News Roundup

Kind of a lazy post, I have a series of more substantive topics that I hope to post soon but have been very busy this past month (when I wasn't on vacation in beautiful Arches National Park, which I will write about in depth with pictures soon). I'm hoping to write more frequently this year, maybe making that commitment on the internet will help? We shall see.

Why is it so important to protect open spaces and wild places? Because you never know what you will find there. The latest discovery is a brand new species of snake, the Matilda's Horned Viper, recently discovered in Tanzania (the exact location is being withheld from publication due to the rarity of the species and the threat posed by a sudden rush of collectors, trophy hunters, and other miscreants to what appears to be a very small population. Most new discoveries are small organisms, insects or microbes, but there are still large species that turn up from time to time.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has officially extended a moratorium on new mining claims around the Grand Canyon. I wrote about this issue last year in a piece critiquing media coverage of environmental issues. I'm not at all surprised by his decision, though he certainly didn't do much to publicize or celebrate it. In fact it looks like he is trying to hide it based on the timing (right before the New Hampshire primary when all media attention will be directed elsewhere). Look for various mining interests and their shills allies in Congress to continue complaining about this and making absurd claims about jobs created, minimal environmental impacts, and other outright falsehoods.

And speaking of hiding from the media while doing something laudable, today President Obama visited the EPA to give a campaign speech pep talk to agency employees on the importance of the work they do and the value of a clean environment. From the brevity and content it sounds to me very much like test driving campaign talking points for use against a republican opponent who will have spent years trying to be more anti-environment and anti-science than any other and not like a president actually praising an agency and its workers (remember, he let his Law and Economics friend and OIRA head Cass Sunstein kill the proposed smog rule based on industry lies and exaggerations about economic impact and without properly considering the value of health improved and lives saved, not to mention jobs created via regulatory forcing (it takes a lot of research and manpower to update all those factories and plants or replace unsustainable capacity)).

This is a light, yet interesting, article about what one of John Muir's great-great-grandsons is up to with the family name.

Yet another reminder that even once renewable energy projects are built or capacity installed it still needs to be connected to the grid and that can be a hassle. Sometimes its logistics, sometimes its infrastructure, and sometimes its corporate resistance or regulatory turf battles. The point is, renewables aren't like Field of Dreams, it takes more than just building it for the power to come.

Update 1/12: Today's NYT has an op-ed today by two fisheries scientists about some of the problems with the General Mining Law and some very needed updates and safeguards. There's not a chance of any of them happening any time soon, but it's important to keep raising these issues and building awareness for when conditions are more favorable. What struck me is how many of their proposals would bring hard rock mining into much closer alignment with coal and how that mining process is managed (the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is a much more effective statute that raises more revenue for the sovereign, allows more land use flexibility and prioritization, and has much stronger and more effective environmental safeguards. If SMCRA were simply expanded to cover all mining that would be perhaps the biggest public land reform since FLPMA, if not ever and would be a huge accomplishment).

Four Quick Things

First a quick update: California's legislature has passed the ban on shark fins that I wrote about a few weeks ago. It is quite likely that Governor Jerry Brown signs it.

Second, Nicholas Kristof wrote a nice piece for the NYT on Sunday that brings up a point that is not discussed enough, namely the importance of actual outdoors experiences (wilderness or not) in building a constituency and support for environmental and conservation measures. While he doesn't get into the more complicated questions of socioeconomic privilege, class, and cultural constructions of nature that are increasingly present in American society (which I briefly mentioned near the end of this post) it is nice to see a major columnist talking about this often neglected aspect of environmental movement building.

Third, a student from my alma mater has written a very nice piece for the NYT's Green Blog about his experience with the Student Conservation Association working in the wilderness of Nevada's Basin and Range country. I have a number of friends who have done summer programs through them (or with state level equivalents) and all have loved the experience. If you get the chance you should look into it.

Finally, the weirdly named BOEMRE has apparently "accomplished what it set out to do" in cleaning up the regulatory mess left by the corrupt MMS and will be disbanded into other divisions of the Interior Department including the even newer (and less awkward) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Only time will tell if this division makes the agency more effective at carrying out its mandates and less susceptible to industry capture.

Sharks and Rhinos

Last week I saw two articles that I thought would be interesting to juxtapose. The first is a piece from the NYTimes on the increase in the theft of rhino horns as trade in legal horns has become more difficult (the increased CITES and EU restrictions have also apparently increased poaching, but are on the whole a positive. Rather than loosen restrictions it would be best to increase commitments and support for conservation and anti-poaching forces and economic development to alleviate the poverty that makes poaching and trafficking a desirable way to earn a living). The second was a short piece in the LATimes about the advancement of a ban on the sale of shark fins through a legislative committee in the state senate.

First off, some housekeeping: I am not a vegetarian, though I do try to eat responsibly. I also am not opposed to hunting or fishing generally (and have partaken in those activities), but especially not as game management techniques where other top predators have been removed or when dealing with invasive species. I also do not want to get into a big philosophical or ethical discussion about the propriety of having all these specimens of endangered animals floating around the developed world. Yes, specimens are necessary for scientific study and the expansion of knowledge (and increased awareness of biodiversity). Yes, more specimens were taken in the days of colonialism than were necessary, and for less than noble motives. But they were and we have to move forward from that point. You can't return a stuffed rhino to the wild, any parallel to the Elgin Marbles is superficial and ultimately false.

Now, onto the actual comparison. Both rhino horn and shark fin soup are traditional Chinese medicines and foods. That's pretty well established. However, there is much more general condemnation of the former than the latter. While use of rhino horn is portrayed as ridiculous, observe the outlandish list of purported powers it has, "aphrodisiac," cure for cancer coupled with the commentary from a scientist that ingestion would be "about as healthful 'as chewing on your fingernails.'" There is no room for cultural differences. It is represented as dangerous, destructive, and misguided, based on superstition not on science.

Contrast that with the proposed ban on shark fins. While there is already a ban in other western states, the battle in California is getting heated as it constitutes a much larger economy than its Pacific neighbors. In the short piece on finning, the dispute is framed as conservationists versus those seeking to preserve their cultural heritage (whether perceived or constructed, shark fin was long a food for the elites in certain regions and has only become more widely consumed as technology and economic development have reduced costs and increased incomes). While the tone of the article does convey a bit of he said/she said, it does ultimately appear to come down on the side of science and conservation, strengthened by the quote from a state assemblyman who is originally from China, grew up with shark fin soup, and has since come to reject it (as have a number of other prominent Chinese people including Yao Ming). The accompanying photograph illustrating a shark finning vessel, lines strung up with fins (sharks presumably lying dead and bleeding on the ocean floor) also serves to make the point: finning is brutal, cruel, and damaging to the health of ocean ecosystems (as well as to the sharks). It's also incredibly unhealthy for human consumption. As top predators, sharks accumulate toxins such as mercury at very high levels via biomagnification. In many species these toxins can reach hazardous levels.

I know that's a lot of material to pull out of a blog item, but I thought it made for an interesting comparison, and one that gets back to one of the things I want this blog to explore: what is the real value of nature and the biodiversity of life? Does it have its own inherent value? Is it simply a social construct? Does one culture or society's value or construction take precedence over another's? Should it? What are the processes and circumstances that lead to a change in these constructions and how can they be enabled or impeded?

None of these have clear answers, and answering one might destabilizing your answer to another, but they are definitely worth thinking about. I try to keep them in mind as I go through life (even when I'm not writing here, which I should do more often) and I hope you do too.

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-