Fire is a very important component of the natural ecosystem. For thousands of years fires started and burned rampantly with no one to put them out. Then humans came along with the idea that fire is bad--unless it's set by a human, of course. The current fires in Australia point to the hypocrisy of that statement.
A lot of forested ecosystems have evolved in the presence of fire. For certain species, it is necessary for reproduction. Seeds must be subjected to fire before they can germinate. Of course, they must also have the necessary nutrients and light if they are to grow, so older plants have to die. When trees fall in the rainforest there is an immediate scramble by seedlings to fill the newly lit area. It is the same in North American ecosystems. To grow something new, something else must die.
The sagebrush ecosystems of the Great Basin have also evolved in the presence of fire, so most scientific papers recommend frequent burning to manage habitats. However, a paper authored by a professor at the University of Wyoming points out that, although fire is an essential feature of sagebrush ecosystems, it only burned significant portions of sagebrush every 100 to 300 years. If it is burned more often than that there is a high risk that invasive species will move in, take up moisture and nutrients, crowd out the native sage, and completely change the landscape.
Fire suppression is done to protect homes and communities, but is not necessarily good ecologically. Crown fires (that is, fires that only affect the tops of trees) do not burn as hot as those that affect entire trees. Small branches do not burn as hot as large branches, and younger trees do not burn as hot as old trees. One might think this is a good argument for cutting out old-growth forest, but those old-growth trees are necessary for nesting by the spotted owl, while some other species like the Kirtland's warbler prefer younger growth. Forestry, therefore, preservesd old-growth trees surrounded by younger trees. If an older tree gets hit by a lightning strike and the wood burns, when it spreads it will spread to the younger trees where it may be easier to put out.
The counter-argument is, "If trees burn, why have them at all?" Well, grass burns, too, and grass fires are hot and burn fast, especially in areas where there are strong winds, and it is just as susceptible to lightning strikes. We cannot stop fire, we cannot strip the natural world of all vegetation, so we have to live with it. We live with it by allowing fires to burn unless they threaten communities, and by setting fires where they are likely to burn in the near future. Foresters know more than the general public about fires in their areas, so there is little to be gained by muzzling foresters and letting them tell us only what we want to hear. We don't have to hear the bad news for it to happen.
This discussion wouldn't be complete without a little discussion of global warming. As the globe warms, the pine beetle causes more devastation to northern trees because the winters don't get cold enough to kill the larvae. White pine is its preferred tree, but it will infest just about any tree in the area that is alive. Any tree too heavily infested by pine beetles will die. Dead trees burn, perhaps more hotly than any living tree. And they will burn. When I was in Idaho the trees across the river had been decimated by beetles. A friend of mine asked a firefighter what she should do if the area caught fire, and he said, "Don't even stop to pack. Get out!"
Monday, February 16, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Tar sands exploitation is a really bad idea
Environmentally and financially, getting oil from the tar sands in Canada is not a good idea, and hasn't been since its inception 30 years ago. The largest tar sands deposits are in Venezuela and Alberta, but there are also a few in the United States. Canada is already struggling with the effects of tar sands mining.
The first step in mining the tar sands is to get to the sand. That means digging a pit approximately 150 feet deep. After that, the sand must be trucked back to processing plants, the bitumen melted out, and impurities such as sulfur skimmed off before it can be shipped.
Canada's Environmental Defense calls this the most destructive project on earth, and with good reason. Huge swathes of boreal forest have been cut down to make room for processing plants and tailings ponds. The ponds for this project are objectionable for the same reason most other mine tailing ponds are--they contain incredibly toxic materials. PAHs, naphthenic acids, and mercury levels are all on the increase. The Ministry of the Environment in Canada says a danger posed by the tailings ponds is the possibility of these poisons leaking into the groundwater. This is certainly happening, but the worst effects of the poisons are already being seen downstream. The tailings ponds are located on the banks of the Athabasca River, separated from the main channel only by earthen walls. Experts say that if these walls fail, we will forget all about the Exxon Valdez disaster. Meanwhile, fish are deformed, and the incidence of rare forms of cancer have tripled in the nearby tribes. The doctor who discovered this and tried to bring it to the attention of the government was quickly shut down.
A lot of mine tailings are piped into wetlands, killing any amphibian life and frequently killing birds that try to land there. Ornithologists are worried about the long-term effects on migratory bird populations. Processing the oil requires a huge amount of water, more than the city of Calgary could use in two years. Most of this fresh water ends up in tailings ponds.
The fallout from the mining affects provinces as far away as British Columbia and the northern United States. Indiana has has problems with air pollution and acid rain from the tar sands operation. British Columbia has both those problems plus the fact that oil tankers will bring the oil up along the coastline. Of course, they then risk oil spills.
Syncor, the oil company most heavily invested in the Canadian tar sands, promises to mitigate the damage, but this is nearly impossible. Right now the foremost idea is to bury the tailings ponds under fresh water and hope they will be filtered out. You don't have to be a scientist to see that this poses a huge risk to everyone who drinks that water. The poisons can easily seep into groundwater or the wetlands. Besides, the ecological damage will already be done. The companies could easily mitigate the damage as they go along, but it costs twice what they are spending now to do that. Much cheaper to just let the volatile organic compounds (such as benzene, a known carcinogen) to just dissipate in the atmosphere.
The question is, is it worth it? If you are head of a corporation that mines the sands, probably. If you are the person actually doing the mining and processing, I doubt it. It is supremely unfair to the tribal entities. They have had to put up with Manifest Destiny and its ramifications for years now, and now they are being poisoned by an operation from which they will likely not benefit. It is a major health hazard to people across Canada and parts of the United States who breathe in the toxins released in the purification process. Now, back to that head of the corporation--I assume he is breathing the same air and drinking the same water. His body functions just like those of other humans. History has taught us that it is rare for environmental damage to be a good motivator unless it affects us. Even with pots of money, I doubt that dying of a preventable cancer will make it worth it to the CEO.
The first step in mining the tar sands is to get to the sand. That means digging a pit approximately 150 feet deep. After that, the sand must be trucked back to processing plants, the bitumen melted out, and impurities such as sulfur skimmed off before it can be shipped.
Canada's Environmental Defense calls this the most destructive project on earth, and with good reason. Huge swathes of boreal forest have been cut down to make room for processing plants and tailings ponds. The ponds for this project are objectionable for the same reason most other mine tailing ponds are--they contain incredibly toxic materials. PAHs, naphthenic acids, and mercury levels are all on the increase. The Ministry of the Environment in Canada says a danger posed by the tailings ponds is the possibility of these poisons leaking into the groundwater. This is certainly happening, but the worst effects of the poisons are already being seen downstream. The tailings ponds are located on the banks of the Athabasca River, separated from the main channel only by earthen walls. Experts say that if these walls fail, we will forget all about the Exxon Valdez disaster. Meanwhile, fish are deformed, and the incidence of rare forms of cancer have tripled in the nearby tribes. The doctor who discovered this and tried to bring it to the attention of the government was quickly shut down.
A lot of mine tailings are piped into wetlands, killing any amphibian life and frequently killing birds that try to land there. Ornithologists are worried about the long-term effects on migratory bird populations. Processing the oil requires a huge amount of water, more than the city of Calgary could use in two years. Most of this fresh water ends up in tailings ponds.
The fallout from the mining affects provinces as far away as British Columbia and the northern United States. Indiana has has problems with air pollution and acid rain from the tar sands operation. British Columbia has both those problems plus the fact that oil tankers will bring the oil up along the coastline. Of course, they then risk oil spills.
Syncor, the oil company most heavily invested in the Canadian tar sands, promises to mitigate the damage, but this is nearly impossible. Right now the foremost idea is to bury the tailings ponds under fresh water and hope they will be filtered out. You don't have to be a scientist to see that this poses a huge risk to everyone who drinks that water. The poisons can easily seep into groundwater or the wetlands. Besides, the ecological damage will already be done. The companies could easily mitigate the damage as they go along, but it costs twice what they are spending now to do that. Much cheaper to just let the volatile organic compounds (such as benzene, a known carcinogen) to just dissipate in the atmosphere.
The question is, is it worth it? If you are head of a corporation that mines the sands, probably. If you are the person actually doing the mining and processing, I doubt it. It is supremely unfair to the tribal entities. They have had to put up with Manifest Destiny and its ramifications for years now, and now they are being poisoned by an operation from which they will likely not benefit. It is a major health hazard to people across Canada and parts of the United States who breathe in the toxins released in the purification process. Now, back to that head of the corporation--I assume he is breathing the same air and drinking the same water. His body functions just like those of other humans. History has taught us that it is rare for environmental damage to be a good motivator unless it affects us. Even with pots of money, I doubt that dying of a preventable cancer will make it worth it to the CEO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)