Everglades Conservation Victory a Hopeful Sign of What’s to Come

I remember when South Florida was more than a pastel jumble of overgrown suburban homes, Walgreens drugstores, strip malls and unnatural landscaping. When I was a child growing up along the eastern coast about midway between West Palm Beach and Miami, everything west of our neighborhood was made up of small independent farms, swamp and miles of untouched pine forests. My friends and I had a fort overlooking an alligator-infested canal, and you could still hear the cacophony of subtropical nature every night. This wasn’t 40 years ago – I’m only 26. But in that time, so much has changed.

The Everglades have been increasingly encroached upon in the last couple of decades, between the sugar industry and luxury developments built right on top of filled-in swampland. Along the edges, people have lost the natural fear and respect for animals like the alligator and cottonmouth snake, and have interfered with the natural ecosystem by dumping unwanted pets like lizards, snakes and fish into the water. The area I lived in is virtually unrecognizable, it’s so overly developed. Traffic sounds, loud music and construction drown out the sounds of nature. It’s a mess – and for a while there, it seemed like there were few people that actually cared.

The recent sale of 300 square miles of the Everglades to the state of Florida by U.S. Sugar Corp. has been trumpeted as ‘one of the biggest conservation deals in U.S. history’, and it is, indeed, a massive victory for environmentalists. Here are some details from The Huffington Post:

The deal with U.S. Sugar Corp. results from a convergence of interests: The state is trying to restore the Everglades and clean up pollution caused by Big Sugar and other growers, while the American sugar industry is being squeezed by low-price imports.

Republican Gov. Charlie Crist declared the agreement “as monumental as the creation of our nation’s first national park, Yellowstone.”

Under the deal, the state would buy U.S. Sugar’s holdings in the Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee, including its cane fields, mill and railroad line. U.S. Sugar would be allowed to farm the 187,000 acres for six more years, after which it would go out of business.

The state would then protect the land from development, which has been encroaching on the Everglades for decades.

The state of Florida will also work on restoring the area to its natural state, undoing years of damage caused by the re-routing or damming of the natural flow of water to allow for houses and farms. This will be a large step forward in stopping the constant flow of fertilizer from farms that currently leaks into the Everglades.

The victory against U.S. Sugar Corp. is happy news for anyone concerned about the preservation of America’s natural beauty, and especially for supporters of Everglades preservation. It could be a catalyst to change prevailing views regarding ‘progress’ in an area that was once a sleepy, muggy, buggy but incredibly beautiful example of the wonders of nature. The concept of stepping lightly on the earth is one that is slowly starting to sink in across the world, and it brings with it the hope that we do still have a chance to stop the destruction of the planet before it’s totally out of our control.

The South Florida that I love has nothing to do with the horrendous traffic, endless stream of relocating retirees, cookie-cutter houses and pollution-filled waterways. It’s in the hum of the cicadas, the gnarled roots of the mangrove trees that grow in the waters along the coast, the pine boughs swaying in the breeze and the mysterious life force that can be sensed at twilight on the edge of a marsh. Though I know the massive crowds and endless march of civilization will likely always be a part of South Florida, I hope that one day when I go back to visit, the natural beauty of the land will have regained its prominence with the help of the conservationists who work so hard to protect it.

Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user Stig Nygaard

Playstation 3 is a Huge Energy Hog

Wow. If you’re trying to ‘go green’ and you have a Playstation 3, you may want to consider switching to a Wii. An Australian consumer group found that the Sony Playstation 3 consumes five times more energy than a medium sized refrigerator – 10 times as much as the Wii.

From Intology:

They found out that a medium sized refrigerator of about 12 cu. ft. volume (60 inches in height) will cost $50 a year while Sony Playstation 3 will cost $250 a year even if it is not in use and only turned on. Microsoft XBox came second behind Playstation 3.

$250! Imagine what you could do with that money instead of draining energy unnecessarily. You could put it toward buying yourself a Wii! (No, Nintendo is not paying me to tell you that.)

Link [Intology]

Photo credit: Flickr user MNgillen

Adults in Britain Should Have to Carry Carbon Ration Cards, Say MPs

MPs are pushing for a controversial new program in Great Britain: carbon ration cards. Every adult would have to carry one and would need to use it when filling up at the pump, buying airline tickets and using energy to power their homes. Britain has been trying to find a way to cut CO2 emissions without penalizing the poor, and the Environmental Audit Committee sees it as the fairest way.

From Mail Online:

Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven’t used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company.

MPs, led by Tory Tim Yeo, say the scheme could be more effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions than green taxes.

B For the scheme to work, the Government would need to give out 45million carbon cards - each one linked to a personal carbon account. Every year, the account would be credited with a notional amount of CO2 in kilograms.

Every time someone makes a purchase of petrol, energy or airline tickets, they would use up credits. A return flight from London to Rome would, for instance, use up 900kg of CO2 credits, while 10 litres of petrol would use up 23kg.

Mr Yeo, chairman of the committee said personal carbon trading rewarded those with a low carbon footprint with cash.

I have no idea whether something like this would actually work, but I like this line of thinking. Making people personally responsible for how much energy they consume would be a great way to control CO2 emissions. Undoubtedly, though, citizens would be angry about it – it’s definitely an idea ahead of its time. The system would have to be fairly complicated in order to account for those who live in the country and depend upon their vehicles for transportation, are housebound and need to heat their homes during the day and those who work at night when little public transportation is available. I’d like to see them work on the idea further, though.

Link [Mail Online]
Photo credit: Flickr user futureatlas.com

Yum, Sewage: LA Aims to Add Wastewater to Drinking Water Supply

Los Angeles is one of many cities facing water shortages, and it’s bound to only get worse over the next decade as the city’s population grows ever larger. Enter Mayor Anthony Villaraigosa’s solution: recycling ‘heavily cleansed’ sewage water into drinking water.

From The New York Times:

Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa, who opposed such a plan a decade ago over safety concerns, announced the proposal on Thursday as part of a package of initiatives to put the city, the nation’s second largest, on a stricter water budget. The other plans include increasing fines for watering lawns during restricted times, tapping into and cleaning more groundwater, and encouraging businesses and residents to use more efficient sprinklers and plumbing fixtures.

The move comes as California braces for the possibility of the most severe water shortages in decades.

Snowfall in the Sierra Nevada, which supplies about a third of Los Angeles’s water, is short of expectations. At the same time, the Western drought has lowered supplies in reservoirs, while legal rulings to protect endangered species will curtail water deliveries from Northern California.

Before you wrinkle your nose and decide it’s absolutely disgusting, consider this: not only will the water be purer than tap water, it won’t be introduced directly to taps: it would be injected into the ground and gradually filter down to aquifers, making it much cleaner. The only problem is that the chemicals that are set to be used to cleanse the water haven’t been independently tested for safety, so hopefully that will happen before action is actually taken on the plan.

Props to LA for dealing with the problem now instead of waiting until they’re in the midst of a severe crisis, like our federal government likes to do.

Link [New York Times]
Photo credit: Flickr user Elsie esq.

Awesome! Rainwater Harvesting Vertical Garden

Now here is a really cool and smart bit of green designing! Ontario College of Art and Design student Michael Tampilic created this rainwater harvesting vertical terrace, which has been entered into the Rocket 2008 Industrial Graduation Show and Competition. The way it works is pretty brilliant: it connects with your gutter downspout and stores water in a tank, which waters the greenery you plant in the planter boxes. Cotton wicks transport the stored water to the plants.

From Rocket 2008:

Vert is a rain terrace: a rainwater harvester and vertical garden. This project establishes sustainable water practices through the harvesting of rain, and brings the advantages of a living wall to the backyard through vertical gardening. Vert alleviates a homes reliance on public utility systems while beautifying unused vertical space.

How cool would it be to have one of these to grow food in? Talk about a smart use of space and water! Vertical gardening is definitely a smart idea for urban areas, and with this cool design, you can harvest your own herbs and veggies even if you live in a tiny apartment, as long as you have just a bit of outdoor space and a gutter downspout available. Plus, it’s pretty. We likey.

You can read more about how it works at the Rocket 2008 website.

Link [AzSustainably] + [Rocket 2008]

“Blue Gold”: T. Boone Pickens and the Privatization of Water

Imagine a future where water is more valuable than gold – where corporations have control over the public’s water sources, and everyone has to pay a premium for access. It’s a scary thought for most of us, but for T. Boone Pickens, it’s a dream he’s banking on.

When Pickens, a billionaire oil tycoon, purchased eight miles of bare scrubland in the Texas panhandle recently, some people were confused: there’s no oil in them there flatlands. What he’s interested in, though, isn’t black gold, it’s blue gold: water, contained within the Ogallala Aquifer partially located under the ranch. His plan was to build a pipeline from the aquifer to larger cities, selling the water as a commodity that, at least in his mind, would undoubtedly be in demand during times of drought.

While it seems like there should be some kind of law against doing such a thing, the groundwater laws in Texas and many other states make it easy to get away with. When the laws were put into place, water was so abundant and readily available that no one ever considered the idea that people might try to buy and sell it in this way. So when it was time to vote on allowing the creation of Pickens’ water district, the only people required to vote on it were the people who live on the land: Pickens, his wife and three employees.

From Bloomberg News:

Pickens “has pulled a shenanigan,” said Phillip Smith, a rancher who serves on a local water-conservation board. “He’s obtained the right of eminent domain like he was a big city. It’s supposed to be for the public good, not a private company.”

Pickens and his allies say no shenanigans are involved. Once the district is created, the board will be able to issue tax-exempt bonds to finance construction of Pickens’s planned 328-mile, $2.2 billion pipeline to transport water from the panhandle across the prairie to the suburbs of Dallas and San Antonio.

Pickens was recently in the news for spending big bucks on wind farms. His move toward investing in alternative energy doesn’t mean he’s an environmental activist, though: he’s in it for the money. While there’s nothing wrong with businesses making profits off products, policies and practices that are beneficial to the environment, Pickens’ past and present ventures make it clear he’s no friend to the earth. In fact, he’s admitted that he’s taking advantage of public fears about climate change, and he’s obviously not too concerned about the environmental impact of draining the Ogallala Aquifer.

Amidst current awareness about global warming, he feels confident that he’ll soon be making big money off the business of selling water. Population growth, prolonged droughts and the production of certain biofuels continues to put a tremendous strain on water resources, and Pickens doesn’t see why he shouldn’t pad his bank account as a result.

The Ogallala runs through an area of America that’s already threatened. Annual withdrawal from this aquifer is already outpacing the recharge rate by 300%. The amount of groundwater in the aquifer has been steadily declining in recent years. The government also faces a hurdle that billionaires with access to oil might be able to jump more easily: the rising cost of energy needed to pump water from the aquifer is making it tougher to access it. The USDA laments that “even in areas where the pumping depth is economical, geology limits pumping access as the water table declines”.

Undoubtedly, a public water crisis is brewing. While other countries have been suffering a lack of water for years, America has remained largely insulated from the problem. We’re only beginning to experience the effects of a water shortage, partially due to unscrupulous deals made by bottling companies like Nestle along with America’s dependence on bottled water. The more people buy bottled water, the less money goes into the public water system. Corporations with dollar sign fairies dancing in their minds see it as an opportunity to grab and wield control over the supply. In a country dominated by a ‘winner takes all’ capitalist attitude, that sets us up for trouble.

What exactly would the corporate privatization of water mean to the public? For one thing, water would no longer be considered something that all people have a right to. It would be a commodity, bought and sold by private individuals and companies, based on availability and the public’s willingness to pay. Corporations tend to value profits over service. Obviously, we can’t live without water. We’d be at the mercy of the people in control.

T. Boone Pickens isn’t the only one grabbing up water rights. In fact, most of the companies that are buying land with access to aquifers are foreign. Major players here and abroad include Viviendi, Perrier, Suez, Bechtel and Monsanto. Right now, only 5 percent of the water supply is in corporate hands, but that could change at any time, especially as the World Bank and other organizations push for privatization.

The only obstacle that remains in Pickens’ and other investors’ path is finding buyers. Several water districts have already refused to sign up, mostly due to pressure from political and environmental groups campaigning against the privatization of water. The Sierra Club is one of them, and their efforts to educate the public in Texas might just pay off. Until the day that Texas gets so dry officials are desperate for water and willing to do just about anything to get it, that is. Then a ball may be set in motion that will change public water access as we know it. We can only hope that other solutions are put forth before that becomes a reality.

Link [Bloomberg News] + [USDA] + [Sierra Club]

Photo credit: Time Magazine + Sierra Club

The Downside of Water Conservation: More Expensive H2O, Slashed Revenues

We all know we need to conserve water. The Southern and Southwestern parts of the United States are in the midst of a pretty good drought and Australia is coming around to the fact that the rains aren’t coming back anytime soon. Himalayan glaciers are melting, threatening the water sources for a good chunk of the world’s population and it’s not a stretch to say that the next big wars will be fought over H2O.

So it may come as a bit of a shock that some small municipalities are freaking out over how much less water their customers are using.

The problem for them is that the reduced consumption means reduced incoming revenue. Or as one water works czar Cliff Curtis says:

“Conservation is killing us.”

The city of Toronto, Canada has almost a billion dollars in repair work now the books but only saw revenue of $604M last year. Other Canadian regions are seeing the same problems as more citizens use less water and install water saving devices like low flow toilets.

To combat the budget shortfalls water czars and boards are being forced to raise water prices.

No one said it’s going to be easy to ease ourselves into a greener tomorrow and there will most certainly be hiccups and bumps along the way. Paying more for our water even as we use less seems to be one thing that we’re all going to have to deal with at some time. It’s certainly better than using up all the world’s clean freshwater in a frenzy of consumption.

Link [TheStar]