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
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Want Cleaner Soil? Plant a Tree.
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
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
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Is Natural Gas a Bunch of Hot Air?
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
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
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
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
Friday, May 28, 2010
Role of Criminal Penalties in Enforcing Violations of Environmental Law
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
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
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
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
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Fest a Success!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)