Park Economics

As is all too obvious, we are stuck in a recession/depression that will be very difficult to extract ourselves from given the current desire for savage budget cuts and senseless austerity. I have previously mentioned how a program like the CCC would do wonders to improve park infrastructure and facilities, clearing the massive maintenance backlog, while also providing work and income to thousands of unemployed Americans who are otherwise sitting idle. On the heels of that comes this project by Headwaters Economics to push for more parks and protected spaces generally, arguing that they provide economic boosts to the areas surrounding them. Among the 100+ signers are three Nobel Laureates in Economics, so it's not just a bunch of third-tier hacks pushing this. While this is not the first time that this argument has been made (see this essay from 2004 about Olympic National Park and how community feelings towards it and logging protections in the surrounding forest have changed as one example), it is nice that there is now institutional, academic support for this belief. It's a long way from shaping policy but it's important to lay the groundwork first.

Lake Maria

This post is very late but I'm finally getting around to it. Back in mid-October I went camping with my boyfriend and his dog up in Lake Maria State Park. It's only about an hour on I-94 from the Twin Cities and has a surprisingly large number of trails and campsites for a park its size (though most of the trails do pass by at least a few campsites so if it's busy expect to hear/see lots of people). It also has a number of interpretive programs and trails including geocaching (a GPS based program present in many MN parks). We went up at the height of fall colors but because of the high winds almost all the leaves had been stripped off the trees. Still, it is a very pretty park and a stop on one of the migratory flyways so it is a good location to see migratory birds in spring and fall. The campsites were well maintained and spacious (available by reservation or first-come basis). It also has cabins and group sites. While it has year-round programs, if you aren't a fan of winter camping it might not be the park for you because it is a decent drive out of the Cities for just a few hours, though definitely worth it.
A view of the wetlands.

There is a swan in the center of the frame

 Not one of the rare turtles that live there, but it was sitting right in the middle of the trail (and was very fast in getting away).

 

Izzy the Dog at our campsite.

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.

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).

Trees in the City

I have a backlog of pieces I've been meaning to write about and a number of them all share a theme: urban trees. Many cities, particularly dense ones like New York (especially Manhattan) or sprawling, concrete filled ones like Los Angeles, have a pronounced lack of greenery and what trees do exist are often sickly, ugly, unkempt, or isolated. Often they are also pollution tolerant species like the honey locust and Norway maple or evolutionary survivors like the ginkgo. This leads to uninteresting monoculture landscapes that can be more depressing than a barren street on its own. It also can lead to the spread of non-native species which can become invasive. Lake of greenery and open spaces generally can also contribute to the heat island effect, in which paved and built up spaces absorb more heat during the day which is then radiated back in the evening leading to higher temperatures (both minimums and maximums) than in surrounding areas that are kept cooler by evapotranspiration, higher albedo, and other effects.

First up is a story from China this summer. China, as we all know, is a rapidly growing nation that is quickly urbanizing and converting any open space in and around its cities into factories, offices, housing, and business uses. The nature of the Communist Party's rule also means that any action is essentially indisputable and impossible to block. That, combined with the fact that China has a weak and nearly non-existent environmental movement, means that if some trees are going to be cut in the name of progress, nothing is going to change that. In the city of Nanjing, however, local activists were able to save at least a few of the cities enormous wutong trees from a proposed subway expansion. While an incomplete victory, the subway will still be built and a large number of the trees will still be removed, it is progress for a notoriously single-minded, authoritarian, and anti-environment nation.

Moving back to the US, there are two pieces I see as companions, of a sort. New York City is trying to plant 1,000,000 trees to green up the city. In doing so it has taken an approach of too many, too soon, too haphazardly, at least in the views of some critics. While I think that the city has a noble purpose that is generally to be applauded, there are some elements of the program that are potentially troubling. Some are mentioned in the article and are trivial (neighbors complaining, seriously people, who doesn't like trees?), others are more serious, at least financially (roots buckling sidewalks). A more substantial criticism is that trees are being planted at the wrong time or year or in the wrong place and are therefore struggling or dying. While I am not a botanist or arborist and the article does little to resolve the he said/she said, from what I know of the Bloomberg administration it would not surprise me if the mayor just decreed that trees be planted and that they be planted by a date certain, details be damned. Two additional problems were not mentioned in the article. One is that as the climate changes, so will the suitability of the urban environment for certain species. Trees live a long time and care should be taken to select trees that are fit to survive in both the present and warmer, wetter city of the future so as to mitigate future losses and replacement costs. This was one element of Chicago's climate change plan (which I hope to write about in the future in more depth). The other is that trees, like most organisms, have a finite lifespan and planting huge numbers of trees at the same time can set up future problems, like those seen in Atlanta where drought and development pressures have combined with age to kill off a huge number of the city's trees.

And finally, a fully positive story about rescue and rediscovery. The Franciscan manzanita was long thought extinct in the wild until it was discovered growing in the middle of a traffic island in San Francisco's Presidio district in the path of a road project. The project was suspended and the plant was moved to a more protected location within the park (click here to see a picture of the process). Now it is eligible for protection as an endangered species and botanists are looking for cuttings in botanical gardens and nurseries to plant near the wild one in the hopes of fostering enough genetic diversity to create a self-sustaining recovery population.

Roadless Rules Upheld

A panel of the Tenth Circuit has upheld (unanimously) the Forest Service's Clinton era roadless rule against a challenge by the state of Wyoming. The decision is here (but be warned that it is 120 pages long). This is a pretty big deal and a big win for conservationists, environmentalists, outdoors enthusiasts, and pretty much anyone who doesn't want to see small roads turn into bigger ones turn into major logging/mining/drilling projects turn into "well, it's already so developed what is the problem with going a little further" slippery slopes. It is also likely to severely limit, in theory if not in practice because many ORV users regularly flout restrictions, damage from off-road vehicles, snow mobiles, and 4x4s. If you would like a more digestible summary of the case you can read it in the NYT though it is only a shadow of the bigger issue.

More Constructions

Not a long post, just a quick follow up on my last post about nature as a social construction. The September issue of National Geographic had a nice piece on New York's Adirondack Park that provides a perfect example of this. With Verlyn Klinkenborg's focus on the park's history and the ways it has grown and healed the landscape while continuing to provide space for myriad uses makes the piece a wonderful focal point for further thought on ideas of nature and wilderness (read through it and the photo captions and maps and think about how and why those words are used). It doesn't hurt that it is accompanied by National Geographic's traditionally excellent photography either.