as other conservation issues. Blue Ventures claims that it is difficult to get the villagers to understand that the marine turtles are a resource that is being depleted rapidly. Eating the turtles is a historical practice for the villagers, and this practice even has a spiritual component to it.

However, there is a great deal of progress being made. Blue Ventures partnership with Madagascar has been considered so successful that the partnership won several awards from the United Nations. Other conservation efforts by Blue Ventures in the region have showed the villagers the importance of protecting the environment in other ways, and hopefully this awareness will apply to the marine turtle population as well.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Restoration of Iraqi Wetlands

2010-10-21T14:04:00.001-07:00

Recently, on National Public Radio, a correspondent interviewed an ambitious Iraqi-American engineer. This engineer, Dr. Azzam Alwash, is the founder of a program called Nature Iraqi. One of Dr. Alwash’s ambitions is to restore a region in southern Iraq, near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, that was once home to thriving wetlands. Some biblical scholars believed that this area was the home of the Garden of Eden. To provide some idea of its scope, it was larger than the Florida Everglades.

Under the regime of Sadam Hussein, these wetlands were completely drained and destroyed after the people living in the surrounding areas took part in an uprising against Hussein in 1991. Several environmental groups have referred to Hussein’s endeavor to drain these wetlands as the worst human-engineered environmental disaster of the twentieth-century. After Hussein stopped the uprising, he decided to have Iraqi engineers construct six artificial rivers along the Tigris and Euphrates that diverted water away from the wetlands. After this happened, the region became a barren desert, and nearly all of the animal life in the region vanished.

Now, Dr. Alwash has become the head of the effort to restore this region to its former Garden of Eden glory. However, he claims that the people of Iraqi deserve just as much credit as he does in beginning the restoration process. When he traveled to the country in 2003, he noticed that ordinary citizens were digging holes in the embankments of the artificial rivers in order to get water flowing back to the wetland areas. As of now about thirty-five percent of the wetlands are restored, and there would have been a continuing upward trend if not for recent droughts during the past two years.

Dr. Alwash faces political difficulties in that the Iraqi as well as Turkish governments need water for things such as the irrigation of fields, but he is slowly reaching the agreements that he needs to provide enough water to these wetlands. Time will tell if Dr. Alwash will succeed.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

A Not So Green Greenland

2010-10-21T14:02:00.001-07:00

Recent turmoil in Greenland has brought a wide array of environmental issues, such as offshore drilling and global climate change, to the surface of the political arena. Diana Wallis, the vice-president of the European Union, has been a frequent participant in the Artic Council, which is an intergovernmental forum for Artic governments and people. Wallis claims Greenland in particular is already feeling the effects of global climate change. The ice caps in the northern region have melted significantly, and Wallis wants the EU to take a stronger role in safeguarding the country against further detrimental effects.

What is rather interesting, however, is that Greenland’s deputy foreign minister, Inuuteq Holm Olsen, seems to stand in opposition to Wallis. It appears as if the melting of the ice caps has yielded an unexpected benefit to the country in the form of newly discovered oil reserves. A Scottish oil producing company known as Cairn Energy claims that there is proof of an active working petroleum system in the region due to the presence of both oil and natural gas.

Olsen believes that Wallis’s plan to safeguard the region will be at the expense of the economic development that the oil reserves might bring. With the recent Gulf oil spill, and the subsequent moratorium on drilling, Olsen is against formidable odds in pursuing these interests. In addition to a general political climate that stands in opposition to the drilling, members of Greenpeace recently scaled an oilrig owned by Cairn Energy. Greenpeace has lodged numerous complaints that an oil spill in this region would be disastrous to the local environment.

Olsen, Wallis, and environmental groups such as Greenpeace all have valid points on this issue, but is there a course of action that is objectively right for Greenland?

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

BP May No Longer Bask In the Robbins Dry Dock Rule

2010-10-08T13:58:00.000-07:00

The BP oil spill has left many businessmen in coastal areas out of work for an extended period of time. These businessmen are seeking compensation for the loss in business they have incurred as a result of this disaster. However, federal maritime law presents them with a big problem. A rule known as the Robins Dry Dock Rule, named after the legal case that established it, may prevent some of these people from recovering.

Under this rule, a party cannot seek recovery for pure economic losses, which as an example, would be the loss in revenue of a fisherman for his or her inability to fish off the coast. The Robins Dry Dock Rule requires that this economic loss be accompanied by a physical damage to a person or his property. This would mean that the fisherman was not only unable to fish during the spill, but that the oil itself damaged property such as a dock or a ship. Because the BP oil rig was offshore, many of the businessmen affected by the disaster have not incurred any physical damage to their property in that manner. Under the Robins Dry Dock Rule, they would not be able to recover their damages.

However, the promise of recovery for these unfortunate businessmen might not be that bleak. Another law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, has established much broader criteria under which parties may recover. This act provides for recovery for purely economic loss to real or personal property that is owned or leased, or to natural resources. These means that fisherman with an interest in the natural resources of the ocean, namely fish, may be able to recover for their loss in revenue.

Although this seems like good news, the Oil Pollution Act has set up a great deal of red tape that might make these businessmen’s hopes of recovery slightly less feasible. In this instance, the party seeking to recover must present their claims directly to BP, and if the claim is denied or it is not settled within 90 days, then the party must seek recovery from a trust fund that was set up as a result of the spill. Time will tell whether BP will be cooperative on these suits, and whether this trust fund will be easily accessible.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Crisis of Faith

2010-09-24T13:19:00.001-07:00

Every year in India, and particularly in the city of Mumbai, Hindus participate in a festival, known as Ganesh Caturthi, to celebrate the god Lord Ganesh. This festival takes place in September and lasts eleven days. It is highly elaborate and consists of dancing, painting, singing folk songs, and most noticeably, constructing large statues of the god Ganesh.

These statues, strangely enough, present a particular problem to the environment of India. At the end of the eleven-day celebration, the statues are placed in the river to symbolize the farewell to Ganesh. Historically, these statues were made of mud, soil, clay, and sandalwood paste. These substances were easily biodegradable. However, in recent times, as this festival has been more elaborate, the statues began to be constructed from plaster of paris. This is not a naturally occurring substance and takes years to dissolve in a river. In addition, the statues are now painted using paints heavy in lead and mercury, which are also far from naturally occurring.

This wouldn’t seem to be such a problem until one understands how many of these statues are placed into the river during this festival. In Mumbai alone, 190,000 were placed in the river, and some of these statues were ten feet tall. Studies of water quality in Mumbai and surrounding areas have revealed that the statues have increased the iron, mercury, and acid levels significantly. Because there are also many fishing communities in this area, this pollution has ramifications beyond the water itself.

In response, the environmental secretary of Mumbai has considered a ban on plaster of paris, but because the festival is so enormous, the law has been deemed impossible to implement. Efforts have been made to promote the buying and selling of “green” statues, which would be easily biodegradable in the river, but sales of these statues do not seem to be competitive with the environmentally disastrous models. One concern among the people is that the statues made of weaker materials will not hold up as they are dragged from the crowded streets to the river. The desire to celebrate decadently may defeat common sense in this case. Will there be a solution in sight?

-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern

Ash and Burn

2010-09-24T08:34:00.000-07:00

Recently, the explosion of a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California created a fire that killed four people and injured more than fifty. In addition to this tragedy, the fire may have some unforeseeable hazardous effects on both the air and water in the surrounding area.

Everyone knows that large fires have the potential to burn all in their path, such as trees, homes, and cars. When these things burn, however, they may also leave behind chemicals that are hazardous to the environment. Previous similar fires, in the cities of San Diego and San Bernadino, left behind metals from melted batteries and car parts, asbestos from roofing and insulation in homes, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous chemicals from burned tires, plastics, and light bulbs. After the San Diego fire, EPA officials failed to remove some of the ash containing these hazardous chemicals. During the rainy season, this ash found its way into the public water supply and was deemed harmful to human health.

In San Bruno, officials are learning from this mistake. They are trying to remove the harmful ash as quickly as possible, but they are sacrificing chemical testing in the process. The county staff has not ruled out the possibility of gases such as benzene, acetone, and butane, which are flammable and corrosive, finding their way into the air. In addition to the air, there is also the possibility that the metals, and the chemicals formed from the burning of items such as rubber and light bulbs, have found their way into the soil. These chemicals may then find their way into the regional aquifer, which is the source of water for not only San Bruno, but for surrounding cities as well.

With both the direct and indirect effects of this natural gas explosion being as great as they are, one cannot help but wonder if this industry will be subject to the same sort of scrutiny that the offshore oil drilling industry has received. The only silver lining to such disasters may be the reevaluation of the safety procedures of these industries, and a change for the better in the future.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Keeping an Eye on Fracking

2010-09-20T05:47:00.001-07:00

Recently, the EPA sent out letters to nine drilling companies asking for detailed information about the chemicals used in the process known as fracking. Fracking is the fracturing of underground rock in order to extract natural gas. The request for information is in response to a growing concern that the chemicals used in this process could be contaminating the water supply. In 2004, the EPA concluded that the fracking process was safe, but some believe this analysis was rushed and politically motivated.

For example, in Cannonsburg, Pennsylvania, people have been coming to public meetings with large samples of yellow, foul smelling water. The same is true for public meetings in Texas and Colorado. The public in these cases believed that natural gas fracking was the culprit of this yellow water, but is this the case? The natural gas companies are hoping that it is not. Industry spokesmen contend that none of the chemicals used in the fracking process actually reach the water table, which consists of the water we drink. Regulation of this industry, the spokesmen claim, could not come at a worse time. These spokesmen believe that the nation needs to develop sound alternatives to oil and coal, and that jobs in the industry will be destroyed by additional burdens.

The EPA is giving each of the companies that it is investigating seven days to respond to the request for information, and thirty days to actually provide the information. The EPA is considering legal action for non-compliance with these requests. The agency plans on publishing a new study on the fracking chemical issue by 2012.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

A Toast to the Champagne Industry

2010-09-03T13:28:00.000-07:00

For those who believe in the phenomenon of global climate change, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is a major concern. Across the globe, lowering emissions of carbon dioxide has become a mission. While it might seem to some to be a mission meant only for radical environmentalists on the fringe of society, lowering carbon dioxide emissions has some practical benefits as well.

A good example can be found in the champagne industry. The bubbles one finds in one’s champagne are created by carbon, and the industry is responsible for releasing 200,000 metric tons of the gas into the environment every year by producing and shipping its product. Upon realization of this enormous output, a champagne company in France, Pommery, has decided to shrink the size of its bottle.

The new champagne bottle will lose only 2.3 ounces of material, but Pommery projects that this will cut the company’s carbon emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. And for those not interested in cutting their carbon emissions, this smaller bottle is also simply good for business. Industry wide sales of champagne have been down by about 5 billion euros since 2007. Economists project that the savings in production costs generated by these smaller bottles will help the industry’s profits rise again after this three-year fall.

This example demonstrates that the aims of environmentalists and the aims of businesses are not always mutually exclusive. Many believe that environmentalists are out to harm business with oppressive restrictions on issues such as carbon emissions. But if reducing these emissions can save companies money and help them to become profitable again, then perhaps environmentalists are not so oppressive after all. Perhaps the two seemingly opposing sides can work together.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Genetically Engineered Salmon

2010-08-27T13:58:00.001-07:00

Many individuals that consider themselves to be environmentalists become enraged when they see the letters GM, which for those not familiar with the lexicon, stand for genetically modified. The US Federal Drug Administration is currently in the process of approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. If the approval goes through, this salmon would be the first genetically modified animal to be produced for human consumption in United States history. There are an array of other GM animals that have been developed, and approval of this salmon may open the floodgates for these animals as well.

Despite the harsh critics of this salmon, who have called it a “frankenfish” and believe that it may be disastrous to human health and the environment, the debate about genetically modifying food is much more nuanced. For example, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have developed what they call an Enviropig. Normal pigs excrete a great deal of phosphorus from the plants they eat, and this phosphorus finds its way into rivers and seas. The phosphorus is hazardous to the life within these waters and the quality of the water itself. The Enviropig, however, has been developed with a special enzyme that gives it the power to digest more phosphorus and thus excrete less.

This Enviropig, contrary to the conception held by some environmentalists, actually helps the environment in some ways rather than harming it. Similarly, the salmon that is awaiting approval can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon. This may mean that the production of these GM salmon is more efficient and would use up fewer resources. However, animal breeders have been breeding animals to produce more meat in this manner for many decades before talks of genetic modification have been on the table. This breeding has caused numerous health problems in these animals, and genetic modification may not be exempt from these repercussions.

Whatever one’s beliefs about genetic modification may be, this salmon has the potential to drastically change the face of food production in the future.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern

Nuclear Power, a New Age?

2010-08-20T12:14:00.001-07:00

Nuclear power has a checkered history. The Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine and the Three Mile Island incident in the United States have created a deep public mistrust of this form of power. In the United States, that public mistrust is responsible for a standstill in the building of nuclear reactors that has spanned three decades. Now the Obama administration has announced a guarantee of a loan of $8.3 billion dollars to build the first nuclear reactors since the beginning of this standstill.

This development begs the question of whether the United States’ longstanding apprehension regarding nuclear power has ended. Many believe that the dangers presented in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are still present. These people see nuclear reactors as possessing the ability to cause cancer in individuals within the reactor’s radius, contaminate drinking water, and destroy the surrounding environment. Others believe that technology has come a long way since 1976, the date of the Three Mile Island incident, and that the country should give nuclear power another chance.

Without a doubt there are many benefits to this form of energy. Climate change has become a much more prevalent issue than it was three decades ago, and nuclear power has the potential to do a lot for this issue. Unlike power plants that use oil or coal, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is generally accepted as a gas that contributes to the phenomenon of climate change. And considering that the carbon dioxide released from power plants make up the majority of the carbon dioxide released around the world, an astronomically greater percentage than that released by transportation, nuclear power has much about which to boast.

Just as clearly there are downsides to nuclear power. Just one downside is the waste that is produced from these plants. This waste must be stored underground, in caverns across the United States. Obviously, there is not an infinite amount of space with which to store this waste, and storage will be a problem if the number of reactors increases. Nuclear power may not be a permanent solution, but it might help to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. This may make the transition to even better forms of power much easier, and this effect alone may be benefit enough.

-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern

Floating Gardens Help, But the St. Johns River Needs More

2010-07-14T07:00:00.001-07:00

Toxic algae blooms have become an all-too-familiar sight (and smell) along the St. Johns River. Experts agree that these blooms are in large part due to high nitrogen and phosphorous levels entering the river through fertilizer runoff and leaking septic tanks. The City of Jacksonville has taken a few measures in an attempt to alleviate this growing problem, namely building retention ponds and running an advertising campaign to warn citizens of the damage over-fertilization can cause. The Times-Union recently ran a story about a new weapon the city is employing to reduce pollution levels in the river. Much like using plants to clean up contaminated soil (see post below), the city’s latest tactic uses plants to remove pollutants from contaminated water. But is this a long-term solution?

Floating on buoyant pallets, specific “nutrient-eating” plants bob on the surface while their roots do the dirty work below. These plants, Redtop, Soft Rush, Canna, Pickerel, Bur-Marigold, and Arrowhead, have proven to be highly effective at absorbing nitrates and phosphates from water. Once the plants have soaked up as much as they can handle, they are replaced. Although they do not remove 100 percent of the contaminants in the water, floating gardens represent a highly cost-effective way to combat pollution in the river.

However, floating gardens cannot stem the relentless tide of contaminants that pour into the river on a daily basis. It is merely reactive. In the long run, the city needs a stiffer regulatory framework of prevention. No matter how many floating gardens the city installs, over-fertilized lawns and leaking septic tanks will continue to undermine any remedial measures. This is not to say that the right to care for one’s lawn should be taken out of a homeowner’s hands. But, unless the city does something to incentivize landowners to use less harmful fertilizers or have their septic tanks inspected, algae blooms, dead fish, and putrid smells will become the river’s trademark characteristics. Only when Jacksonville dramatically reduces the amount of pollution entering the river can it work toward cleaning out the filth that is already there.

-Legal Extern, Kyle Johnson

Save Our Gulf

2010-06-23T09:29:00.001-07:00

Many have seen the haunting photographs and news coverage. Every day pundits offer their perspective on what is now being called the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. Even satellites high above our atmosphere have captured images of the murky swirl spreading toward the Gulf coast like spilled black ink. For most people, these images tell a tragic story unfolding in a place far away. For folks in the Gulf region, the catastrophe plays out daily before their own eyes. That doesn’t mean, however, they are taking the effects of the disaster lying down.

Save Our Gulf is a project started by the Waterkeeper Alliance to combat the horrible effects of the Gulf oil spill. The Alliance is comprised of almost 200 Riverkeepers, Baykeepers, Coastkeepers, Soundkeeprs, and Bayoukeepers throughout the country who advocate for and protect local waterways. Each Waterkeeper assumes countless duties in defense of its waterway, from educating young students to taking high profile polluters to court. For example, our local affiliate is the St. Johns Riverkeeper, led by Neil Armingeon and Jimmy Orth. In essence, the Waterkeeper Alliance acts as a network connecting and supporting Waterkeepers nationwide and their respective communities.

In addition to fundraising, the Save Our Gulf program has created an advisory committee made up of veteran Waterkeepers with oil spill experience to support the affected Gulf Coast Waterkeepers, providing information, guidance, and communications support. Crises of this magnitude require the coordination of thousands of people, and the committee is taking the necessary steps to ensure that help gets where it’s needed in the most efficient, effective way possible. Issues taken up by the committee include public access to information, volunteer management, training, and legal and technical support.

Anyone interested in making a donation or providing support in any way should visit www.saveourgulf.org. Additionally, the website provides information about the Waterkeeper Alliance, past projects, links to other organizations, and informative multimedia resources. Donations to the program go toward providing everything from cleanup supplies and gear to emergency office space and food for volunteers.

Those curious about the role of the St. Johns Riverkeeper in protecting our river can visit the organization’s website, www.stjohnsriverkeeper.org, for more information.

-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern

Want Cleaner Soil? Plant a Tree.

2010-06-17T05:40:00.001-07:00

You may know that the leaves of plants act as natural air purifiers, taking in carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen through a process called photosynthesis. You may not know that their roots can provide a similar function within contaminated soil. Through a process called phytoremediation, plants called hyperaccumulators naturally store (through bioaccumulation) or break down contaminants in soil, sediments, groundwater, and surface water. Plants with this ability can soak up metals, pesticides, solvents, explosives, crude oil, and other kinds of toxic wastes in an energy efficient and aesthetically pleasing process. They also prevent wind, rain, and groundwater from carrying the pollution elsewhere.

Phytoremediation has numerous advantages. First of all, it costs much less than traditional cleanup measures like soil replacement and groundwater pumping. Additionally, whereas these methods merely transport the problem to another location, phytoremediation allows the soil to be purified so that it may be used again. Furthermore, by allowing plants to do most of the work, remediation occurs without subjecting workers to the health hazards of toxic waste cleanup. Ultimately, it is much less disruptive to the environment than traditional methods at a much lower price. However, phytoremediation is not without its drawbacks.

The process is dependent on many different factors, such as depth of the roots and the concentration of the contaminant in the soil in relation to the tolerance of the plant absorbing it. Also, if the material is absorbed and held in the plant’s leaves, this could pose a danger to animals or humans who may harvest or eat the plant. It requires close monitoring. The biggest variable, however, may be time. As compared to some traditional measures of remediation, phytoremediation can take a long time. This depends on the type of plants used, number of plants used, the size and depth of the polluted area, and the type of soil among other factors. It often takes many years to clean up a site with phytoremediation.

Nevertheless, the disadvantages should not prevent phytoremediation from being considered a viable cleanup option. It can be a highly useful method, especially if time is not a factor. For instance, if land on which a lead paint factory once sat were targeted to build a park, phytoremediation would be an ideal solution if lead were found in the soil. Sunflowers have proven to be excellent hyperaccumulators, especially for lead. They are so effective that they were successfully used to clean up radioactive soil in Chernobyl after their nuclear disaster. Other potent hyperaccumulators include hydrangeas (aluminum), Blue Tongue (aluminum), water hyssop (lead, mercury, cadmium, and chromium), and willow trees (cadmium, zinc, copper), among many others.

Although phytoremediation, by itself, may not always prove to be the most practicable option, it should at least be considered as a compliment to traditional methods of hazardous waste cleanup. Many remediation projects use plants after soil replacement to eliminate remaining trace contaminants in the soil. All that remains then of the once polluted land are plants and trees. Much in the same way plants purify our atmosphere, they can be equally useful in cleaning up the earth under our feet.

-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern

Is Natural Gas a Bunch of Hot Air?

2010-06-10T08:33:00.001-07:00

The Horizon Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a solemn reminder of mankind’s love-hate relationship with crude oil. It also begs the question – is there a better option on the horizon? Some folks in Pennsylvania say yes. Pennsylvania is home to the Marcellus Shale, a massive formation of marine sedimentary rock thought to contain vast amounts of untapped natural gas. Although it actually stretches well into New York, Ohio, and West Virginia, the section of rock situated in Pennsylvania is thought to contain the largest deposit of the resource. But before we go head over heels for natural gas, it is worth taking a closer look at its current uses and environmental impact, as well as considering the future of energy production in America.

Why natural gas? Natural gas is a source of electricity generation in utility turbines and power plants, emitting about 45% less greenhouse gas than coal. It is used in the home as well, in stoves and ovens, clothes dryers, and central heating. Natural gas is also used in fertilizer, municipal buses, and the manufacture of glass, steel, and plastics. Many companies around the world are also looking to build gas-powered aircraft.

Despite its claim as the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas still contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It is composed mostly of methane, which traps about twenty times more radiation in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Although carbon dioxide is released in much larger quantities, natural gas emissions are expectedly to dramatically climb in the future, thanks in part to discoveries of large deposits like the Marcellus Shale.

Another problem with natural gas is that it is a fossil fuel, meaning that it is only a matter of time before it is used up and we have to look elsewhere for a fuel source. Before we get swept away by the economic potential of natural gas and the Marcellus Shale, now is a good time to ask – what kind of energy economy do we want? Ideally the production of energy on a grand scale would come from a renewable resource, i.e. wind or the sun. These are both clean, infinite sources of energy. Mass production of energy from these sources is not viable yet, but much of that has to do with a lack of research into solo-voltaic (solar electricity) and windpower technology.

Given the state of flux in the oil industry and mankind’s increasing awareness of the catastrophic effects of oil production, now is an opportune time for a Manhattan Project with respect to energy. The U.S. government spent vast amounts of research to build the atomic bomb and to get to the moon. We now need to attack energy production the same way.

-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern

Chris Williams from GreenWater Labs Meets with the Public Trust

2010-06-10T07:29:00.001-07:00

If you have lived in the St. John’s River area long enough, you have probably heard about algal blooms. The massive colonies of blue-green algae emit a foul odor and can often be seen on the surface of the river like swirls of paint. The problem with algal blooms, other than the stench, is that algae produce toxins. Because the health risks to humans are relatively unknown, more research is needed to determine what these health risks are and what causes spikes in algal populations. GreenWater Laboratories, a Palatka-based company, is taking up the challenge. GreenWater Laboratories, created in 2001, is the only private full-service laboratory in the United States that specializes in monitoring freshwater algal blooms and toxin production. The company provides its clients with testing, analyses, monitoring, and research capabilities.

Chris Williams, an aquatic toxicologist and president of GreenWater Laboratories, stopped by the Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute office last week to discuss the problems associated with algal blooms. Williams said that the physical characteristics of the St. John’s, a slow-moving river in a hot, humid climate, make for an ideal habitat for blue-green algae. Combine that with a lack of state regulation requiring businesses and utility companies to test for algae in their discharge water, and the potential for algal-related problems becomes apparent.

Because the banks of the river are lined with private landowners, in addition to businesses and public utilities, pinpointing a manmade source of the bloom is a difficult task. Anything from fertilizer runoff to chemicals present in wastewater could potentially be responsible. Additionally, toxic compounds that have been discharged into the river in years past have now settled on the riverbed, waiting to be churned up and accelerate algal growth. One interesting note – Williams revealed that most blooms seem to start near the Shands Bridge area, although he conceded that he is not sure why.

Despite the problems mentioned above, here are a few things to consider. Not all algae produce toxins, and many forms of algae are necessary parts of a healthy ecosystem. Blue-green algae do not tend to bioaccumulate, meaning that they don’t accumulate inside smaller organisms and work their way up the food chain.

However, a recent wave of redfish deaths in the St. John’s River has raised suspicions. Although officials do not know exactly what is causing the rash of redfish deaths in the last few weeks, they suspect algae to be the cause. Williams admitted that this could be an algae-related problem. This situation is worth monitoring throughout the summer, as health officials still are unsure as to how algal toxins affect human health. Neil Armingeon, from the St. Johns Riverkeeper, has encouraged boaters and others on the river to report fish kills if they see them.

-Kyle Johnson, Legal Intern

Role of Criminal Penalties in Enforcing Violations of Environmental Law

2010-05-28T10:41:00.001-07:00

Faulty car airbags, combustible printer parts, and metallic debris in canned foods exemplify the unfortunate offspring of mass-production. A defect in an everyday product is usually easy to spot, either because it causes injury or deviates from the consumer’s expected use of it. Companies are held strictly liable for such defects, meaning that even though they did not intend harm and took every necessary precaution, they still have to compensate consumers of defective products. Consequently, most companies take extraordinary measures to avoid manufacturing and design defects in their products. In short, the process regulates itself.

Unlike defective products, a company’s environmental violations are more difficult to spot: the problem is not as obvious (pollution of a stream vs. an exploding toaster), much of a business’s operations can be hidden from governmental regulators, and the effects (health, economic, etc.) of the violation may only be felt years later. And even then it is difficult to link the adverse effect to a delinquent company. Therefore, the most effective way to remediate environmental violations is to deter a potential culprit from disregarding the regulation by imposing steep civil and, in instances of negligence, criminal penalties. For example, both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act contain provisions allowing criminal penalties for negligent violations of the statutes that can be extended to “any responsible corporate officer.” This clause, known as the responsible corporate officer doctrine, allows high-level corporate officers to be criminally charged, even without actual knowledge of the violations.

Congress has chosen to include provisions for criminal penalties in its environmental regulations for a few reasons. For certain violations, there is a cap on the amount of damages for civil claims. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 put a $75 million limit on the amount that can be paid for private economic and public natural-resource claims, even though the extent of damage from a violation may exceed this amount. By imposing criminal violations, however, Congress can compel the violating companies to contribute more to help with cleaning up the pollution and compensating those affected. Additionally, many of the largest companies are also the largest polluters, partly because they can afford to be. A $75 million slap on the wrist is unlikely to effectively deter a company like Chevron, whose annual revenue exceeds $200 billion, from cutting corners in its environmental operations. On the other hand, expose that same company (assuming they are found to be in violation of environmental law) to the potential of criminal penalties, and the regulation, now fitted with sharper teeth, can be much more effective.

The basic idea is that by stiffening the backbone of environmental law, regulators can obligate companies and their officers to regulate themselves, forcing them to approach environmental compliance with the same vigor they devote to the development of their own products.

-Kyle Johnson

Farming Potential in Urban Areas

2010-05-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

Imagine waking up in a downtown apartment to the busy sounds of morning with a hankering for fresh fruit. The last thing you want to do is fight rush hour traffic to get to the grocery store, so you throw on a robe and march up to the roof where your garden is in full bloom. After picking some ripe strawberries you head back downstairs to add them to a bowl of Cheerios and start the day. Sound far-fetched? Actually, rooftop gardening has been around for millennia, with roots dating back to ancient Mesopotamia more than 7,000 years ago. Today, as the density of urban centers increases, available space for gardening is becoming increasingly scarce. To help reduce the size of a city’s ecological footprint (a measure of human demand on Earth’s ecosystems), as well as provide aesthetic and architectural benefits, many urban planners believe that urban agriculture can be an effective tool.

There are two kinds of rooftop gardening: green roofs and rooftop gardens. Whereas rooftop gardens act much like backyard gardens, with walkways and furniture, green roofs are almost entirely covered with vegetation. Perhaps most importantly, “green roofs” can potentially lead to substantial energy savings by reducing the need for air conditioning. According to a study at the University of Cardiff in the UK, green roofs and walls can reduce local temperatures by up to 11.3°C, depending on the city. How, you might ask? Hot surfaces, such as concrete, metal, and asphalt, which make up most urban structures, warm the surrounding air and create “urban heat islands.” Because green surfaces absorb less heat from the sun, these surfaces, and consequently, the surrounding air, are cooled. In addition, plants, through a process known as evapotranspiration, cool the air by evaporating water. Thus, green roofs act as a kind of insulation.

Rooftop gardens, on the other hand, provide a local source of food, which lessens reliance on trucking in food from distant farms. If every apartment building in a downtown area had its own garden, imagine the potential for energy conservation and community development, not to mention a cheap source of fresh food. Many have recreational areas, furniture, hammocks and even trees, adding organic aesthetic beauty to an otherwise inorganic environment. Rooftop gardens also help urban denizens maintain a connection to nature that can be difficult to maintain when surrounded by miles of concrete and asphalt.

Many cities now have their own urban agriculture organizations, dedicated to furthering the goals of sustainability and providing resources for residents interested in starting their own urban garden. Some helpful starting points for anyone interested in urban gardening include the Resource Centers on Urban Agriculture and Food Security (RUAF) Foundation, cityfarmer.org, and urbangardenmagazine.com.

-Kyle Johnson

Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Fest a Success!

2010-04-22T12:10:00.001-07:00

On April 16, the Public Trust put on the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Fest at the Vineyard Church at the old Atlantic Theatres on Atlantic Blvd. The event was sponsored by Patagonia, Sierra Nevada, Folio Weekly, and many others. As a result of the film festival, the Public Trust now has over 60 members and is now in a better position to help educate the local community about environmental issues and problems we are facing.

One of the main goals of the festival was to inspire the community to act to protect our precious natural resources, and by that measure, it succeeded in spades. The short film “Change the World in Five Minutes” featured Australian school kids showing what they—and by extension we—could do in just five minutes per day to help make the world a better place, from turning off lights to growing food in local gardens. The film “Planting Hope” told the inspiring story of a woman in Africa who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her decades-long efforts to plant trees in seriously deforested areas. Not only were her efforts helping to restore the local environment, they were also empowering the local communities and revitalizing their economies and standard of living.

Perhaps the film with the most particular relevance to Florida’s long coastline was the film “Sheltered Sea,” which described the successful process by which California has established protected marine areas in order to protect that state’s ocean biodiversity—and by extension, its fisheries and the economic benefits they provide. What was interesting was that the organizers had made efforts to even get the fishermen on board with the program, when such interests are usually viewed as inapposite to environmental protection efforts.

The main event of the night, though was the movie “Fuel,” which gave an entertaining overview of the problems associated with our national addiction to fossil fuels, through the eyes of the personal experience of the filmmaker, an adamant supporter of biofuel solutions. While it was a lot to take in, on both an intellectual and emotional level, the film lived up to its independent film awards and accolades. The information was presented in an easily comprehensible way, and showed both the human and economic costs of our oil dependency, from the initial extraction process to end-consumption. While some parts of the film were depressing, and even infuriating, the emotional rollercoaster was worth sitting through to the very end, when the viewer was taken on the filmmaker’s inspiring vision of what the world could be, what the cities of the future could look like—if we take it upon ourselves to act to make it a reality.

Overall, those who missed this year’s film festival truly missed out—both in terms of the films shown and because of the many raffle items that the Public Trust was giving away as part of its fundraiser and membership drive. Certainly, those who missed the event may rent “Fuel” from your local movie store—and you certainly should, as it is one of those films that all Americans should see as a matter of their civic duty toward protecting their environment—but also consider penciling in time for Public Trust’s next film festival and fundraiser. You certainly won’t regret it.

By Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Climate Science Gets a Boost...From Space!

2010-04-08T14:10:00.001-07:00

Climate science is about to get a boost in efforts to measure global changes from space monitoring, both from NASA and the European Union’s space program. While thinking of NASA, one may usually think of going to the moon or the famed Hubble telescope looking across eons of time into our universe’s distant past. However, NASA and other space exploration efforts have a lot of potential to contribute to science—particularly climate science—by turning its attention back downward, toward Earth.

That is why the Obama administration has proposed a new NASA budget that includes a $2.4 billion increase over the next five years for NASA’s Earth Science Division. This represents a 60% increase and a major turnaround after the division was left to languish during the first part of this decade without enough resources to replace aging satellites that perform essential Earth-monitoring tasks, like polar ice, ocean temperatures, and atmospheric chemistry. Such measurements are extremely important in assessing the state and pace of climate change, and much of the new money will be focused on reinvigorating projects that determine just how quickly the Earth’s climate is changing.

One problem for climate scientists is that little is known about what happens to carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, once it gets into the atmosphere, and determining the carbon exchanges between the atmosphere and ocean and the atmosphere and land require a variety of precise measurements. So, a major chunk of the new funding will be to replace the Orbital Carbon Observatory that crashed into the ocean last year not long after being launched. As the name suggests, the new satellite would measure atmospheric carbon levels over time.

Additionally, NASA hopes to replace the GRACE satellites, a pair of twin satellites that have been making detailed measurements of Earth’s gravitational field since 2002. While gravitational fields are certainly important to physicists, the GRACE satellites have produced many more practical applications than anyone initially expected, such as using gravitational fields to measure the amount of and change in ground water over time. This is essential in predicting areas of potential water scarcity, as well as providing a more complete picture of Earth’s water cycle, beyond just what is observed as rainfall by weather satellites.

In addition to NASA, the EU is finally moving ahead with the long-awaited and long-delayed CryoSat 2 mission, which will launch a sophisticated satellite into orbit to precisely measure the thickness of global ice caps. The satellite will be able to measure the thickness of ice on land or floating in the sea to within one centimeter (or 0.39 inches). Thus, through repeated observations, scientists believe that this will allow them to monitor even small changes over brief periods of time. They also expect to be able to distinguish between ice melting due to warming and ice melts attributable to other reasons, such as shifting ocean currents. Thus, scientists hope that this will help them pin down the actual effects of global warming on the Earth’s ice more accurately.

Legal Intern, Jeremey Dobbins

Bejewled Cityscape Could Power the Urban Future

2010-04-07T11:04:00.001-07:00

Probably the first thing that comes into an American’s mind these days when the image of a “city” is invoked is a skyline of buildings and skyscrapers, edifices of steel and glass stretching upwards. But when some environmentally minded Americans look at it, they see a lot of wasted energy. What if, instead, much of this glass exterior could be converted to solar cells? Suddenly, a skyscraper full of businesses and people going to and fro doubles as a self-contained power station, located in the middle of downtown.

Scientists at the Center for Architecture Science and Ecology have been working on a multi-faceted grid of clear pyramids that would replace office windows. Applied building-wide, the scientists say that buildings would begin to look like they had been draped in giant, jeweled curtains, due to the multifaceted lens on each panel that would be used to focus the suns light on a central solar cell.

The three biggest energy drains for today’s building are related to heating, cooling, and lighting. This new solar cell addresses all three issues. Unlike the regular flat-paneled solar cell, this type of solar cell using concentrated sunlight is more efficient at providing the power to light the building. And the water heated up in the process of cooling the system could then be used to provide heat and hot water to the workers and residents in building’s interior. Additionally, the pyramid-panels would rotate throughout the day to maximize the solar power generation.

What’s more, the cells adapt to the local climate conditions. The pyramid pattern both collects every scrap of sunlight to keep the residents in places like New York or Seattle warm and toasty inside, but at the same time the pyramid pattern also disperses and diffuses the sunlight that reaches the building’s interior. Thus, residents of hot, sunny places like Phoenix, Arizona, will find it easier to stay cool. What’s more, businesses who have an eastern or western window exposure will no longer have to worry about the fighting the sun’s glare coming through the blinds in the early morning or late afternoon, as the sunlight diffusion would leave offices in a more constant, natural light throughout the day. Workers in these buildings would still have a view, although it would be slightly obstructed where the pyramid patterns are placed. The one big downside of the system is that unlike regular solar cells, which require little to no maintenance, this more-complicated system would require more to operate and maintain.

The solar cell project has already completed the development stage, and a prototype of the new solar cell has been installed on the façade of the Syracuse, New York, headquarters for the Center of Excellence for Environmental and Energy Systems. Syracuse, known for having long, snowy, and gray winters, may not seem the best place for testing a project that relies on sunlight to operate. However, project scientists intentionally chose the site because of its less-than-optimal climate conditions to show the wide applicability of the technology, even in places not known for an abundance of annual sunlight.

Pending the outcome of results at the prototype site, the solar panels are already described in documents for a future high-profile construction at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York. Project marketers also expect others to begin looking at integrating the solar cell system into their emerging architectural designs.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Energy Efficiency Incentives for Florida Businesses

2010-04-07T10:54:00.001-07:00

Currently, the federal government offers several tax incentives for improving the energy efficiency of commercial offices. First, businesses can take advantage of a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) for the purchase price (not including installation costs) of solar panels, wind turbines, or fuel cells. However, the fuel cells credit is capped at $1,500 per half kilowatt of capacity. An additional 10% tax credit is available for the purchase of combined heating and power systems or geothermal heat pumps. An itemized invoice showing the purchases utilized for the tax credit is required in order to claim the tax benefit, along with the filing of IRS Form 3468 with the applicable tax return. Depending on their situations, businesses should also consider whether it is more advantageous to claim the 30% purchase tax credit or to write off the entire purchase as a business expense.

In addition to the tax benefit, the federal government also provides for accelerated depreciation, usually on a five-year schedule, for all of the technologies that qualify for the ITC, allowing for faster recovery of energy investments. IRS Form 4562 must be filed along with the applicable years’ tax returns in order to take advantage of the accelerated depreciation schedule. The IRS also provides a more general guide for taking advantage of property depreciation.

Beyond specific purchases, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides a tax deduction for efforts to make commercial buildings more energy efficient. Businesses in qualifying buildings that are able to certify a 50% reduction in its heating/cooling energy usage may also qualify for an additional $1.80 per square foot tax deduction. Qualifying buildings are those within the scope of ASHRAE standard 90.1-2001, which basically requires that the building’s heating system have an output capacity of greater than or equal to 3.4 Btu/h-ft2 or has a cooling system output capacity of greater than or equal to 5 Btu/h-ft2. The building also must not be residential and must be connected to electric power. This $1.80 per square foot deduction can also be divided and broken down into three categories of partial tax deductions of $.60 per square foot, which is available for certified energy savings of 1) 10% in the building envelope, 2) 20% from lighting improvements, and 3) 20% from heating and cooling improvements. An additional credit of $.30 per square foot is available for “dual switch” lighting systems (which can switch off half the lights and still have uniform lighting) that reduce lighting power by at least 25% from values cited in ASHRAE standard 90.1-2001. This “lighting system” credit increases proportionally to $.60 per square foot as reductions exceed the 25% baseline and approach 40%.

Qualifying for the tax credit only requires certification by a qualified individual (usually licensed engineers or contractors who are unrelated (as defined by the IRS) to the person or organization receiving the tax benefit) that the various energy savings requirements have been met. Certification is completed using computer software, but does require an on-site field inspection of the building after it is placed into service following the upgrades in order to verify the efficiency savings. Although the certification does not have to be filed along with the tax return in which the deduction is claimed, the certification should be kept by the taxpayer as part of the supporting documents and records. No special form is required to claim the deduction after certification is obtained. Rather, the taxpayer should include the amount of the deduction in the “Other deductions” line of the applicable tax return, along with a statement listing the types and amounts of these deductions. For more information on the requirements for meeting this tax credit, see IRS Notice 2008-40.

The State of Florida has a standing exemption for sales and use taxes on all solar system purchases. The state has in the past also provided rebates for solar panel installation, but funding for the program is currently exhausted pending possible new appropriations for the program in 2011. When operative, the rebate program provided a $4 per watt rebate up to $20,000 for residences and $100,000 for businesses. To qualify, the system must be installed by a state-licensed contractor, comply with all building codes, and the application for the rebate must be made within 120 days of purchase. Rebate applications can be filled out and submitted online at the Florida Energy and Climate Commission’s website.

Unfortunately, Beach Power, the local utility, does not offer rebates to businesses or new residences. Rather, their rebate program is targeted entirely at existing residences, which can qualify for a small rebate for such things as HVAC upgrades, water heaters, and solar filming for windows. However, local area power customers, both residential and commercial, who fall under the jurisdiction of Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) may also qualify for a rebate on the costs of installing a solar water heating system in their homes or businesses. Commercial customers who make the installation could recoup 15% (non-local installers) to 30% (local installers) of their investment, up to a maximum of $5,000 per installation ($2,500 for non-local installers). More information about solar water heaters and JEA’s the rebate can be found on the JEA’s website.

For a listing of all various energy efficiency incentives that may be applicable in your area to your home or office, visit the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency at http://www.dsireusa.org.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

California Air Resources Board Withdraws Controversial Clearcutting Protocol

2010-03-18T14:03:00.001-07:00

The California Air Resources Board (ARB), which administers California’s climate change efforts under the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, recently decided to withdraw a controversial “forest project protocol” that would have allowed landowners, including timber companies, to earn carbon credits under California’s cap-and-trade regime for clear-cutting and other potentially harmful forestry practices. California’s statewide program is among the first in the nation, and it serves as a model for other states, regions, and the federal government as they consider similar climate change efforts and legislation. Importantly, California is expected to become part of the Western Climate Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade effort by several Western states and Canadian provinces. Thus, this change to the California model program that restricts the issuance of carbon credits could lead to environmental benefits in the West and across the nation as other similar programs come online.

The withdrawal of the controversial policy came in response to a formal letter sent by the Center for Biological Diversity (“the Center”) in November that accused the ARB’s carbon-crediting policy of violating the California Environmental Quality Act due to the ARB’s failure to consider the foreseeable environmental consequences of adopting the clear-cutting forestry crediting policy, as the law requires. In this case, according to the Center, the foreseeable environmental consequences were to incentivize clear-cutting and other environmentally destructive logging practices that do nothing to address climate change but do hurt the forest’s ability to continue to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.

Environmentally, clear-cutting has several negative impacts, both on forests and on the broader surrounding ecology. Clear-cutting can lead to soil run-off, diminishing water quality. The practice also causes a greater disturbance to the local ecosystem than more sustainable forestry practices by destroying essential habitat, fragmenting the habitat that remains, and ultimately culminating in a loss local of biodiversity. Additionally, replanting to restore the forest and to recapture the carbon lost in the process of cutting will take years and even decades to accomplish—time that we may not have left to address climate change before atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach critical and even catastrophic levels.

By rescinding the policy, the ARB will effectively change the incentive structures around the state’s climate change cap-and-trade program. Since clear-cutting forestry programs will no longer be able to receive credits under the law, the effect is to incentivize better forestry practices overall, which in turn leads to healthier forests and greater CO2 sequestration—and, consequently, greater climate change mitigation—by those forests over time. While this one change alone, even if followed by every other cap-and-trade program, will not in itself halt climate change, it does increase the integrity of the program and the covered forests’ effectiveness at CO2 mitigation over time. So, while this policy change is not a silver bullet, it is a positive step in the right direction.

By Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Federalism Limits Clean Water Act Restoration

2010-03-18T13:58:00.001-07:00

Recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, most notably its 2006 decision in Rapanos v. United States, have placed enforcement of the Clean Water Act—and, consequently, the cleanliness of the nation’s drinking water—in jeopardy. Even worse, Rapanos had a split decision with two pluralities on the court endorsing two different standards for what ‘waters’ fall within the United States’ jurisdiction.

The results have been predictable (and many were predicted by the court’s dissenters): Polluters use new ambiguities in jurisdiction to slow the process down or make it too costly for the EPA to prosecute. Different federal district courts and circuit courts reach different results on similar jurisdictional facts. Some polluters even decide for themselves that they are no longer under the EPA’s Clean Water Act jurisdiction and stop filing the paperwork they had previously been required to file. Polluters now have an incentive to move to areas where the Clean Water Act doesn’t reach, increasing pollution levels locally and overall.

Some in congress have naturally responded to this abominable and deteriorating situation with efforts to change the Clean Water Act, to bring clarity and restore its former jurisdiction. To the extent they can clarify the Act, they should certainly be encouraged in the effort. Unfortunately, though, they may not be able to get very far in addressing the real problem here, as the limitations imposed on the Clean Water Act were imposed by the Supreme Court based on federalism concerns. The Clean Water Act itself was already presumed to cover every drop of the nation’s waters that federal power could constitutionally reach. In other words, the Act was already believed to cover and reach the outer limits of permissible federal jurisdiction. The very core of the decision in Rapanos was to try to demarcate just exactly what those jurisdictional limits on the federal regulatory power were. On the one side of the jurisdictional line was waters within the federal power to regulate under the Commerce Clause; on the other side, the waters would be within the jurisdiction of the individual states to regulate, if they so chose, but outside of federal jurisdiction.

Thus, congressional efforts to restore the Clean Water Act to its former clarity and broader jurisdiction would presumably be going further than the constitution would allow the federal government to go under the existing legal precedent established by Rapanos. So, when such a new law is challenged—as it certainly would be, assuming it ever gets passed—there would already be reason to believe that it would be struck down by the federal courts, assuming no change in the Supreme Court’s personnel or thinking on federal environmental jurisdictional questions and the reach of the Commerce Clause.

While congress may well be able to tweak around the edges of the Clean Water Act and provide some clarity, the core of the problem here is one of constitutional law, and a statute alone will not be able to untie that Gordian knot. Fixing that sort of problem requires a constitutional amendment or a change in Supreme Court precedent. Perhaps given the jurisdictional disaster left in the wake of Rapanos, the court will revisit the issue in upcoming cases—and, hopefully leave us with more clarity than before. Regardless, such jurisdictional limitations evidently cause a serious impairment to our nation’s ability to address environmental problems as holistically as possible (the best way for dealing with environmental problems)—and our environment and the health of our people will suffer for it. Thus, a constitutional amendment giving the federal government a broader, explicit environmental jurisdiction should not be out of consideration by those in congress who are serious about making sure our environment is preserved for future, healthy generations.

By Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Solar Power for Sale

2010-02-23T13:03:00.001-08:00

According to an article written by Erin Schneider, of E Magazine.com, it appears that Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Steven Cohen (D-TN) are sponsoring a bill that will help place solar panels on 10 million houses over the next 10 years. The bill is properly named, “10 Million Solar Panels and 10 Million Gallons of Solar Hot Water Act of 2010.” The main question yet to be answered is, “Can this be done?”

Solar power is not a new concept. Commercial industries have been using solar power for years to help reduce the high cost of energy usage, keeping their electricity bills low. Solar power in the residential setting barely exists. There are a small number of homes sporting solar panels on their roofs and normally these homes are owned by individuals with more money to spend greener technology. Solar panels simply cost too much for the average middle class citizens. One kilowatt of energy, the average amount of energy a home uses in a day, is produced for every 100 sq/ft of “activated” solar panel. According to the Solar Power Authority, the average home could be sustained by a 100 sq/ft solar panel display if the sun was out 24 hours a day with perfect clear visibility. Of course the sun doesn’t stay out 24 hours a day, and even when the sun is out it is not perfectly clear every day. Rather, the Solar Power Authority predicts that on average, a typical solar panel display, in order to power an average home, would need to be between 500 and 800 sq/ft, depending on the area’s amount of annual sunshine. The current price for a complete installation of a solar power display/array runs about $7 to $9 per potential watt. So, at the lowest end, a 500 sq/ft array, which is the low average needed to power one house, and has the potential to produce 5 kWh of energy, would cost $35,000 dollars to install. $35,000 is considered by many to be just too much money to devote to help better his or her environment. This system does have the potential to reduce the user’s power bill to zero or below, but with the monthly power bill averaging $73 per month it would take a long time to cover the initial start up cost.

So why are members of congress pushing to pass a bill that will seemingly cost Americans between $35,000 and $56,000 dollars, whether it takes 500sq/ft of solar panels to power your home or 800sq/ft of solar panels to power your home? Right now the main reason prices are so high to install solar paneling on one’s home is simply due to the fact that there are too few producers of residential solar panels. When there are fewer companies the price stays high because of the lack of competition. The new bill will create a higher demand, the largest on Earth, in hopes of having the effect of drawing either more residential solar panel businesses or causing solar panel companies that produce mainly to commercial industries to gear their efforts toward residential buyers as well. Hopefully with an increased number of manufactures in the marketplace the price or purchasing and installing solar panels will decrease. The bill will also help offset the high costs of purchasing and installing solar panels by adding in rebates to users.

This would be a huge step toward a cleaner environment. If successful 10 million homes will be using clean solar power and not need dirtier forms of energy, such as coal, to power everyday necessities. Also, if successful, this bill could open a market for cheaper solar paneling causing more and more Americans, along with citizens around the world, to choose solar power over coal power.

Joshua S. Wyatt, Legal Intern

Pond Scum Could Soon Fuel Military

2010-02-23T12:55:00.001-08:00

The Pentagon recently announced that their recent effort at developing an algae-based fuel is ahead of schedule and proceeding apace. Pentagon researchers estimate that they are mere months away from developing a fuel that would be cost competitive with fossil fuels currently in use.

This new program is in keeping with the Pentagon’s goal of achieving a zero carbon footprint within a decade. The Air Force, for example, already has plans to make its jet fleet alternative-fuel ready by 2011, aiming to have all aircraft capable of functioning on a 50/50 blend of synthetic and fossil fuels. When first announced, such a zero carbon footprint goal for the military sector, which relies heavily on hardware and the fuel required to run it, seemed decidedly optimistic. However, this new fuel source promises to make these supposedly pie-in-the-sky goals much more realistic to achieve.

Anyone else making claims about cost-competitive fuel made from algae would likely be taken lightly—if not dismissed out of hand as an environmentalist’s sci-fi fantasy. But when the claimant is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the same research arm of the military that gave us satellite navigation and the internet, such “wild-eyed” claims suddenly start looking less like flights of eco-fantasy and more like credible and meaningful advances in green fuel technology.

The reported advance comes after DARPA invested nearly $25 million into the algae fuel research program last year, contracting with Science Applications International Corp to assist DARPA in developing algae-based fuel for use by the military. As a result of their efforts, researchers have already cracked how to extract oil from algal ponds for less than $2 per gallon, and the project is now on track to begin large-scale refining of this oil into jet fuel at a cost of less than $3 per gallon. For comparison, the current average price of regular motor gasoline nationwide currently hovers around $2.60 per gallon, and the price of consumer jet fuel at airports ranges between $4 and $5 per gallon, depending on the region. Thus, DARPA’s new jet fuel source holds the promise of ultimately being greener, cleaner and cheaper than existing fuels and fuel sources.

Just as satellites and the internet outstripped their military origins in application, so too is this advance likely to have a broad array of impacts outside the military. For example, one of the advantages of the algae-to-fuel process is that algal pools can be “fed” by waste water runoff or by soaking up CO2 emissions from existing power plants. And, one of the problems with electric vehicles is that they don’t generally have sufficient horsepower to displace gas-fueled 18-wheelers or other heavy machinery that perform jobs requiring serious horsepower to complete. So, algae-based fuel that can provide horsepower sufficient to keep military jets in the air is also likely to be able to help make other sectors of the economy greener and more eco-friendly over the long-term. Thus, DARPA’s latest efforts at finding a way to cost-effectively mass produce this fuel could prove to be something of a game changer, turning a promising technology into a market-ready one with a broad array of potential uses and applications across the economy.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Frosty the Snowman Accused of Debunking Climate Change

2010-02-16T06:01:00.000-08:00

This past week’s series of severe snowstorms, which dumped large and even record amounts of snow across the country, has prompted another unfortunate round of chuckling by deniers of climate change. In part, this is the result of framing the issue as one of “global warming,” which, while true, obscures some of the less “warm” aspects of the issue. And it provides an opening for political opponents of addressing the climate crisis to latch onto any cold weather of any significance and use it as “evidence” that the scientists and all their numbers, data, and conclusions regarding climate change are demonstrably and observably wrong. How could the world be warming, they ask, when huge blankets of snow are falling from the sky?

Thus, this month’s snow storms, according to climate change deniers, prove that there is no such beast as ‘global warming.’ The flaw in this argument, however, is easily recognized: While it may be snowing here in the USA, it is certainly quite hot right now in South America—or anywhere south of the equator this time of year—since they are currently experiencing summer (and likely a hotter one) for their hemisphere. Simply because it is cold and snowing here does not mean that the global climate as a whole has taken a similar turn. Just because it may occasionally rain in the desert doesn’t change the fact that the overall climate in a desert area is a dry one. The desert has not suddenly become an aquarian paradise after one good thunderstorm. Nor does one snowstorm change the fact that the overall global climate is warming or the fact that the past decade is the warmest on record.

Understood another way, climate change due to “global warming” at a very basic level means that the average temperature for the entire earth is increasingly warmer. In practice, what this means is that there is more heat energy in the global system that has to work itself out. Just as warmer water temperatures act as fuel that increases the strength of hurricanes, warmer water and air temperatures lead to increased water evaporation globally. All that water vapor, in turn, has to go somewhere, meaning that the resulting precipitation—rain or snow—will be more violent and come in greater amounts than before. Thus, as climate change advances, where there is rain, it will become rainier and wetter; where there is snow, it will become snowier; and where it is dry, it will become even dryer.

Thus, if any conclusion at all regarding climate change should have been drawn from watching these record setting weather events, it should have been the exact opposite one from that promoted by the climate change deniers: These extreme snow storms with record amounts of snow fit generally with the pattern expected by scientists as climate change proceeds. So, rather than be used as fodder by climate change deniers to prove that global warming is a hoax, serious observers and policymakers should have observed these isolated weather events and, if anything, become even more serious about addressing the climate crisis predicted by climate researchers. So, while these severe snowstorms do not in and of themselves alone prove climate change is happening, what these storms certainly do not show—by any stretch of the rational, non-politicized imagination—is that climate change is not occurring, as the evidence in this case points entirely in the opposite direction.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

USFWS Denies ESA Protection to Pika

2010-02-11T14:20:00.001-08:00

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently posted on its website its decision denying listing the pika, a relative of rabbits that resembles a mouse, as protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Had it done so, the pika would have been the first species in the continental United States listed as a result of global warming.

The pika is an alpine species that lives on high, Rocky Mountain slopes in the western U.S.. Exposure to temperatures above 78 degrees can be lethal for the cold-natured species. So, as global warming increases, the lower mountain altitudes get warmer—and less habitable—for the pika, which must continue to move up-slope to survive. The pika’s situation is not unlike species trapped on an island with the water slowly rising to envelop it. This results in fragmented populations, since pika on one mountain or area may be cut off from other groups. This in turn results in less biodiversity within the pika population and increases the chances that the pika will go extinct when faced with future environmental stresses. The problems peculiar to this species prompted petitions to and increased pressure on the USFWS by environmental groups to list the pika under the ESA.

However, FWS rejected the proposed listing, determining that while some pika populations were declining others were not. FWS also noted that the pika population is widespread enough over a range of habitat that increased warming would not threaten the longterm survival of the species. FWS estimates that temperatures will increase by about 5.4 degrees over the next century, leading to increased declines in the foreseeable future for pika populations in lower altitudes while survival rates in populations in higher altitudes are expected to be somewhat better. Still, those higher-altitude populations are expected to survive under FWS’s analysis.

Environmental groups who petitioned the listing were naturally disappointed with the result and have called it a political decision that ignores the law and the dire circumstances facing the pika. However, others praise the decision for not using the ESA as a surrogate means for addressing the causes and effects of global warming.

To an extent, this fight over listing the pika echoes proposals to list the polar bear, whose habitat is similarly threatened by climate change and whose listing has been similarly fought on the basis that the ESA should not be used as a backdoor means of addressing global warming impacts. The polar bear, however, was ultimately deemed “threatened” and granted protected status in late 2008--along with new regulations that prevent the listing from blocking projects that contribute to global warming. The new Obama administration and his appointment, Ken Salazar, have so far refused to rescind the rule, which is now being challenged in court.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Refugees of Nature

2010-02-11T14:14:00.001-08:00

Twelve out the last fourteen years the Earth’s temperature has hit record highs. There is a debate over the cause of the temperature increase. On one side, some scientists believe that humans are to blame for the increase in temperature. Some scientists on the other side simply believe the change deals with the Earth’s natural cycles, in which the Earth goes through periodic temperature increases and decreases. One side could be right, the other side could be wrong, or they both may be wrong; however, right now the Earth’s temperature is above normal, and massive effects are being felt all over the world. Over this time frame of increased temperatures, the Earth’s population has seen a rise in natural disasters. Hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, floods, and other natural disasters are wreaking havoc on the population. The problem only starts with the disaster itself; the aftermath poses many more potential problems.

After every major disaster, whether it is natural or manmade, there is a population displacement of that area’s citizens. According to an Environmental Justice Foundation study, 20 million people were displaced in 2008. The majority came from Asian nations, following cyclone Nargis, in which 800,000 people had to be evacuated and could not return home because the area was completely destroyed. A similar situation happened following hurricane Katrina; the city of New Orleans was devastated, and many residents were displaced and relocated to surrounding states. Natural disasters are a normal occurrence. They happen every year and affect millions of people. After any major natural disaster there will be a displaced population, but there is an additional problem in the frequency of the major natural disasters. With the increase of the Earth’s overall temperature, the sheer numbers of catastrophic hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, and floods have increased steadily every year, and they are getting worse.

Cyclones in the Pacific and hurricanes in the Atlantic are getting stronger, droughts are lasting longer, floods are affecting larger populations, and heat waves are killing everything from plants to people. The effects of global warming, weather cyclical or manmade, are being felt now. It is true that most predictions talk about the increased temperature’s effect on our children and their children, but they are already being felt by those living today. It is projected that between now and the year 2050, 150 million people will have lost their homes due to natural disasters, caused primarily from climate change.

Obviously climate change is an important topic in Washington, D.C.. Climate change is a great political tool to help sell your party’s beliefs and win votes. But, climate change should be on the minds of every person. 150 million displaced individuals have to re-establish themselves somewhere, the victims of Katrina settled all over the southeastern United States affecting every aspect of life from school and jobs, to food consumption and traffic congestion. With increased population sizes from the addition of the displaced mass a weaker or smaller job market for the established residents follows. Also, with a higher population comes more pollution, which in turn exacerbates climate change leading to more potential problems, whether health related or climate related. Global Warming is causing problems now, problems that may only get worse with time unless major changes occur.

Joshua Wyatt, Legal Intern

The Environmental Cost of the Recession

2010-02-04T14:12:00.000-08:00

The United States economy, according to all the experts, is suffering from a horrible recession. The stock market is down, and many Americans are still out of work. Many people think that the recession is a blessing in disguise in regards to a cleaner environment. With gas prices continuing to fluctuate and bank accounts continuing to decline many more people are using public transportation or carpooling, leaving their cars in the garage helping decrease pollution. This is a true but there are also two major environmental problems resulting from the recession, cheaper food and deforestation.
With less money comes fewer opportunities to purchase higher priced foods. People think that eating at home more is a remedy to almost every problem. Lower pollution because they are not driving and fewer family problems because of shared meals; but, the major “benefit” can be found with the cheapness of store bought food in comparison with restaurant food. Americans are now buying cheaper foods in order to fit their budgets. But following an article from E Magazine.com, the cheaper the food the less shelf life the food has leading to more garbage a normal family deposits. Cheaper foods, on average, have a shorter shelf life. Families buy the cheaper food to save a little more money in this economically unstable time. Shorter shelf lives, however, lead to more garbage, because when the food goes bad families throw it away and buy more that eventually goes bad, a continuous cycle about which I am afraid nothing really can be done. With less money Americans need cheaper food in order to eat, plain and simple. The only real solution, though probably not practical, would be for individuals to demand better quality from their cheap food manufactures. But the other main environmental issue steaming from the recession can be fixed.
Along with cheap food, Americans are buying cheap furniture and cheap do-it-yourself building materials. With this increase in demand for these cheap materials comes an increase in the need for a supply of the materials, Economics 101. The major component in cheap furniture and do it yourself kits is wood. A need for more wood equals more wood that needs to be cut down. This is nothing new, Americans have needed wood for furniture, homes, and building materials since our founding, but today shops are building cheaper furniture with less durability than their more expensive competitors. Cheaper furniture then leads to an even higher increase in demand because the cheap furniture breaks easier and may not last as long. Thus, deforestation is the result from the high demand of wood. In Europe forests are being destroyed illegally in order to keep up with the high demand for wood. The world’s forests are like filters, taking in the bad air and pollution, and giving back clean, fresh air. There is a very easy solution, stop buying products using illegal wood supplies, and start buying products from wood suppliers that have renewable means for producing wood.
So, in a not so direct way, the recession is causing more environmental problems that no one really sees. Cheap, the word that many people love to hear now a days, is also a concept that is leading to more and more environmental problems, whether it is cheap food spoiled and filling up our landfills, or our need for cheap easily breakable furniture that needs replacing from month to month, containing wood from illegal manufactures. There is no real solution, only a need for a wakeup call. Cheaper food and furniture may seem like the best option in today’s economy, but it is leading to a poorer environment. Knowledge about the environmental side of the recession is necessary for change.

Josh Wyatt, Legal Intern

Indoor Air Pollution

2010-01-29T07:02:00.001-08:00

What is cleaner, the air in your house or the air outside? Unless you live next door to a coal burning plant that is emitting tons of smoke every day, a normal person would tend to believe that the air inside their own home is cleaner than the air outside. According to scientific studies they would be wrong. Studies have proven that in most cases indoor air is drastically less clean than outside air. Why? According to an article in E, The Environmental Magazine, indoor air pollutants are consumed everyday by the general population, and it doesn’t matter where you live. Whether in an urban center or a rural setting, indoor pollutants can be found. Indoor pollutants come from a variety of different sources including carpets, furniture, cleaning solutions, paint strippers, tobacco smoke, solvents in inks, and even air fresheners. Most are relatively harmless, only causing minor respiratory irritation, including shortness of breath and allergies. Some, however, can cause real problems. Pollutants like benzene from tobacco smoke and formaldehyde from paint strippers are proven carcinogens, and lead to a variety of cancers. But the horror does stop there. Most indoor pollutants are like stealth bombers, you cannot see them until after the devastation has occurred. Some, such as air fresheners and cleaning solutions, are meant to have a pleasant smell in order to mask odor, but they still can cause health problems.
How can we put an end to these indoor pollutants? For years people have been buying expensive electric air filters that clean the indoor air, expensive air filters that draw in and mix outdoor air with indoor air, and even simple filters that can be installed over air vents to filter out pollutants. The only real problem with these types of air filters is that they all run off of electricity which causes more pollution whether it is indoor or outdoor. It is a pick your poison scenario, would you rather die from indoor toxins from everyday products, or would you rather die from outdoor pollution caused by the power plants that provide electricity for your indoor air filters?
While this is a perhaps extreme characterization of the situation, there is nevertheless an electricity free method of purifying indoor air and removing indoor pollutants. The simple answer deals with house hold plants. According to research by Dr. B.C. Wolverton, there are a number of plants an individual can by that will filter out harmful indoor pollutants much like electric air filters. Plants such as the rubber plant and Bamboo Palm can filter out many pollutants and leave indoor air “very clean.” The process has something to do with soil in such plants as the rubber plant. Plants, much like humans, need air to breath. For example once the rubber plant “breaths in” the harmful pollutants, its soil biodegrades each of the chemicals and almost pure air is the byproduct. Also, a number of soil microbes found in each of these purifying plants help to clear the air of the pollutants.
So what does this mean to the everyday citizen? Imagine the same scenario but dealing with drinking water. Would a person drink a brown glass of water, filled with germs, bacteria, and dirt, or would a person rather drink a clean glass of water free from toxins? This answer may sound simple, and with water most dangers are very visible. Indoor air pollution, on the other hand, is not so apparent. Indoor air pollution is a stealth killer. Just because you cannot see the pollutants in the air does not mean they are not there, and some are deadly. Buying and placing cheap and low maintenance house hold plants can help purify indoor air, without causing the added outdoor pollution electric air purifiers eventually make. Plants can help prevent outdoor pollution, and help purify indoor pollution. So the next time you want to freshen the air of your home or office, consider buying a plant, your area will be cleaner and more beautiful.

Josh Wyatt, Legal Intern

Have We Forgotten About Global Warming?

2010-01-28T12:24:00.000-08:00

New polls show that the American people’s concern with global warming has cooled off. According to the poll funded by the Yale Project on Climate Change and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, we are significantly less worried. Under 50 percent say they are “somewhat” or “very worried” – a 13 percent decrease from a poll taken in October 2008. The percentage of Americans who think global warming is occurring fell from 71 to 57 percent, and the percentage that believe climate change is caused primarily by human activities fell from 57 to 47 percent. The percentage of people who think that Americans are currently harmed by global warming, dropped from 34 to 25 percent.

A new poll by the Pew Center for the People & The Press, found that over 80 percent of adults list jobs and the economy as top priorities for the White House and Congress in 2010. Global warming ranked at the bottom of issues polled – 28 percent said it should be a top priority, while 36 percent called it an “important but lower priority.” “Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents,” a summary of the Pew poll released Monday states. The economy is a top priority for 83 percent of the 1,504 people polled earlier this month, followed by jobs at 81 percent and terrorism at 80 percent. Forty-nine percent said dealing with the nation’s energy problems is a top priority, while 44 percent listed protecting the environment in that category.

At the same time as the American people’s concern of global warming decreases, the global temperature and the melting of Antarctica increases. Glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster and across a much wider area than previously thought, a development that threatens to raise sea levels worldwide and force millions of people to flee low-lying areas, scientists say. By the end of the century, the accelerated melting could cause sea levels to climb by 3 to 5 feet — levels substantially higher than predicted by a major scientific group just two years ago.

Victoria Lindbak, Intern

Sowing The Wind

2010-01-28T06:19:00.001-08:00

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) this month reported that federal stimulus spending under the federal Recovery Act has helped turn what was expected to be a 50% decline in growth in the wind power sector into a 39% increase over the course of 2009, particularly in the latter half of the year. As a result of Recovery Act incentives, the U.S. wind sector has added about 10,000 Megawatts (MW) of additional capacity bringing the total to over 35,000 MW nationally. This represents 38 new wind power facilities being brought online, announced, or expanded. Amazingly, nearly 4,000 MW of this 10,000 MW growth in the wind sector occurred during the last quarter of 2009. While this increase only helps wind power turbines close in on accounting for about two percent of the nation’s power supply, this is up from almost nothing a just a few years ago. Since 2002, the nation’s supply of wind-generated energy has jumped sevenfold.

Although growth during the last year was phenomenal for construction, operations, and management jobs in the wind power sector, the manufacturing sector did not see as much gain. In part, this was a result of already-high inventories that must be depleted before demand for their wind power products will increase and stabilize. However, the AWEA also blames the lack of a long-term energy policy and market signals for the decline in total investment in the wind manufacturing sector compared to 2008. Over the course of 2009, one-third fewer manufacturing plants came online or were announced or expanded as a result.

By far, the largest increase in wind power came in the state of Texas, which was already the nation’s wind-power leader with 7118 MW at the beginning of the year. However, during 2009, the state added another 2292 MW of wind capacity, for a total of 9410 MW for Texas alone, which by itself accounts for nearly 2/7 of all U.S. wind sector capacity. At the end of 2009, Texas was followed by Iowa, with 3670 MW of wind power capacity, and California, with 2,794 MW of capacity. Overall, 36 states now have at least some utility-scale wind installations, and 14 states have developed over 1000 MW of capacity thus far. Florida is one of the 14 remaining states, primarily concentrated in the southeastern U.S., that have yet to develop any wind power installations or capacity, despite the recent availability of substantial federal investment monies and increased attention to the issue.

The AWEA projects that America’s wind power fleet will result in positive environmental impacts for both the nation’s air and water. Wind power is projected to avoid about 62 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions annually, which is the equivalent of taking 10.5 million cars off the road. In addition, wind power is expected to save another 20 billion gallons of water annually that would be otherwise used for steam or cooling conventional power plants.

Jeremey Dobbins, Legal Intern

Global Warming's Effect on Hurricanes

2010-01-22T11:34:00.001-08:00

What exactly makes a hurricane? Hurricanes start off as storm systems rolling off the coast of Africa barreling toward North America, and form over the warm waters around the equator. As the storm center moves over the open ocean a Low Pressure is formed and water is sucked up into the core of the storm. The warmer the water, the more energy the storm will gather and the stronger it becomes. There are only a few natural ways to stop a hurricane. Cold and Warm fronts have the ability to push the storm away from the continent, wind sheer over certain parts of the ocean can tear it apart, and any movement over land will weaken the storm. But, warmer waters equal stronger hurricanes which are harder to stop.
What exactly is Global Warming? Global warming is a very controversial issue in today’s economic world, political world, and sociological world. In a nutshell, the burning of fossil fuels, the release of methane gas, and the release of CFCs are causing our atmosphere to erode, allowing more radiation from the sun to penetrate, and thus heating up the planet. The area around the equator gets more sun than anywhere else on the planet, so more radiation from the sun penetrates warming up the waters. Many people think global warming is a farce, a scare tactic used to sway political voters into voting one way over another. If you are a believer or a skeptic one fact remains blatantly obvious, hurricanes over the past few years have been stronger than ever recorded.
So what is the connection? As stated earlier, hurricanes gain their energy by sucking up warm water along their trip across the ocean. The warmer the water is the stronger the hurricane becomes. With global warming, the area receiving the most sun radiation, thus heating faster and hotter, is the area around the equator in which the hurricanes travel. Hurricanes traveling over this newly heated water are becoming stronger and harder to be redirected by either wind shear or slowed down by land masses. One example of a super powerful hurricane is Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New Orleans. Originally a category 5, the strongest of the hurricanes, Katrina was one of the fast growing hurricanes on record. Seemly over night this storm turned into a monster. One opinion of this growth tends to blame global warming. The waters in the Gulf of Mexico are getting warmer, is it because of new radiation breaking through the holes in the atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas, or is there a cycle to the planets heatin? Katrina moved directly over these waters possibly affected by global warming and became stronger. Sadly enough this will happen again.
What can we do to stop it? The only true way to stop global warming and maybe weaken potential hurricanes is to fight for a cleaner environment. All the damage done to the oceans is probably irreversible, but there is a chance to slow down the progression. Are stronger hurricanes related to global warming? Maybe, more scientific research is needed.

Haiti's Environmental Future

2010-01-21T11:23:00.001-08:00

The long-term efforts to help Haiti will need to include a focus on reversing environmental damage such as near deforestation that causes a shortage in water and food supply for the Haitians, experts say. Haiti’s president is grateful for all the emergency aid, however he asks donors to remember the country’s long-term needs. Former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who are heading the private-sector fundraising efforts, are asking us to be generous in our donations, not only in the short-term, but also in the long-term recovery for Haiti.

From 1957 to 1986 Haiti had a dictatorship, first Francois Duvalier, then his son Jean-Claude. The dictatorship resulted in deforestation – today less than two percent of the nation has forest cover. This contributes to erosion that undermines food output. The deforestation also makes Haiti more vulnerable to hurricanes and storms. Before the quake on January 12th, the U.N. Environment Program had decided on a two-year project, starting in 2010, to boost Haiti’s environment, from forests and coral reefs. Asif Zaidi, Operations Manager of the post-conflict and disaster management branch of the UNEP, says, “Among quick measures for donors could be to provide propane to encourage a shift from charcoal-burning stoves. That could be backed in the longer-term by reforestation and investments in renewable energies such as solar or wind power.”

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said that while the earthquake is a tragedy for Haiti, it has focused the world’s attention on the impoverished nation. The Haitian government, Haitians living abroad and countless non-governmental organizations, and many donor nations have a chance to help make the long-term improvements, they added.

Victoria Lindbak, Intern

Green Nanotechnology: Myth or Reality?

2010-01-18T04:44:00.000-08:00

Everyday our environment is changing. By environment I am talking about every aspect of our lives. Where we live, how we get around, what we eat, and how we take responsibility for our actions. As our environment changes, so too does the technology that makes our lives “easier,” which is very debatable. So, if technology can make it easier for a person to get to work in the morning, through GPS and easy pay gas stations, why can’t technology help the sustainability of our planet? When one thinks about nanotechnology, images of science fiction movies come to mind, like Star Trek. But, nanotechnology is not science fiction, it’s actually here. “Green Nanotechnology: Straddling Promise and Uncertainty” is an article by Barbara P. Karn and Lynn L. Bergeson in Natural Resources and Environment magazine. The main purpose of this article is to attempt to educate readers about the potential of green nanotechnology.
The nanotechnology movement is really starting to take flight in a number of different fields. Proposals include medical nanotechnology to fight against cancer and other diseases and engineering nanotechnology to reduce labor and transportation costs. In the article “Green Nanotechnology,” the authors explore the different ways nanotechnology can help protect the planet. Primarily, the article focuses on two ways in which green nanotechnology can help. First, green nanotechnologies can be developed to help remediate hazardous waste, purify water, desalinate water, and help clean polluted waterways. Pollution is really a troubling issue; imagine green nanotechnology being able to destroy water pollutants such as fuels, waste, and others. The ability to purify water from toxins could save countless numbers of aquatic species, as well as the birds that nest and feed from the rivers. The ability to desalinate water is also a very important issue. One day our population could possibly exhaust the fresh water supply. The ability to turn saltwater, which covers 75% of the earth, in to drinkable water could be a huge development. Second, green nanotechnologies will be made from safer chemicals proven to have minimal, if any, effects on the environment. The less waste technology produces the better the outcome.
There are some fears about green nanotechnology and nanotechnologies in general. If a green nanotechnology is produced to help clean up oil spills in the Pacific Ocean for example, what is to stop this machine from destroying other aspects of the environment? After the oil is consumed what happens next. Will the nano-organism just shut off? Once it shuts off what happens to it? Does it then sink to the bottom of the ocean polluting the area? Some believe the nano-organism will just move on and keep consuming whatever is in its path. To help answer these questions, no matter how bizarre, the government and private sector are researching every avenue into testing, regulation, costs, and affects. No real answer can be given to each fear yet, but with continued research and with positive advancements in technology we are getting closer.
One day green nanotechnology will help sustain our planet, freshen our water supply, and end pollution. After all the tests and regulations are finalized maybe technology, in theory a main contributor to the planets destruction, will provide the means to save the environment.

Josh Wyatt, Legal Intern

Did the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Change Anything?

2010-01-15T05:45:00.001-08:00

Many believed that the climate conference in Copenhagen would bring new and stricter regulations to nations’ climate policies. “The summit was supposed to halt temperature rise by cutting greenhouse gases. But after two weeks of negotiating, it ended in a weak political accord that does not force any country to reduce emissions and has no legal standing,” writes Louise Gray of the UK’s Telegraph.

Some believe the struggle of the world’s leaders to come to an agreement is in fact a result of how seriously they take global warming. TIME magazine refers to the struggle as, “… a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric.” Others believe that the balancing of interests between the countries wanting to maintain their standard of living, and emerging economies hoping to achieve such levels, is the most important reason that the summit could not result in a stronger agreement.

Many blame China and the US for the limitations of the Copenhagen climate conference. “The standoff between China and the United States underscores the issues. The global trade rivals were reluctant to commit to emissions targets until each had an idea of what the other planned. The two countries together are responsible for 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,” writes the New York Times. Barack Obama admitted that accord was “not enough.” In the UN’s climate conference in Bali, the US rejected the new guidelines to reducing green house emissions. However, at the Copenhagen conference, the US took on a new role in the UN’s battle against global warming. “President Obama arrived in Copenhagen to find the summit on the verge of collapse. So, he plunged into seven hours of hard, direct bargaining with a select group of world leaders, eventually cutting a deal with those from China, India, Brazil and South Africa,” writes TIME.

On the positive side, the Copenhagen climate conference united the US, China and other major developing countries in the attempt to find a universal accord to fight global warming. “For all its limitations, however, the Copenhagen Accord is the first real step to fighting climate change in the 21st century. The real value of Copenhagen may lie in what it teaches us about dealing with climate change”, writes TIME.

Intern, Victoria Lindbak

EPA to Improve Ozone Standards

2010-01-15T05:42:00.001-08:00

Unlike the ozone in the upper atmosphere which protects us and the environment from UV light, ground level ozone is linked with serious health problems. Ground level ozone, also known as smog, can cause illness in perfectly healthy individuals who work or play outside. Coughing, chest pain, wheezing and breathing difficulties are just a few of the health issues that can be caused by ground level ozone. For individuals with heart or lung disease, ozone pollution can cause premature death. Ground-level ozone can also have detrimental effects on plants and ecosystems. It can damage plants making them more susceptible to insect infestation, disease and the impacts of other pollutants. It can hinder forest growth and potentially reduce species diversity.

Ground level ozone is made when chemicals from cars, power plants, industrial facilities, etc. come in contact with sunlight. Thus, there is usually more smog in sunnier climates.

"EPA is stepping up to protect Americans from one of the most persistent and widespread pollutants we face. Smog in the air we breathe poses a very serious health threat, especially to children and individuals suffering from asthma and lung disease. It dirties our air, clouds our cities, and drives up our health care costs across the country," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. The EPA is proposing to tighten the limit of parts per million from the previous limit of 0.075, to between 0.060 and 0.070. The EPA is also proposing to set a secondary standard for the protection of the environment for plants and animals.

Although implementing these new limitations would cost billions of dollars, the benefit would be a vast reduction in health problems related to ozone pollution.

For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone/.

Victoria Lindbak, Intern

Algae Blooms-The Green Monster!

2010-01-08T07:52:00.001-08:00

Nitrogen and phosphorus are important nutrients for life in rivers, lakes and the sea. However, large amounts of these nutrients can be damaging. The most common negative effect of nutrient pollution is an algae bloom, which is harmful for the fish, plants, animals and humans who use the water. For a long time, algae blooms have been a problem in Florida’s beaches, lakes, rivers and springs. An important cause of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution is excessive fertilization, both residential and agricultural, which in turn runs out into the rivers, lakes and costal waters. Other causes include septic tanks and rainfall flowing over cropland picking up animal waste and depositing it into the water.

As a result of a lawsuit by our local St. Johns Riverkeeper and the public interest group Earthjustice, it looks as though there might be an end in sight for this problem. Earthjustice sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of several Florida environmental groups which resulted in a settlement in which the EPA has agreed to set limits for the nutrient pollution that causes algae blooms in the St. Johns River and other Florida waters. The EPA has until this month, January 2010, to propose the pollution limits for Florida’s waters, and until October 2010 to finalize the new rules.

What can we as individuals do to prevent nutrient pollution? Well, there are several things we can do. Thinking twice about how we treat our plants and flowers in our gardens will affect the water quality in our local rivers and streams. Making sure to use fertilizers in moderation is important. In addition, sweeping up your driveway, gutters and sidewalks can make a significant difference. Always picking up after our pets, and if you must, taking our cars to the car wash instead of washing them in our driveways will also help. Lastly, we should contact our local environmental agency if we notice dead fish and green water, or contact the police if we see illegal dumping into any water body.

To read more about what the EPA are doing to combat the nutrient pollution, visit http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/doing.html.

Victoria Lindbak, Intern

St. Johns River Survey

2009-11-03T14:12:00.000-08:00

Do you want some say into what happens to your waterfront? If yes, then take the St. Johns River Survey.
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has initiated a survey to gather information about how Jacksonville residents want to use the St. Johns River and Jacksonville's waterfront. Take the survey at

http://www.coj.net/default.htm

Kayak Events on the Horizon

2009-11-03T14:04:00.000-08:00

The Public Trust is happy to announce two upcoming fundraisers! The fundraisers are co-sponsored by Kayak Adventures and center around two fun and exciting kayak trips. You may attend one or both, but space is limited and it's first come, first serve.

The first event, the Kingsley Kayak Experience, will be held on November 21st. Kingsley Plantation is located on Fort George Island, one of the jewels of the Timucuan Preserve. While exploring this unique island, you will learn the history that is woven into the fabrics of this landscape. Along our paddle we will see many species of resident and migratory birds, such as roseate spoonbill, swallow tail kite, heron, egret, and osprey. This waterway is frequented by lots of sea creatures such as leaping dolphin, grazing manatees, soaring eagle rays, and many more. The striking blue-green hue of the water makes this feel like our own backyard Caribbean. After an educational stroll through Kingsley Plantation's historical grounds we will set off to find secluded beaches to swim and play.

The second event, the Mayport Historic Waterways Ecological Kayak Experience, will be held on December 19th. Mayport Village is located at the mouth of the St. Johns River and the Atlantic Ocean, where an abundance of wildlife is found. As the major highway to the ocean for much of the marine wildlife in the thousands of acres of estuaries the inlet feeds, it is bustling with action. On any given day you may see manatees, dolphins, and an array of water fowl. Our tour will launch from Mayport Beach located on the St. Johns River, and ride the tide to the point of the jetty where it intersects with the Intracoastal stopping on the spoil islands and continuing back into secluded winding tributaries ending the tour on the salt marsh side of the jetty. This tour is great for beginner paddlers or anyone one who would like an easy “ride the tide” type of kayak tour. We plan our tours around the tides for an easy and enjoyable experience.

For more information on either of these events, please email me at adm@publictrustlaw.org.

The events are first come, first serve, and half of the proceeds will go directly to the Public Trust, the other half will go to our co-sponsor, Kayak Adventures. For more information on Kayak Adventures, please feel free to visit their website by clicking here.

I hope that you will join us on the water for these fun events. And remember, it's not only for a good time, it's for a good cause. See you on the water, Andy

Just to get things rolling...

2009-10-22T14:12:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the brand new Public Trust blog! In the future this blog will serve as a clearinghouse for Public Trust events, cases, campaigns, thoughts, and everything else. It is meant to supplement our website, www.publictrustlaw.org, as the place where others can add to, and even steer the conversation. For example, what do you all think is the best "at home remedy" for making your house a little greener? Is it placing a brick in the tank of your toilet so that less water is used with every flush? Is it unplugging your appliances when not in use to avoid "plug-surge?" Or is it something else? At the end of next week (October 30th) the person who submits the "best" idea, as judged by the Public Trust, will win a free Intracoastal Salt Marsh Paddling Guide. Let the wild rumpus start!