The Battle for Bristol Bay

Hey Guys!
I decided for my final post that I wanted to contribute a video clip to add some variety to our blog. In search of a clip I ran across a cool section of the NY times that has a collection of all sorts of videos. The video I am going to link, struck me and I felt that it needed to be shared with our class. Currently in Bristol Bay Alaska there is a controversial mine proposed. This mine is supposed to be one of the biggest mines in North America and is predicted to have major environmental and economical impacts. If this mine is approved then it appears that the environmental impacts will outweigh the economic benefits. The biggest environmental concern is linked to the salmon. The Bristol Bay watershed is where the largest salmon run occurs so it is extremely important for their health that it get preserved. The open pit mine is in search of copper and gold. There has been a fair amount of studies done on how copper in streams effects Salmon. Copper desensitizes the salmon's ability to smell making them more vulnerable to prey and also kills off food sources. This has many locals concerned. The salmon contribute to their sense of place and local knowledge. Many in this video express that they do not know what they would do without the salmon. It is their life.
I really wanted to draw attention to this issue because the acceptance of this mine will not only affect the people of Alaska and since it seems to currently to be mostly a local issue I do not think it has drawn much attention. Check it out.
http://video.nytimes.com/video/playlist/environment/1194821066219/index.html


Also, here is an article that goes into greater depth about the repercussions that we may face by allowing this pebble mine.
http://www.orvis.com/intro.asp?subject=4571&bhcp=1

Ms. Smith

To protect salmon, restrictions placed on three pesticides

The endangered species act saves the day! Stronger restrictions on the use of these pesticides will be a step in the right direction. It is time to think of other ways to deal with “pests”. We have known that these toxic chemicals will create more problems than they have solved, yet we have continued to use them.“Joshua Osborne-Klein, an attorney with the environmental group Earthjustice, said this could prompt farmers to consider different, less-hazardous alternatives to controlling pests."We think it's quite a positive step toward dealing with this issue," he said.” I totally agree with him, maybe by implementing stronger restrictions we can get away from the use of toxic chemicals and look for a different method to control pests. This may mean that farmers need to junk the idea of monocropping to control the pests. I feel like Professor Pena has been trying to stress the importance of this all quarter. Through our readings and his lectures we have been introduced to many different methods of farming revealing ways to deal with pests without the use of chemicals. Why not implement them? With questions like such, money always seems to be the underlying factor. In the article Heather Hansen exemplifies this. “Farmers risk having their shipments blocked if those pests turn up, said Heather Hansen, of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, which represents the agriculture industry on pesticide issues.” This is very anthropocentric. The message she sent to me is, "who cares about the fish, I am going to lose money if my shipments get blocked". Okay, from a business point of view I understand where she is coming from, but in reality, is it excusable to knowingly drive a species, especially a keystone species into extinction over possible blocked shipments? My ethics say absolutely not! In reality what good will the money be if we degrade the current environment into an environment that our species can no longer survive in. The answer is pretty obvious and complex. Finding a balance between environment and economics will be the key, but the challenge is determining that balance.

Ms. Smith

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008408557_pesticide19m.html

Hey it's Michael D again. So we have been talking about indigenous/local peoples and their rights over the quarter. It made me think about this presentation by a guest lecturer in my restoration ecology class who presented us with the amazing removal of the Elwah River Dams. This dam removal will not only be the largest dam removal in the United States but it will also be the return of the fish populations to the upper river and the reestablishment of the Elwah people to the entire spectrum of native land. This project encompasses many themes relevant to our class including native perspectives, restoration, politics, and environmental justice. There is also the fact that the dams were built in a way that was completely illegal under the laws at the time. Fish passage was necessary, but because the builder had enough money they could bypass that feature of the dam. The motive behind dam construction was economic gain which led to the environmental damage here. This focus on economic gain for the developer forced the Elwah people to move strictly to the mouth of the river where their economy of salmon fishing was now concentrated. But now that the dam license is expiring there is the opportunity to fix many of the problems. The land can be restored, the fish will repopulate the river, we can hopefully change policies in positive ways and the Elwah people can move forward.

There is an article on the Elwah Dam project in the Seattle Times at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001998230_elwha06m.html

Also check out this website I found:
http://www.colorado.edu/law/centers/nrlc/summerconference/2007/papers/Busch.Session5.pdf

response

Hi Ms. Smith!

I think it's also interesting how we're so focused on finding alternative routes to energy consumption. In the Environment 100 course i'm taking this quarter the two lecturers talk about this exact topic in terms of population growth also.
The reason from what i've learned so far seems to be the fact that the consumption of energy will increase, with the increase in population, so there is logical link between the two. People who are looking into alternative approaches in using energy seem to be realistic when tackling the problem. since we can't stop using energy in our daily lives we must find alternative ways to consume energy, possibly because they think that to switch to alternative methods is a way to decrease our biological footprint..? Even if we were to decrease our energy consumption today with the number of people in the world increasing and our luxuries in the US of driving our cars, leaving our TVs on, etc. are behavioral issues. The behavioral issues seem to be the hardest kind to change. It's one of those problems that are easier said than done for most people, especially the people in the US, who consume much of the energy produced. Right now the problem the people who are investing in the alternative energy methods seem to be one of decreasing environmental impact. Possibly trying to relieve such problems that could exponentially increase with the continued use of the amount of oil we use daily, etc.
The comment on how oil is not going to run out anytime soon seems to be true also, according to the Env class i'm taking. We had guest lecture who spoke on petroleum and he gave news of how we have enough oil now to last us for the next forty years, but this same estimate has stayed the same since the 1980's because we keep finding new reserves. This estimate is assuming that population increase of consumption stays at the same level it is now, which probably will increase if population increases. We will probably find more reserves though, and in that case we're probably pretty far from seeing the end of oil usage as a form of energy, especially for the US. out of the 83,607,000 barrels/day consumed in the world in 2005 the US used 20,680,000. I think it's safe to say that the US should think of decreasing their dependence on oil if we're at all concerned about the global warming or climate change issues that concern everyone around the globe. I think the research on alternative energy is serving a good purpose, but then again i don't know exactly what needs to be done to obtain these alternate energy sources. Like the wind turbines that I keep hearing about killing off many migratory bird populations, this sort of effect of alternate energy isn't good at all. It seems no matter what sort of energy we're looking to consume, some kind of environmental impact that comes out of it is a negative one. Does that mean we should stop searching? i don't think so. People need to be smarter about what sort of energy will work best for the cultural/geographical area they're located. nothing will come easy or with 100% approval from everyone.

-Leeann Yang

Seattle panel to focus on environment and energy from 3 perspectives:

In reading this article I found myself getting frustrated. I feel that along with going in search of alternative sources of energy we really need to encourage energy conservation. I feel like the idea of conservation has flown right out the window over the last few years. Everyone is too busy arguing over which new alternative energy offers the best relief to suit our current energy needs. Why is alternative energy the only topic that is grabbing people’s attention, whatever happen to limiting the amount of energy that is consumed? It takes alterations of the existing environment to place the infrastructure for these alternative sources in turn these alternative energies end up having some sort of negative impact on the environment in one way or another just like oil has. Who knows how long it will take before once again we are thrown on this mad hunt for a better energy source.

One quote from this article that really stuck with me was, "We don't think the end of oil is around the corner," Kornylo said. "How do we find that right balance in how we continue to meet needs to lower CO{-2} [carbon dioxide], plus deal with our population increase and needs worldwide? My question is why is the over consumption problem being shifted to population, and how are they defining needs? Further more, what are the real needs worldwide and who gets to determine that?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008347780_energyseries03m0.html

Ms. Smith