Minnesota has a long history of mining. However, most of that has historically been for iron from the state's large Banded Iron Formation deposits in the northeast portion of the state. That industry has been in general decline for a variety of economic and demographic reasons, and there is far less mining in the state than there used to be. Enter Polymet (and a few other entities like Twin Metals). These companies want to come into the state and engage in hard rock mining for copper, nickel, zinc, cobalt, and other precious and semi-precious metals. This is a very different and far more destructive form of mining that has a history of water pollution (due to the reaction of sulfides in the parent rock with air and water when exposed). Given the incredibly sensitive nature of the wetland heavy, hydrologically complex area, this is an incredibly dangerous and ill-advised plan.
Mining is a legally complex industry that also happens to have a number of privileges. First, mineral rights are what is called a "dominant estate." This means that the owner of the mineral rights (in Minnesota this is often, but not always, the state itself) has the right to explore and develop the deposits with reasonable use of the surface. While the law in Minnesota is less developed than in other states, particularly those with large oil and gas industries, the majority rule (most states have adopted) allow the use of any portion of the surface that is appurtenant to the development. This includes access roads, drilling and development pads, the harvesting of timber, the redirection of surface water, and the "reasonable" appropriation of other surface assets. While it does not allow for the outright destruction or eviction of a surface owner or tenant, development actions can sometimes result in a constructive eviction or total occupation. Whether this is allowed or actionable depends on state law and the exact facts of each situation.
Second, mineral rights are almost impossible to develop, economically, without pooling. Isolated or small parcels are generally uneconomical to develop either due to logistics or due to the efficiencies of scale required to support the large capital investment required to open a mine. This means that a mining company will often work with multiple mineral owners to acquire all of the parcels required. This creates a patchwork of interest holders that have all sold or leased their rights to the same company. It also provides an opportunity to prevent development by withholding or blocking transfer of rights held by a major or critically located rights holder. This is what may be happening with Twin Metals, which hopes to open a sulfide mine three miles from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, but was recently opposed by Governor Mark Dayton. While this would only affect state mineral rights, it could be enough to render the project uneconomical and kill it.
So where are we with Polymet? The mine has been in the works for years, and has been steadily losing public support as people learn more about the large potential consequences and small economic benefits. What was recently approved was not the mine itself. Rather it was the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the required land swap that would trade state land to be mined for private land outside the mining area. While not entirely unexpected given Gov. Dayton's recent comments, it is disappointing. It has also been a long process, with an initial review by the EPA outright rejected in 2009 as inadequate (and portions of the current review still awaiting Army Corps of Engineers review). This will almost certainly be subject to litigation as the project moves into its permitting phase (which will also be lengthy and have its own litigation fights). It is also possible that the project dies for lack of funding. Lower copper prices, a money-losing parent company, and a risk-heavy, speculative business model all make the project a financially unstable proposition. It is possible that additional regulatory and litigation costs in both time and dollars could be enough to sink the project. And even if that is not enough, there is still the matter of the mine reclamation bonding...
Mine reclamation bonds, in theory, are money that is put up by a company before construction begins to fund the closure, remediation, and perpetual treatment of a site. They are almost always required in modern mining after a history of companies abandoning mines, closing them without cleaning up, or going bankrupt. There are also well-documented examples of bad actors with poor records claiming a need to resume production in order to fund health, safety, and environmental compliance. These problems have resulted in mines becoming toxic, polluted wastelands, many of which ended up on the federal Superfund National Priorities List, including some of the most (in)famous. The problem with reclamation bonds is that they are very difficult to set. The state has hired an environmental consulting firm to determine the required level of funding required for the cleanup insurance fund. I wish them the best of luck, but their task is almost certainly hopeless. While some costs can be estimated based on past results, practices, and known costs from similar projects, there are many others that are unknowable or have huge uncertainty ranges. The first problem is understanding the hydrology itself. Northern Minnesota is an incredibly complex and interconnected area with lots of braided streams, wetlands, overland flow, and mysterious water courses that apparently disappear. I am incredibly skeptical that it is possible to model such an area with enough confidence to arrive at a good cost estimate for perpetual treatment. And even when the hydrology is modeled correctly, estimates of actual water treatment levels required have been notoriously bad. Following all of the analysis and uncertainty, the setting of actual bond values has also been problematic. This is true whether the mining is for coal (regulated differently) or is hard rock mining (like in the case of Polymet). Around the world, mining bonds have proved inadequate and left local, regional, and national governments responsible for massive, perpetual cleanup costs.
So, there are still many opportunities to stop the Polymet mine. They have only had the state approve their EIS for the land swap. The federal EPA and ACE still need to sign off, the EIS then needs to survive litigation. After that, while they would have the right to extract their mineral rights, they would still be subject to (ideally) strict (and expensive) regulations and permitting requirements. Each of which can be another good stage for opposing the project, litigating, or imposing public and environmental conditions on the company's behavior. The surety bond process will also be a good opportunity to impose costs on the project, and history has shown that it is probably not possible to demand enough money up front, so a strong public push for high numbers could be very helpful. Finally, it is possible that the project collapses under its own weight, with uncertain finances and high costs. The longer the process can be drawn out, the more likely this is to happen. So get involved, write to the Governor and legislature, and provide feedback on the bonding and permitting process. Every little piece helps. Together we can stop this grave threat to a unique and vulnerable place that has so far been preserved for the benefit of all Minnesotans. It would be a shame to sell that out for a handful of dollars a few temporary jobs.
Showing posts with label Threats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Threats. Show all posts
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Sandpiper Pipeline Delayed
A lot of oil moves around this country, and much of it moves through pipelines. Due to the fracking boom in North Dakota and the expansion of tar sands bitumen mining in Alberta, a lot more has been moving around lately, much of it by rail or truck. All of these transport methods are problematic, but for different reasons (I'm not going to go into the horrible environmental effects of tar sands or fracking or the climate and other impacts of oil and natural gas right now, but the links above should provide a good taste, or the documentary Gasland). Trucks are inherently inefficient ways of moving that quantity of oil (or of anything), with greater risk of accidents per mile traveled and greatest carbon output per ton/mile. Rail is better on some but has other problems, including backlogs and delays as well as a history of spills and explosions. Many have said that these problems both support the expansion of pipeline infrastructure for moving an increased volume of oil.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Pipelines, however, are complicated things. They generally run in segments from a wellhead in an oil field to some kind of collection station. There oil (or bitumen, in the case of tar sands), is often blended with solvents and/or heated and sent into a larger pipeline system for transport to major distribution centers. They might cross private lands, public lands, and lands owned by the pipeline company. They also cross rivers, wetlands, roads, and anything else that happens to be in their path. As long as we have an economy driven by fossil fuels, we will have a pipeline problem. We might not need as many as we have, but all the ones we legitimately need do have to go somewhere (both need and location are important fights). Pipelines also are intrusive, requiring a substantial right-of-way, have a propensity to leak, and are not always well monitored.
So pipelines are a necessary evil, but we certainly don't need to build more of them than is economically justified and we definitely should avoid routing them in places that are environmentally sensitive. Which brings me to Sandpiper. It is a pipeline that would run roughly 300 miles across northern Minnesota from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin. It would run relatively directly through the Lakes Country, a wetland heavy and fragile area, but would be most economical for Enbridge Energy, the oil company that wants to build it. It would also follow an existing pipeline right-of-way for about 75% of its length and the company has easement agreements for access/permission to cross private land with about 95% of the affected properties. There have been some supporters of the direct route, with its risks to the environment and cultural resources, but there have also been critics who sued the Public Utilities Commission over the process demanding that an Environmental Impact Assessment be conducted before issuing a certificate of need.
Last summer, the pipeline opponents won in the Court of Appeals, and the PUC was ordered to conduct an assessment before granting a certificate of need. This is an important development because once a certificate of need is granted it becomes much harder to stop a pipeline. It might be possible to change the route a small amount, but the builder would have a large amount of leverage. This is particularly true here, where Enbridge already had 75% of the route in right-of-way and 95% acquisition of needed easements. Acquiring the remaining 5% would have been a simple matter of exercising eminent domain to claim the right-of-way or easement (and unfortunately for the landowners, Minnesota's "Buy the Farm" law doesn't apply to pipelines, only transmission lines, so the residents and farmers would be forced to live with the pipeline and the company's right of access and perpetual maintenance). The newest PUC action has required final submission of the environmental review, which could take years (especially if it ends up in litigation). This has meant a push back in the estimated completion date for the project. It has also provided a number of new opportunities to kill the pipeline outright, kill it by atrophy of support, or re-route it into less sensitive pathways (which might also kill it). The pipeline could be deemed to great a risk to the State's environment and natural resources. It could be forced to move to a less economically favorable route. It might even lose its economic justification if the price of crude oil continues to stay low and North Dakota's oil fields go into what may be a slowdown or a prolonged slump. All of these would be ways that could stop the pipeline in its tracks, and that is a much easier thing to do before it gets its certificate of need. It does take time, effort, and energy, but it can be done if enough people put in the work. It might also buy enough time to build the political pressure to end the threat entirely.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Corporate Influence
I know this is a few weeks late but it's an important and interesting issue that continues to arise and will only become more common as park budgets continue to suffer from the misguided axe of austerity for a department with a $10.8 billion maintenance backlog that could easily provide work for thousands of unemployed Americans as was done during the Great Depression. A small amount was done, but it was a mere drop in the bucket and that funding is largely out of the system and cuts are back on the agenda. While some groups like the National Parks Conservation Association do fundraising and provide other forms of support, there is only so much they can give and in the absence of governmental support for public goods, it comes to panhandling to corporate America. However, once that money is taken, it should be no surprise that there are strings attached.
This is clearly the case (though the NPS denies it) at the Grand Canyon where the NPS killed a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the park after Coca Cola objected. Other bottled beverages would be unaffected and there are ample free water stations in the park to refill reusable bottles so concerns about visitor safety in a desert climate are clearly pretextual. When you also consider that the holder of the concessions contract in the park was in favor of the ban and that bottled water is an inherently ridiculous, wasteful, and predatory "commodity" designed to scam the stupid, it becomes even more obvious that Coke is calling the shots on at least some park management issues and overriding decisions made by local administrators who are veterans of the system.
I know the NPS needs money, but it is important to be wary of the sources it is able to find and vigilant about making sure that such "philanthropy" is just a way to get good press and not a backdoor into influencing policy. In this age of misguided budget cuts it would be all too easy to lose our parks to private speculators and profiteers, if not in name then certainly in character and practice.
The LATimes also jumped on this issue and was appropriately harsh and wasn't shy, like the NYT was, about drawing the connections (especially confusing since the NYT had emails essentially confirming the need for Coke's permission). It also connected this to the increasing commercialization of state parks and the spread of noxious outdoor advertising that can accompany their perpetual need for cash. The actions in California's state parks are troubling enough, there is no need to expand them and multiply them across the entire country and through the crown jewels of America's natural heritage.
Update 12/2: Thanks to FOIA some more information has come out about this and it makes the NPS look even worse.
This is clearly the case (though the NPS denies it) at the Grand Canyon where the NPS killed a proposal to ban the sale of bottled water in the park after Coca Cola objected. Other bottled beverages would be unaffected and there are ample free water stations in the park to refill reusable bottles so concerns about visitor safety in a desert climate are clearly pretextual. When you also consider that the holder of the concessions contract in the park was in favor of the ban and that bottled water is an inherently ridiculous, wasteful, and predatory "commodity" designed to scam the stupid, it becomes even more obvious that Coke is calling the shots on at least some park management issues and overriding decisions made by local administrators who are veterans of the system.
I know the NPS needs money, but it is important to be wary of the sources it is able to find and vigilant about making sure that such "philanthropy" is just a way to get good press and not a backdoor into influencing policy. In this age of misguided budget cuts it would be all too easy to lose our parks to private speculators and profiteers, if not in name then certainly in character and practice.
The LATimes also jumped on this issue and was appropriately harsh and wasn't shy, like the NYT was, about drawing the connections (especially confusing since the NYT had emails essentially confirming the need for Coke's permission). It also connected this to the increasing commercialization of state parks and the spread of noxious outdoor advertising that can accompany their perpetual need for cash. The actions in California's state parks are troubling enough, there is no need to expand them and multiply them across the entire country and through the crown jewels of America's natural heritage.
Update 12/2: Thanks to FOIA some more information has come out about this and it makes the NPS look even worse.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Amazon in Danger
This is an excellent Op-Ed by a Brazilian journalist about the threats the Amazon faces. What makes it so interesting is that it goes beyond recitation of distressing facts about rate of destruction, assassinations of activists, displacement of indigenous people, soil depletion and erosion, and the myriad other disasters the relentless expansion of sugar, cattle, and soy have caused. What caught my attention was the argument currently playing out in Brazil about its sovereign right to develop autonomously without interference and how the author used Brazil's history to counter it quite effectively.
While the "right to develop" is a common argument by some development theorists, and one that has a large amount of moral suasion--after all, why should the world's poor stay poor because rich countries now value the environment they spent centuries destroying as they developed--it is ultimately unsatisfactory. For starters, we now have technological options that can help developing nations bridge the gap over some of the dirtiest technologies. This is particularly true, ironically, in some of the least developed nations, such as Laos, where there is very little infrastructure that needs upgrading or replacing. One of my friends just finished a year working with a Laotian company that is working on installing small, locally assembled solar panels for off-grid villages. There are many other efforts do similar things on both small and large scales. There is also the substantial question of whether it is right to say that societies must develop, need to develop, and, most importantly, need to follow the pattern of the Industrialized West. While that is a very interesting and complicated philosophical and ethical question, it is not really what I want to discuss right now. Besides, there are much better places you can get a thorough examination of it.
Really what I wanted to highlight is the way Leão Serva takes the argument and demolishes its purported moral and nationalistic force by exposing both the corrupt corporate interests behind it and comparing it to another shameful piece of Brazil's experience: it's reluctance to abolish slavery and its claims that outsiders who condemned it had no right to meddle. He does it well, with grace but to devastating effect. Perhaps this will help clear the eyes of some who are less responsive to environmental concerns for their own sake (or their very real human consequences).
While the "right to develop" is a common argument by some development theorists, and one that has a large amount of moral suasion--after all, why should the world's poor stay poor because rich countries now value the environment they spent centuries destroying as they developed--it is ultimately unsatisfactory. For starters, we now have technological options that can help developing nations bridge the gap over some of the dirtiest technologies. This is particularly true, ironically, in some of the least developed nations, such as Laos, where there is very little infrastructure that needs upgrading or replacing. One of my friends just finished a year working with a Laotian company that is working on installing small, locally assembled solar panels for off-grid villages. There are many other efforts do similar things on both small and large scales. There is also the substantial question of whether it is right to say that societies must develop, need to develop, and, most importantly, need to follow the pattern of the Industrialized West. While that is a very interesting and complicated philosophical and ethical question, it is not really what I want to discuss right now. Besides, there are much better places you can get a thorough examination of it.
Really what I wanted to highlight is the way Leão Serva takes the argument and demolishes its purported moral and nationalistic force by exposing both the corrupt corporate interests behind it and comparing it to another shameful piece of Brazil's experience: it's reluctance to abolish slavery and its claims that outsiders who condemned it had no right to meddle. He does it well, with grace but to devastating effect. Perhaps this will help clear the eyes of some who are less responsive to environmental concerns for their own sake (or their very real human consequences).
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Mining and the Media
A few weeks ago Interior Secretary Ken Salazar extended a moratorium on new mining claims on federal lands surrounding the Grand Canyon. The effect of this was to temporarily extend the suspension of new claims he imposed two years ago for an additional six months pending (unnecessary) additional scientific review. The ultimate outcome is likely to be the withdrawal of these lands for 20 years (which is the longest they can be removed from availability under current law without additional statutory action). This is a significant event because it will close off most of the threat of uranium and other hard rock mining in that area. There are a few existing, but inactive, mines that might be allowed to reopen (it will depend on whether they are deemed abandoned claims), and a few other new claims that might be perfected, but most of the claims that were filed near the end of the Bush presidency are likely to be worthless. This is because withdrawals of public lands are always made subject to valid existing rights. However, a right is not valid and existing just by being made. The way hard rock mining works in the United States is that a claimant must show that he or she (or it for corporations) has made an actual discovery of some mineral, has taken steps to physically occupy the land, and that the discovery would actually be economically rational to develop. It is not enough to say "it is likely that there is uranium on this claim" or "we believe uranium is on this claim" or "we want to look for uranium here." If there has not been an actual discovery on the date of withdrawal then the claim is not a prior valid right. (This is relevant to closed mines because if they were closed due to economic reasons, whether commodity price or cost of extraction or some combination, and remained closed for a long enough period, the right might have been abandoned. There is currently litigation over whether the current owners of those interests are able to "revive" their mining claims or if they are now subject to the moratorium).
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
However, what I am more interested in today is not the actual issue (which, while technically complicated, is fairly easy to give a brief overview of) but how it is covered. National media is generally quite bad at environmental reporting. This is particularly true of the New York Times (the Washington Post rarely even bothers so is hardly worth mentioning) which often reports from its DC or New York desks and relies on email statements (though since this was a DC action it is actually appropriate here). It also often does little to provide background or context for its pieces (its Green blog is generally better but rarely gets published in the print edition, unlike many of its other blogs). The Los Angeles Times does a better job of providing context and background, even in short articles, and relies much less on he said/she said and false equivalencies (lazy journalistic practices common in environmental reporting, most notoriously when discussing climate change). It also often sends reporters to the actual vicinity to do articles (and being located in the West tends to cover more issues in more depth since they are more likely to be relevant to the readership).
What makes this issue such a good one for contrast is that both papers covered a similar event that is fairly easy to explain, with a complicated but generalizable backstory, and predictable views on both sides. Given that, it's stunning to see how different the articles (both short) were in their treatment.
The NYT relied on a summary of Secretary Salazar's statement for a full half of the article, provided a single sentence indicating this was part of a continuing issue, then dove right into discussion of the economic impact on uranium prices and demand (with a nod to the Fukushima Daiichi reactor crisis in Japan, irrelevant as the uranium market is only incidental to the issue in the article). It then spends the remaining half of the article presenting the issue as a standard partisan Democrat/Republican and environmentalist/business dispute. Note how it said that environmentalists had been displeased with Secretary Salazar for earlier decisions and implies that this might appease them. It also finds two Representatives (one of whom did not represent Arizona) to give their opposing take. While I agree with Rep. Grijalva, I find it lazy of the reporter to rely on predictable talking points that could have been about any environmental issue. There was no effort to get additional comments or place either of them in a broader context. There is also no mention whatsoever of the General Mining Act of 1872, which is the driving force behind the issue in the first place. For John Broder, a report nominally on an environmental beat (but who often writes on the DC "goings on") it is a particularly disappointing piece, as if he decided to phone it in.
The LAT did a better (but not perfect) job. It also managed to do this in a much shorter article, indicating that good reporting is not necessarily longer reporting. It starts by coming straight out and saying that a long term withdrawal is the final goal and contextualizes it by reporting on the 2000% increase in claims. It also discusses the reasons people (and not just environmentalists) are opposed to mining: watershed protection, contamination, and aesthetics. It also goes to a bit more effort to get comments. While it, too, solicited comments from both sides, it at least sought out members of interest groups (a local conservationist and a mining industry lobbyist) and said that people and politicians were on both sides. Good job for engaging in slightly better and more thorough reporting. More bonus points for reporting that this is just one of many parks under threat from such activities on its borders (unlike the NYT which allows readers to think this is an isolated incident of interest to only those directly invested in the Grand Canyon). The LAT also ends with a reference to the GML and how it is the source of this and other controversies. While it is a bit trite, omits the source of the relevant controversy, and appears to be an afterthought, at least it is there. More context would be nice, as would weaving it into the actual coverage, but beggars can't be choosers.
Unfortunately the LAT apparently decided that it should remove a reference to the actual issue for final publication, it did appear in the earlier online version, rather than expand and clarify it. Read the final two sentences and compare them to my brief introduction at the top of this post. It wouldn't be that hard to flesh out what was written there to make it informative and correct, but rather than do that the paper axed the paragraph. I suppose that's better than leaving in the misleading and incomplete thought, but it made the final product much weaker and less useful than it could have been.
Overall grades for these articles:
NYT: D
LAT: B-
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Park Budgets
Today is the Summer Solstice and the official beginning of summer. Yes the "summer season" began for many a month ago with the observance of Memorial Day, but now there is no denying it. The arrival of summer means many things: barbecues, long days, gardens and fresh produce. It is also a time when many people leave the cities for the "natural" world, visiting state and national parks in great numbers. Yet this year, many people will find these trips either more difficult or impossible. Here in Minnesota we are only ten days away from a potential shutdown of the state government due to inability to pass a budget. This would force all parks to close as there would be no money for rangers, maintenance workers, or any of the other state funded workers necessary to make them work. While many parks do charge fees for admission, campsites, firewood, and other amenities, these are generally not enough to be self-sustaining (especially since the greater the attendance, the higher the costs of maintaining and patrolling the park).
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Even states where there is no looming shutdown are cutting park services, raising fees, or even eliminating parks from their systems. While it is understandable in some respects, state budgets are tight and politicians are loath to do responsible things like raise taxes or cut wasteful spending (e.g. prisons, death penalty, foreign wars, agribusiness subsidies), it is still tragic that parks (and the environment generally) are among the first "luxury" items sacrificed in the name of austerity. It is incredibly shortsighted to shortchange protection given the massive value from environmental and ecosystem services. It is also a good way to permanently undermine support for parks and other environmental protection.
We did not always have public parks in this country. Indeed, many parks, going back to the European tradition, were private estates for landed gentry, royalty, and other wealthy and powerful elites. Places they could escape to, especially in the summer, to avoid the crowds, smells, and diseases of summer cities (remember, this was before modern plumbing). It wasn't until the late Nineteenth Century and conservationists like John Muir that the idea of parks for the sake of protecting something special and wild arose. Yet it would be a huge mistake to romanticize this view. Many people know that Muir was deeply involved in the protection granted to Yosemite Valley and that Yellowstone was the first national park in the history of the world. What many don't realize is that they were not established out of some noble or enlightened concern for nature and conservation. Yes, there were conservationists then (both in the modern sense and in the "Wise Use" vein), but there were also monopolists, railroads, and promoters that all saw parks as their next meal ticket. In fact, many parks were established largely to satisfy different railroad interests. The Great Northern had Glacier. The Southern Pacific had the Grand Canyon. Prior to the official formation of the National Park Service, many parks were de facto private entities, monopolized and run by a handful of concessionaires and railroads. Many were concerned that they would be turned into something as tacky and commodified as Niagara Falls.*
This changed with the establishment of the NPS, but ever since that day it has struggled with a dual mandate: to provide access for the public but also to preserve the natural, biological, and historical features that make parks special. In recent years the NPS has erred (rightly) more on the side of preservation for future generations, which increases the recreational burden on state park systems, many of which do not carry such mandates.This increase in traffic has often been met not with increased funding but with slashed budgets. It is not only the NPS that has a massive project backlog.
There is also a new trend toward treating park visitors and the public as "customers" and "consumers" of nature rather than as owners and stewards with a vested interest. This shift is easily seen in the New York Times article linked above on budget cuts. The state of Washington is about to shift to a subscription/membership based funding mechanism that completely eliminates all independent state revenue. While it remains to be seen if this is a viable strategy economically, it is quite dangerous from a policy and perception stand point. I don't want to get into the intricacies of wilderness theory and nature as inherently valuable or only as socially constructed but it is important to understand and emphasize that support for the idea of parks and nature is strongly correlated with the idea that there are a personal interest in and benefit from them. If parks are only supported by those who choose to support them, or are only accessible to those willing and able to pay ever rising admission fees, they will no longer belong to the people but will be more akin to the Gilded Age public in name only parks. As a planner for the Idaho Parks Department was quoted, after all of these shifts in funding, admission fees, and aggressive marketing to middle and upper class park "consumers," "In what way are they state parks anymore?" While I wish the article did more to develop the idea, it's a very good question, and an important one to think about, especially with the summer park season starting up. Are these for everyone or just a select few? Do we all own them and benefit from them or are they the exclusive escape of the privileged? No matter how you choose to use parks (camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, biking, canoeing, skiing, day tripping), you have an interest in the answer to these questions and it's worth thinking about the next time you hear about taxes, budgets, or new fees.
*This isn't filled with hyperlink citations at present, I might be able to set that up at some point, but many are to articles you can only access through an academic subscription. However, if you really care I can provide interested parties with a copy of a seminar paper I wrote a few years ago on the subject that is richly sourced.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Things This Week
First off, some sad news. The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that the eastern cougar subspecies is extinct and should be removed from the Endangered Species List. This isn't particularly surprising. Cougars were largely hunted down as pests, nuisances, and threats to livestock and people in the east long ago. That, combined with the massive destruction of habitat, ever-increasing surburbanization and sprawl, and the fragmentation of what little suitable habitat once existed into ever more isolated biological islands and large predators stand no chance of survival. To tie this in with parks a little bit, While often highly developed and connected to infrastructure, parks can provide protections for core biomes, and when all the public and private stakeholders are on board, can provide the anchor for regional management plans that enable species to have a foothold for recovery from which they can radiate into adjacent suitable areas.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
It's also National Invasive Species Awareness Week. This is a worldwide problem that can have widespread economic as well as environmental effects, including in urban areas. Parks are not exempt. They are not sealed biodomes and species, including people and those that we carry with us whether intentionally or not, freely cross their boundaries. Nature doesn't care about arbitrary lines on a map. Of parks I've been to, several have notable invasive species problems. The Everglades have perhaps the most famous invader, the Burmese Python. Certainly it has led to battles with one of the apex predators native to the park, but it has also done damage to endangered species that are already under pressure from water diversion, pollution, and encroachment by a growing Miami metro area.
I didn't see any snakes when I was in the Everglades, but I did see the effects of invasive species in Hawaii. Kahili Ginger is a hardy, widespread, and nasty invader. It crowds out all the native understory flora and is almost impossible to kill except through a plant by plant cut and treat (with herbicides) approach. This meant that in some parts of the rain forest at Hawaii Volcanoes the understory was choked with ginger plants, with hardly any others visible except for the occasional tree. When they are flowering they can be quite pretty, but I'd prefer to see what is supposed to be there. There's beauty in that. There can be a long philosophical debate about how "natural" it is to go around "restoring" a landscape and whether such a landscape is any less artificial than one filled with invasives, attractive or not, deliberately placed or not, but that's not what I'm doing here (I have addressed it elsewhere, as have many others far more knowledgeable than I am). Native species are under enough attack, we don't need to go about making it worse by acting to save noxious pests that damage their range.
Even more damaging to Hawaiian species have been invaders whose effects are generally only visible in the voids they create. Specifically the combination of avian malaria and feral pigs has caused massive destruction of the native bird population, many species of which are on the brink of extinction. Invasives put even more pressure on species already threatened with massive habitat loss.
It's also necessary to watch out for unintended consequences. Rats (another invasive) were a problem in the Virgin Islands (though the main objection at the time was destruction of sugar cane) so plantation managers imported the mongoose from India to control them. This failed because rats are nocturnal and sleep in trees while the mongoose is a daylight hunter. The rats were unaffected and other sensitive species paid the price. So beware solutions that require further solutions, if only it were as easy as Principle Skinner's needle snakes and gorillas solution.
So happy NISAW everyone. And if you see something on that list, I hope it tastes good.
DeChristopher Trial
Tim DeChristopher's trial is being conducted this week. DeChristopher is the environmental activist who prevented oil and gas drilling on lands near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks by bidding on and winning $1.8 million dollars worth of leases on BLM land in 2008. Unfortunately he has been barred by Judge Dee Benson from discussing his motives during his trial. While this is not particularly surprising, it makes it highly likely that he will be convicted. The statutes under which he is being charged require a "knowing" or "intentional" standard and the court rejected his "necessity defense." In other words, it said that even if all the evidence he planned to present in court were believed, it would not meet the requirements to legally justify his actions as preventing a greater harm. In its order barring discussion of necessity, the court held that he could not establish that he was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that he couldn't show enough of a connection between the leases and the threat of climate change, and that he had other legal alternatives.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
At trial, however, his defense team managed to get an allusion to his motivations into the courtroom, though that line of questioning was quickly shut down and the court cleared. Despite being only a brief mention, and even if Judge Benson instructs the jury to disregard, the practical effect is that this idea is now in the minds of the jurors (if it wasn't there already). Whether that is a good or bad thing is certainly an open question (this is Utah we are talking about), but orders to disregard are generally meaningless since one cannot unhear testimony or actively purge ideas. "The jury shall not think of a pink elephant." His defense team's efforts to claim he didn't intend to disrupt the bidding process or knowingly misrepresent himself as a bidder in good faith are less persuasive. "Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse" is something every first year law student is repeatedly told, and while it is often difficult to prove state of mind, the facts (signed document with explicit promises, clear course of action, no plan for payment, personal statements of intent) make the government's burden quite easy to meet.
His best shot at acquittal is through jury nullification: the jury deciding that even though the government has proved every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt it will not convict him because it feels he has done nothing wrong/is morally justified/otherwise excused. It is perfectly legal for juries to do this, though for obvious reasons the government is careful to keep it quiet and I am sure that in jury selection the prosecutors weeded out most of the environmentalists, outdoorsmen, and other likely sympathizers.
On an unrelated note: the Salt Lake Tribune's coverage has been, as one would expect, fairly biased against DeChristopher. Referring to him as an "admitted monkey-wrencher" and, pejoratively as a "'true believer' of the environmental movement." I suppose this is to be expected of a Utah paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)