A Deeper Green

originally posted on examiner.com

So, I’ve been doing a lot of reading and a lot of thinking about the Asian Carp problem over the last few weeks. There are so many different aspects of this problem and so many people trying to place blame that even bringing the subject up seems akin to stepping into an ideological minefield.

Now that we are in the process of poisoning the Illinois River and the State of Michigan is considering re-opening a court case against the State of Illinois to force a closing of the Sanitary and Shipping Canal I found myself facing the question of blame. How did we get in this mess? Why was it necessary to poison miles of river over the last couple days? Why, 10 years later, are we still battling these two fish species? Who is to blame for this situation?

The questions seem practically endless when it comes to this situation. And there seems to be more than enough blame to go around. Should we blame the USDA, who first allowed Asian Carp to be imported on a permit? Should we blame Southern fish farmers for not insuring that the fish could escape into the Mississippi? Should we blame the Chicago officials who 100 years ago, to insure the health of their citizens, reversed the flow of the Chicago River? The answer of course is no, and yes.

Yes, we all carry some blame and some responsibility. Problems like this are made up of millions of small decisions made by hundreds or thousands of people over many years. It’s easy to assign blame in the short-run. We can all point our fingers at the Army Corps of Engineers saying that they implemented a flawed system that needs regular maintenance without properly accounting for how to handle doing that maintenance. We can all point our fingers at every other person who had anything to do with Asian Carp, or shipping, or anything. But what we should be doing is examining ourselves in the mirror. We are ALL responsible for the Asian Carp problem. Just as we are all responsible for any invasive species that created a problem in the Great Lakes.

As always, the past is behind us, we can’t do anything about what’s already been done. But as a region we can take responsibility for what needs to come next. We can support the people who are doing what they can to control the problem. We can make sure that we are fully considering every option on the table.

What would be the consequences to all parties if we temporarily closed the locks between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan and ran a full study of exactly what is happening? Can Chicago work to find a different way to handle waste?

If we all work together and accept the responsibility for this problem progress can be made. Controlling the spread of Asian Carp is in everyone’s best interest, so I say we start from this day forward with a strong plan for helping each other to address this very pressing problem. It means that everyone shoulders some blame and lets go of the past, but I honestly believe that its possible.

Originally posted on examiner.com

Whether its invasive carp coming up the Illinois River or E. Coli breakouts closing beaches in the summer, its no secret that Lake Michigan is facing some devastating problems.

This article by Adrianne Appel places the blame for these stresses squarely on climate change. While I will never argue that climate change does not have an effect on ecosystems, I have a hard time fully supporting Appel’s assertion that all of Lake Michigan’s ills can be traces exclusively to climate change. Even within the article there are several other reasons for many of the ecological disruptions brought up.

The biggest example of this is Appel’s discussion of invasive species. Yes, invasive species are a huge problem in the Great Lakes, and their negative affect on Lake Michigan is well documented, but there is no clear link between invasive species and climate change. Appel makes some attempt to connect the two stating that as our climate gets warmer, invasive species may be more suited to thrive here, but that leaves out a big piece of the puzzle.

Zebra mussels, one example used in the article, have been in Lake Michigan for almost 20 years already, and they were brought by commercial traffic. Climate change did not introduce zebra mussels to the Great Lakes. In fact, the climate where the zebra mussel originates from (Eurasia) is remarkably similar to our climate here. They are not invading from a warmer climate, but enjoying the similarities of our climate to their native climate.

Appel seems to be making the argument that because of climate change, animals like the zebra mussel are more successful at invading Lake Michigan. While I suppose there is a possibility that this is true, it seems unlikely, and Appel certainly doesn’t make a very convincing argument.

That being said there are many other ecological problems facing Lake Michigan that do have a link to climate change, and the article is still worth reading. I just caution you and other readers to not shift the entire blame to climate change. Yes climate change plays a role, but so do many other factors, like agricultural run-off, poorly maintained sewer systems, and the human introduction of invasive species.

So, while perusing my google reader this afternoon I came upon a powerful post by one of my personal heroes, Beth Terry from the blog Fake Plastic Fish. She personally commented about an article from last month’s Orion Magazine by Derick Jensen and also tracked down some great writing on the subject from other bloggers. When I first saw the article I skimmed through it and sat on it, but now having thought for a while and seen other posts I feel like maybe you guys would be interested in my two cents.

I bring this up now because the idea of personal changes not being equivalent to social changes is one of the reasons that I wanted to start this blog to begin with. Of course I wanted to document my life in some ways, I will admit to that amount of narcissism.  But also, I wanted to make a difference in my world and I wanted to magnify that difference by inspiring and educating other people in the process.

Now, I know my blog is read primarily by my family members and close friends. I know that the impact of this blog is very very slight. But, I am also (wonderously, I might add) an eternal optimist. Jensen says, “Personal change does not equal social change,” and I say but what if it did?

I go back to the fantastic Beth Terry for a moment. She is a shining example of personal change in the quest for a better environment. She has cut plastic out of her life in ways I often feel I can only read about on her blog. She also led a campaign to get Brita to start taking back and recycling used water filters. She has hundreds of readers who visit her blog daily for inspiration and encouragement. She is one of those brave people leading the way, slowly but surely to a future where our social institutions are better able to contribute to a more sustainable society.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that personal change can equal social change like 1 and 1 make 2. What I AM saying is that without personal change in the equation, social change doesn’t have a prayer. This point is made time and time again in different ways in Beth’s post, so please make sure to read it(!).

To sum all of this up I would like to relate a story from my time in school. I was in a class on environmental politics, and we were discussing the Kyoto Protocol. We talked our way through its minor successes and its many failures. How even if it had been pulled of perfectly the changes would still not be enough to “save the planet” and then our teacher asked us, “What does this mean for the future of environmental politics?” Much of the class voiced desperation and sadness that the failures of the Kyoto Protocol  meant that there was little hope.

But I thought then, and I still think now that the challenges presented to us with the Kyoto Protocol make us better equipped as a planet. We are a highly adaptable species with the ability to learn from our experiences and to make wondrous changes in our lives and our world. With that in mind I believe the Kyoto Protocol can be a stepping stone in global cooperation. I also believe that every personal change that you and I make similarly equips us to demand the social changes that are so desperately needed.

My personal changes may only be a drop in the bucket, but each drop comes one step closer to overflowing that bucket. And without those drops the bucket never gets full.

As I said, without personal change, social change doesn’t have a prayer.

So today I woke up to some disheartening news. A 20 cent carry-out bag tax looks as though it will fail in Seattle. This would mean all paper and plastic bags usually handed out at grocery stores would cost the consumer 20 cents each. The current voting tally is 58% against 42% for in a mail-in ballot effort.

Now I am not really sure that a bag tax is the best way to go. Bag bans always seemed like a much more definitive option to me, but the effort working behind this bit of news really does give me pause.

There is only one other American city that has a carry-out bag tax in place, Washington D.C., but in other countries this is fairly common practice. I remember when I was in Italy for a school trip and visiting a small grocery store, my plastic bag cost .05 euro. It was very sturdy and I was able to use it for the rest of the trip in grocery stores and also used it for carry-on on the plane home. And this was 5 years ago.

For small stores it makes sense to charge for bags, its something small grocery stores in the US and other countries have been doing for years.

There were special circumstances to the Seattle tax. Small stores would have been able to keep the full earnings on the tax, but larger stores would have only been able to keep 5 cents from each bag. The rest was to be used by the city for recycling programs and environmental education. Some voters expressed concerns about how the tax would be spent when talking about their decision to cast a vote against the tax.

My point in talking about all of this is to simply bring up that this tax does not seem unreasonable but that is does seem like the wrong way to be going about lowering plastic bag use.  There are 9 cities with plastic bag bans in the U.S. and while I don’t have the statistics on how these bans are working in those places, it would seem like it can’t be a bad idea to investigate a total ban.

I usually take reusable bags to the grocery store and others with me, but I will admit to forgetting occasionally and having to accept plastic bags at check out. And I will freely admit that my fruit from the farmers market is typically placed in a plastic bad before being handed to me.

I’ve had a difficult time finding the right size and type of bags to offer to the vendors as an alternative, but if a ban were in place wouldn’t a new market for the exact type of bag needed open up? If I couldn’t get plastic when I forget to bring an extra bag and need to make a trip to target would it really be that big of a deal? Wouldn’t I just get another, more useful bag instead and be less likely to forget next time?

So basically, after all that rambling my point is this. If bag taxes don’t work because of concerns about where the money is going and how it is being used (and because the plastic companies had millions of dollars to spend on campaigns against the taxes) isn’t it time to start thinking about other alternatives? Maybe bans are the right way to go in some places. But maybe just have an incentive program to encourage stores to phase out plastic bags or provide reusable options might be just as effective and less of a headache?

I’m not exactly sure, but it seems like there must be a better way to do it. I keep thinking about the sturdy plastic bag that I got from a tiny grocery store in Rome and used successfully for three more weeks. There are no perfect solutions, but it seems like there are several better ways of looking at the plastic bag problem and I am just encouraging you to think about them.

For more info on the Seattle tax:

Plastic News

MSNBC

So, why did the Chicago Tribune write this “Roundup” of water sources for the south and southwest suburbs last week? Because it came to light last month that the Village of Crestwood in south suburban Chicago had been pumping as much as 20% of its residents water from a contaminated well for two decades until 2007 when the well was finally closed.

I have been putting off writing an entry about it because my thoughts are so incoherant and angry, they still are, so I do apologize for this entry.

The EPA discovered the well was contaminated with dry cleaning toxins including vinyl chloride and informed the village. The village then proceeded to begin telling residents in water quality reports (these are required by the clean water act) that all of the residential water in Crestwood came from Lake Michigan via the nearby town of Alsip.

Now, I have worked at a water treatment plant, and I know that keeping water quality consistent can be difficult, and I know that there are times when water quality can suffer because of demand or many other problems, but not telling people that you are having those problems is where the criminality of this seems to come into play. 

If the Village of Crestwood had continued to use that water for emergencies only as the EPA had instructed, and then only when notifying the people using that water I would have very little problem with this. The problem would lie almost solely with the pollutors. But the lack of effor to inform the public of what was going on is appalling. And even worse outright lies were reported to the citizens of Crestwood about the quality of their water.

What is even worse, is that it seems that at least state officials were aware on some level that this was happening as well, and yet they let it go on for 22 years!

Rargh. I guess I don’t really have a good point, but I just wanted to talk about this a little bit and let people know that even if you are being told that your water is safe, you may want to trust any instincts that you have, because it seems that in some cases the ball is being dropped. 

More links on this:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/04/crestwood-well-water-contamination-chemical-mayor-robert-stranczek-governor-pat-quinn-illinois-envir.html

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/bad-water-on-minds-not-agenda-in-crestwood.html

So today I came across this article talking about research that’s been done on why certain types of exotic species cross over into harmful invasive territory.

The article doesn’t go into too much detail about what the actual study found, but is does touch on the topic of climate change. There are lots of theories as to how climate change may affect the spread of invasive species, but to me it seems clear that those species that reproduce quickly and have a large level of adaptability (like most invasives) will be supremely prepared to take on climate change as it comes.

Sadly, this may mean a lot of not good things for the ecosystems that we all know and love. These ecosystems are already stressed for many reasons. The continuing and likely accelerating threat of invasives will only worsen their plight. As I’ve mentioned time and time again, certain invasives (like the Asian Carp) already dominate the areas that they have made their home.

In light of all the boo to invasive species talk that I’ve been spouting the last couple days, I have decided to share some tips to help prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species.

~ Do not dump any bait or pets into waterways (this is how the rusty crayfish was established in the Great Lakes region)

~ Be sure to thoroughly wash all gear when moving from one body of water to another. This includes anything that touches the water, like boats, fishing lines and poles and other recreation equipment.

~ Spread native plants. When planning a rain garden are you doing your best to use native plants or plants that are considered be complimentary to natives? There are lots of great options out there.

So yesterday I came across this article in the Chicago Tribune. That, and the fact that I spent several hours last week working on fact sheets for invasive species really got me thinking. Is it good environmental practice to find a “use” for invasive species?

Of course, on the surface the idea of turning the nuisance Bighead and Silver Asian Carp into protien for animals and fish oil for supplement companies does seem like an ideal solution to many of our current problems. That plant will provide jobs for fishermen and likely hundreds of other workers. Also, it will take Asian Carp out of the environment. When we are talking about a fish that is 80% of the biomass in certain parts of the Illinois River, that seems like a whole lot of good.

But what about the remaining problem of the Asian carp as an invasive species? The carp will still be in the river, still reproducing, eating and making life very hard for any other species of fish and many of the plants. And, now, those fish are making us humans money. My fear is that this situation creates a need and a want to protect Asian carp populations. If we are harvesting them and making money doesn’t it then seem like we would have a vested interest in keeping them around?

I am kinda conflicted on this whole subject. Obviously, leaving them alone to continue to upset the balance of the river and endanger those who wish to use the river for recreation without making any steps to change the situation is likely not that answer. I’m just not sure that creating a market value for these fish is the answer either.

What do you think? Will commodifying Asian Carp be a good thing in the long run?

So today, I came across this article from The Austrailian and wanted to share it.

I’ve always been mildly fascinated with Antarctica. The steep cliffs of ice and massive colonies of penguins have always seemed like part of another world to me. Where is this place where there is always snow and blinding sun? The fact that it is part of this world that we live in is always so impressive to me. A testament to how fantastic our planet is.

Antarctica is also an interesting anomoly. This article does a great job addressing some of the interesting ways in which climate change already has and may still affect Antarctic. I won’t go into too much detail here, I want you to read it for yourself.

Basically, so far, the tragic results of climate change that have been documented (and often sensationalized) in the Arctic are hardly expressed at all in the Antarctic. This could mean a couple of things for Antarctica. Maybe it means that Antarctica will never be affected as much as the arctic, or maybe (and possibly more likely) the affects will take longer to manifest, but will be just as devastating when they do.

Also, in thinking about this today I was remembering some conversations I’ve had with some readers and a couple other things that I’ve seen on the internet and was thinking about adding some “101″ pages to the blog. So if you have an opinion on if you’d like to see “Climate Change 101″ posted on the left just let me know. 

So today I discovered one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever seen. Tap’d NY. Yes, that is a company selling NY tap water as bottled water to New Yorkers.

Um… what?

I mean I guess if you are too lazy to find a water fountain and want to pay $1.50 for 20 ounces of water its cool that the water is local, but, um… seriously?!?

I’m not sure I have anything more to say about that.

Have a good night.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/last-rites-for-lake-van.php

I really don’t have much to say except that I am greatful for the beautiful lakes that I live near and the brilliant and courageous people who work every day to protect them.