Why do many environmental groups hail as big victories the passage of laws there are no dollars to enforce?
Why can't the supporters and opponents of offshore wind in the Great Lakes sit down and work out a common position that facilitates growth of the industry but does not demean the opponents as not-in-my-backyard naysayers?
Why are opponents of Michigan legislation to protect Great Lakes and tributary waters spreading clearly false and misleading information? Are they afraid they can't win on the facts?
No, Star Trek fans, it's not outer space, it's the spaces beneath the world's water -- including Great Lakes water. And it's time to explore it by creating a formal system of underwater preserves in the Lakes.
The issue has been on my mind for some time -- almost 30 years, since Michigan established a "bottomland preserve" system to manage access to and preserve shipwrecks. That's worthy, but shouldn't older historic sites underwater and other sites that are geologically or ecologically important also enjoy protection for this and future generations?
Nationally, efforts are underway to catalog so-called marine protected areas (MPAs) and marine managed areas (MMAs). Interestingly, the Great Lakes already has a number of each.
Following a presidential election the attenton immediately shifts to speculation about who will fill the new president's cabinet. It's an interesting exercise as names surface, many times as a trial balloon, cautious levels of interest or disinterest are expressed, and finally a selection is made.
2008 was no different and during the post-election process many in the Great Lakes community were focused on who would get the top job at the USEPA. Interestingly, one prominently mentioned name was that of Robert Kennedy Jr. of Kennedy clan fame and environmental activism notoriety.
A recent report from the Large Lake Observatory of the University of Minnesota-Duluth caught my eye. Tucked inside was a piece on observations of Lake Superior temperature trends.
The key finding was that traditionally frigid Lake Superior is in recent decades warming about two degrees F per decade compared with a warmup of one degree F in air temperature per decade. The explanation for the warming water appears to be a long-term trend of declining ice cover, which permits quicker and more pronounced warmup by sunlight.
Interestingly, higher winds, helping drive the surface layer deeper, may also be contributing.
It's not proof of climate change, but it's a sign of what could happen. A warmer Lake Superior ain't the same Lake Superior.
In one of those curiously timed anouncements - right before a long holiday weekend -the USEPA announced on Friday that Kennecott Eagle Minerals does not need a key federal permit to begin mining opertions in a pristine and sacred area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
This is the region where the State of Michigan, following the use of dubious procedures at best, and against the wishes of local citizens, has allowed Kennecott to begin a controversial mining operation.
In fact, Kennecott had already withdrawn its federal permit application saying that the permit granted by the Michigan was all it needed.
In this timely and urgently needed commentary in the Muskegon Chronicle, Michigan State Rep. Mary Valentine takes on directly the misinformation spread about a bill she is co-sponsoring to protect the public interest in Michigan's water.
For months, special interests who stand to benefit from exploiting groundwater, lakes and streams and the Great Lakes themselves for private profit have unrolled a carpet of untruths to stop tht legislation. This is not the place to dignify the falsehoods by repeating them.
The key points of Rep. Valentine's commentary:
It is and will remain James Rowens' The Political Environment blog. Jim has the political experience and knowledge to understand the sometimes byzantine Wisconsin policy scene, and nowhere has he been better in investigating and commenting on an issue than he has with the unnecessary proposal by Waukesha to divert Lake Michigan water to fuel urban sprawl.
A ban on high-phosphorus household dishwashing detergents takes effect Thursday in Minnesota and five other Great Lakes states. It should help reduce phosphorus levels and algae blooms in the Great Lakes and inland lakes.
As someone who's used dishwashing soaps on and off for the last two decades, I can attest that there's been significant improvement in the effectiveness of low-phosphorus product over that time. Our recent household use of Seventh Generation soap has proven it's as effective in cleaning dishes as (and maybe more effective than) the high-P brands sold by the big-name brands.
The recent discovery of a live Asian Carp near Lake Michigan has generated a predictable outcry.
Perhaps the most puzzling one comes from the Great Lakes senate delegation who wants the president's immediate assistance in the fight against Asian Carp.
That assistance comes in the form of a request to create a position titled Coordinated Response Commander "to fight this battle." This was disclosed last week in a letter from 12 Great Lakes senators to President Obama. The letter also says we need to marshal "the best and brightest - scientists, engineers, and environmental experts" to focus on keeping carp out of the Great Lakes.
Letters like this are cheap and common in Washington but this one borders on the bizarre.
From Washington, D.C. comes word that the U.S. Senate has finally confirmed Lana Pollack as one of three U.S. members of the International Joint Commission following her nomination by President Obama last winter.
As a longtime fan of Lana's during her three terms in the Michigan Senate and as a former employee of hers at the Michigan Environmental Council, I can assure anyone reading these words that she is not going to be a mere figurehead chair-warmer at the IJC. Instead, she'll ask tough questions, forge thoughtful policies, be accessible to citizens, and shun the platitudes that characterize much Great Lakes dialogue.
She also has an unparalleled ethic as a public servant and environmental champion.
My essays here must often seem churlish in light of the considerable progress made in the last five years of Great Lakes policy. The 2004 conference on the Great Lakes hosted by philanthropist Peter Wege of Grand Rapids has blossmed into a $475 million new investment in the Lakes by the federal government. Congress has approved the Great Lakes Compact. Public awareness of Great Lakes problems and protection is as high as it has been in years. All good news, all the result of hard work, particularly by Great Lakes advocates. Let's celebrate that.
But has anything in the fundamental governmental or personal approach to Great Lakes protection changed, in ways that will have lasting value?
As the gulf oil disaster drones on, we're starting to hear accounts of what we didn't learn from past disasters that we should have. Say from the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years ago, for example.
To that point, Boston College Environmental Law Professor Zygmunt Plater spoke recently on NPR about the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill, and the subsequent Oil Pollution Act law passed to minimize the chance of reoccurrences.
Summarized in two headlines: Pryor convicted of mine trespass. (On public land.)
Rio Tinto board approves Kenecott funding. (For the same mine, but as BP has shown, modern technology prevents environmental harm.)
Michigan is truly a bankrupt state, and I'm not referring to its treasury.
As wags have told me, the title of my book, "Ruin and Recovery: Michigan's Rise as a Conservation Leader," should be updated. "Ruin and Recovery and Ruin Again: Michigan's Rise and Fall as a Conservation Leader."
Sunday's St. Paul Pioneer Press published a column by climate change denier (and all-around grump) Joe Soucheray. Key clause:
In any event, a new phrase is entering the phenomenon, and that is "out of their range.'' We are hearing that all the time these days. It began with moose. Just within the last year, we were told that moose were on the decline in northeastern Minnesota, only to be told more recently that moose might not be in decline and that more and more moose are seen "outside their range.''
I checked that out with Minnesota DNR moose specialist Mark Lenarz. Is it true?
This country was brought to its knees by the economic meltdown based on the greed and recklesness exhibited by Wall Street and the financial service industries. The smartest guys in the room who went to the best schools - this era's best and brightest - displayed a hubris and arrogance rarely seen and years later we are still reeling from their work.
In the wake of the crash there have been congressional hearings on what went wrong, volumes have been written and spoken on what happened and why, and on how we can prevent a reoccurrence. New legislation has been proposed designed to reign in some of the most egregious practices, and surprise, Wall Street executives are railing against attempts to restrict their dangerous behavior.
It's not a final denial by any means, but the agency's decision to halt its review of Waukesha's deeply flawed proposal to divert Lake Michigan water is a welcome sign. As the first such proposal since the approval by Congress and the President of the Great Lakes Compact in fall 2008, it needs to be fully justified and beyond reproach.
At this point it is not. Not when the city itself is talking publicly about alternative sources for water supply.
Most conservationists and environmentalists I know recognize that making sound natural resource choices in our daily lives as consumers is not simple. There are always trade-offs, and what appears to be a clear choice may end up being the wrong one for the planet as well as for us.
So it was a little surprising to see an article over the weekend that in many ways stereotyped conservationists and environmentalists as zealots who see day-to-day resource choices as black and white.
What happens when the status quo and forces of change collide over Great Lakes choices? It's looking like the status quo wins in a landslide but the forces of change get a consolation prize. More study?
This Associated Press article says those who wanted closure of locks in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to keep Asian Carp out of the Great Lakes and those who fought the proposal agree it's time to move on, now that the Supreme Court has shot down legal action by the proponents. So move on to what?
It's an all too familiar scenario.
A disaster of some sort takes place followed by an investigation which reveals lax enforcement of regulations that were facilitated by cozy relationships between parties who should be working on opposite sides of the ledger. Toss in conflicts of interest that were ignored for financial gain and you've got, well, the gulf oil disaster.
A lengthy report in the New York Times on the gulf oil fiasco details management problems that existed before the explosion, that triggered the environmental disaster. Among them, the fact that the federal Minerals Management Service "had a dual role of both fostering and policing the industry..."
It's hard to promote an industry when you also have to regulate it.
© 2010 Great Lakes Forever.
Great Lakes Forever is a program of:
The Biodiversity Project - 4507 N. Ravenswood Ave #106 - Chicago, IL 60640
773-496-4020 -
project@biodiverse.org