Tuesday, May 5, 2009
And now, for an interruption
I swear I'll get back to environmental blog posts at some point, but right now things are absolutely crazy! I got to Chicago on Sunday, and I started my new job yesterday. There has been very little time for research or even just spouting opinions lately, and I'm sure my readers would like my opinions to be at least semi-informed. Also, there is no Internet access at the house where I am staying, so I must hie myself four miles to Panera whenever I want/need to use the Internet. Lastly, has anyonbe else experienced pain in the mid-thigh area from pressing on the gas pedal too long?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
You own this, but not this
Land ownership has been chopped into some really funny-looking parcels. With surface land it is usually pretty easy to tell who owns what; all the fences along the roads saying "Fill-In-The-Blank" Ranch. However, a foot below the ground a completely different company may own the minewral rights. I first ran into this concept in graduate school, and it took me some time to get my head around it. Raymond Firestone had sold the land to Bath Township to turn into a nature preserve, but the Firestone family retained the mineral rights. The most frustrating part was that an oil pipeline ran right past my research field, and when it burst the university had a heck of a time getting the company to do anything about it.
If I eventually figured out the difference between surface rights and mineral rights, I'm sure the ranchers out here understand it. However, to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, all wildlife, no matter where it is, is owned by the state. In other words, all wildlife found in New Mexico belongs to New Mexico. It seems that some ranchers have yet to grasp this statute. There are a couple around who don't like us to trap and radio collar lesser prairie chickens on their land because they don't like those unsightly collars on "their" chickens. The excuse has been that they weigh too much (the heaviest collar we have weighs about 3 grams).
I think it's a power play. "We're the landowners, you have to keep us happy, so therefore we can use whatever crazy reason (if any) we want to make you do our bidding." And generally, we will. When I hear that talk about wildlife on their lands being "their" wildlife, I just bite my tongue for the good of the organization. I hope a day comes when offending someone else is not a concern in the biological community because while some things may make a few people mad, they need to be said.
If I eventually figured out the difference between surface rights and mineral rights, I'm sure the ranchers out here understand it. However, to throw a monkey wrench into the proceedings, all wildlife, no matter where it is, is owned by the state. In other words, all wildlife found in New Mexico belongs to New Mexico. It seems that some ranchers have yet to grasp this statute. There are a couple around who don't like us to trap and radio collar lesser prairie chickens on their land because they don't like those unsightly collars on "their" chickens. The excuse has been that they weigh too much (the heaviest collar we have weighs about 3 grams).
I think it's a power play. "We're the landowners, you have to keep us happy, so therefore we can use whatever crazy reason (if any) we want to make you do our bidding." And generally, we will. When I hear that talk about wildlife on their lands being "their" wildlife, I just bite my tongue for the good of the organization. I hope a day comes when offending someone else is not a concern in the biological community because while some things may make a few people mad, they need to be said.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bioenergetics
There are big predators and small predators, and the size food they can accomodate varies with it. Shrews are predators; they eat insects. Lions are predators; they eat zebras and gnus, sometimes even elephants! Even voles can be considered predators, though few people have ever heard the term 'seed predator.'
Unfortunately, the term predator comes with a lot of stigmatization. There was a bobcat in these parts a year ago, and the ranchers were convinced it was killing and eating their cattle. A bobcat is a little bigger than the average housecat, and incapable of delivering the kind of force it would take to kill a full-grown cow. Even so, someone shot the bobcat. I have no idea whether it cut down on livestock deaths, but I doubt it.
When I was in graduate school one of the things I looked at was seed predation by voles and what size seeds they ate. Not surprisingly, my results suggested that they ate the seeds that were smaller or had papery seed coats, and the larger seeds or seeds with thick coats stayed in my petri dishes. Caloric expenditure may be desirable for a lot of humans, but for a rodent that may not encounter food for several days it has significant detriments. If it takes more energy to get to the food than are given by the food, the rodent, wolf, moose, deer, etc. will be no better off for having taken the gamble. Some animals do, and may well die if it doesn't pay off. That's why a lot of predators prefer to pick off the sick and the weak rather than attacking a healthy animal that is well-equipped to defend itself. By picking off those animals, voila! The rest of the population is healthier.
Being a predator is not a bad thing, at least not if you don't have stock to protect. But in protecting that stock ranchers need to realize which predators are a threat and which aren't. It will take a lot of worry out of the ranching process.
Unfortunately, the term predator comes with a lot of stigmatization. There was a bobcat in these parts a year ago, and the ranchers were convinced it was killing and eating their cattle. A bobcat is a little bigger than the average housecat, and incapable of delivering the kind of force it would take to kill a full-grown cow. Even so, someone shot the bobcat. I have no idea whether it cut down on livestock deaths, but I doubt it.
When I was in graduate school one of the things I looked at was seed predation by voles and what size seeds they ate. Not surprisingly, my results suggested that they ate the seeds that were smaller or had papery seed coats, and the larger seeds or seeds with thick coats stayed in my petri dishes. Caloric expenditure may be desirable for a lot of humans, but for a rodent that may not encounter food for several days it has significant detriments. If it takes more energy to get to the food than are given by the food, the rodent, wolf, moose, deer, etc. will be no better off for having taken the gamble. Some animals do, and may well die if it doesn't pay off. That's why a lot of predators prefer to pick off the sick and the weak rather than attacking a healthy animal that is well-equipped to defend itself. By picking off those animals, voila! The rest of the population is healthier.
Being a predator is not a bad thing, at least not if you don't have stock to protect. But in protecting that stock ranchers need to realize which predators are a threat and which aren't. It will take a lot of worry out of the ranching process.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Fire and all it entails
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!"
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!"
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.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
A little celebration and a little mourning
On Monday I happened to hear a report on the Bush Administration's latest conservation designation: the Marianas Trench. The environmentalists interviewed for the story were positively giddy about the designation of such a large area as protected. I tried to celebrate with them, I really did. After all, the Marianas Trench represents an important part of the seafloor--without it we wouldn't recycled earth--and the protected area encompasses some coral reefs. It also happens to be the largest designation of protected land.
Unfortunately, I found myself annoyed with these environmentalists. It may be something to celebrate, but as I listened to the exultation I couldn't help feeling betrayed. After eight years of environmental struggles I feel like this is an empty gesture. Anything this administration has felt there was any profit in has been cut up and sold off to oilmen. The Endangered Species Act is in the process of being gutted, the Department of the Interior's budget has been cut to bare bones, and things have generally gone to hell. We conservationists have been powerless to do anything, though thanks to Environmental Defense, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a Montana judge who ordered wolves relisted a lot of potential damage was avoided through litigation.
Yet as I listened to these enthusiasts I got the distinct feeling that all is forgiven with this designation. They seemed to have forgotten that all is not rosy, and that was no doubt the impression that many people not well-versed in the environment got as well. I tried reminding myself that those people know as well as I that we've still got big problems, and that their words were edited for radio, but it really didn't help much. We have problems, big problems, many of which have been made worse by inaction on the part of this administration. As far as I am concerned, this administration will have to designate a lot more protected land in a big hurry to even come close to making up for the damage it has done.
Unfortunately, I found myself annoyed with these environmentalists. It may be something to celebrate, but as I listened to the exultation I couldn't help feeling betrayed. After eight years of environmental struggles I feel like this is an empty gesture. Anything this administration has felt there was any profit in has been cut up and sold off to oilmen. The Endangered Species Act is in the process of being gutted, the Department of the Interior's budget has been cut to bare bones, and things have generally gone to hell. We conservationists have been powerless to do anything, though thanks to Environmental Defense, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and a Montana judge who ordered wolves relisted a lot of potential damage was avoided through litigation.
Yet as I listened to these enthusiasts I got the distinct feeling that all is forgiven with this designation. They seemed to have forgotten that all is not rosy, and that was no doubt the impression that many people not well-versed in the environment got as well. I tried reminding myself that those people know as well as I that we've still got big problems, and that their words were edited for radio, but it really didn't help much. We have problems, big problems, many of which have been made worse by inaction on the part of this administration. As far as I am concerned, this administration will have to designate a lot more protected land in a big hurry to even come close to making up for the damage it has done.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Making things worse with oil shale
A number of oil companies have been looking toward what they suppose to be the next big thing for energy--oil shale. This is not good, either for the oil companies or the environment. For those of us in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah who care about the environment, mass production would be a major disaster.
As the name implies, oil shale is rock that contains oil--not very much oil, but oil nonetheless. The main problem for the oil companies is that oil shale is a pretty expensive commodity. It does not yield as much energy as conventional oil, and therefore they need much more of it to be effective. Besides the cost of getting the rock out of the ground and trucking it to the refineries, they'd need to build new refineries (according to one estimate, up to $100 million dollars to serve every 500,000 people). All that rock has to be retorted (heated) to a very high temperature to get the oil out, and once that is over they need to find somewhere to pile the slag (leftover rock). Somehow I don't see this being very environmentally friendly. First it destroys habitat when it comes out of the ground, and it is likely it will destroy more habitat when the companies dispose of it.
To lighten the environmental impact, oil companies are testing a new way to get the oil called in situ retorting. The idea is to get the oil out of the rock without taking it to a refinery. Sounds great, but it involves heating the ground up to around 3,000 degrees and keeping it there for three years. I am no soil scientist, but it seems to me that something like this could adversely impact soil chemistry and plant growth, which can have far-reaching repercussions. What if there is an underground oil spill? That could ultimately be bad for us. The companies have been working on creating frost walls to contain spills, but chemically freezing the ground down to a depth of 2,000 feet doesn't sound like a very good idea for the same reasons that heating the area up sounds like a bad idea.
As usual, this comes down to money. As long as the oil companies are making money and getting rich, they'll keep trying to do so no matter who it hurts. Unfortunately for the environment, money buys power, and the people in power don't listen to the peasants trying to caution them against adverse effects. After all, they're not the ones who will suffer.
As the name implies, oil shale is rock that contains oil--not very much oil, but oil nonetheless. The main problem for the oil companies is that oil shale is a pretty expensive commodity. It does not yield as much energy as conventional oil, and therefore they need much more of it to be effective. Besides the cost of getting the rock out of the ground and trucking it to the refineries, they'd need to build new refineries (according to one estimate, up to $100 million dollars to serve every 500,000 people). All that rock has to be retorted (heated) to a very high temperature to get the oil out, and once that is over they need to find somewhere to pile the slag (leftover rock). Somehow I don't see this being very environmentally friendly. First it destroys habitat when it comes out of the ground, and it is likely it will destroy more habitat when the companies dispose of it.
To lighten the environmental impact, oil companies are testing a new way to get the oil called in situ retorting. The idea is to get the oil out of the rock without taking it to a refinery. Sounds great, but it involves heating the ground up to around 3,000 degrees and keeping it there for three years. I am no soil scientist, but it seems to me that something like this could adversely impact soil chemistry and plant growth, which can have far-reaching repercussions. What if there is an underground oil spill? That could ultimately be bad for us. The companies have been working on creating frost walls to contain spills, but chemically freezing the ground down to a depth of 2,000 feet doesn't sound like a very good idea for the same reasons that heating the area up sounds like a bad idea.
As usual, this comes down to money. As long as the oil companies are making money and getting rich, they'll keep trying to do so no matter who it hurts. Unfortunately for the environment, money buys power, and the people in power don't listen to the peasants trying to caution them against adverse effects. After all, they're not the ones who will suffer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)