From
the Editors of E / The Environmental Magazine
THIS
WEEK'S COLUMN
Dear
EarthTalk: I understand that there are a
number of bills before Congress right now that seek to
turn over public lands to destructive commercial and recreational
activity. What can be done to stop this assault on the
land that belongs to all the people?
—Astrid Cameron, New York, NY
More
than a dozen bills are under consideration in
Congress that seek to open up more public lands
to development, resource extraction and destructive
recreational activity, including permitting motorbikes,
snowmobiles and ATVs into millions of wild acres
now protected against the noise and emissions
from such vehicles.
Yes,
more than a dozen bills are under consideration in Congress
right now that seek to open up more of our public lands
to development and resource extraction. Ranging from drilling
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to mining in the
Grand Canyon to reversing the 2001 “Roadless rule,”
they amount to what the Wilderness Society is calling
an “unprecedented siege on America’s wild
places.”
Probably
the most offensive bill is the Wilderness and Roadless
Area Release Act, proposed by California Republican Kevin
McCarthy in the House (H.R. 1581) and Wyoming Republican
John Barrasso in the Senate (S. 1087). It calls for releasing
tens of millions of acres across the American West and
beyond from development restrictions instituted by the
Clinton administration’s 2001 Roadless Area Conservation
initiative (the “Roadless rule”) that set
aside almost 60 million acres of public land as untouchable.
The
bill aims to release areas deemed not suitable for wilderness
designations—including some “Wilderness Study
Areas” on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property
and many still inaccessible areas within National Forests—from
restrictions set forth under the Roadless rule. It directs
these areas to be managed instead according to principles
set forth under a 1960’s Multiple Use/Sustained
Yield Act that allows for development and resource extraction
on lands that don’t have significant conservation
or scenic value.
The
Wilderness Society is fighting hard against the new legislation,
which it calls “The Great Outdoors Giveaway.”
The group claims the bill would undermine decades of land
protection work supported by the vast majority of Americans.
“It gives polluters and developers, who already
have access to 76 percent of all national forests and
BLM lands, access to even more of America’s vanishing
wilderness,” reports the group. “This bill
is a blank check for polluters to ruin the air we breathe
and water we drink.”
Some
similar bills now before Congress include the Border Patrol
Takeover Act, which aims to end clean air and water protections
in natural or wilderness areas on or near U.S. borders;
the Motorize Our Wilderness Areas Act, which would allow
motorbikes, snowmobiles and ATVs into millions of wild
acres now protected against the noise and emissions from
such vehicles; and the End the National Monuments Act,
a call to strip the President of his authority to designate
new national monuments by executive order.
Conservationists
aren’t the only ones opposed to opening up more
public lands to the axe and drill. The 2012 Conservation
in the West Poll conducted by researchers at Colorado
College found that upwards of 85 percent of voters in
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming
support conservation and oppose more development on their
public lands. No matter their political leanings, most
voters polled believe that conservation helps create and
protect jobs in their states and that private companies
shouldn’t be allowed to develop public lands if
public enjoyment or access is compromised.
Dear
EarthTalk: I read somewhere that our various
systems for collecting, distributing and treating water
are very energy intensive and, as such, contribute significantly
to global warming. How does that happen and what can we
do to correct such problems?
—Marina Shaw, Monroe, CT
According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, the collection,
distribution and treatment of drinking water and
wastewater in the U.S. uses up significant amounts
of energy and releases some 116 billion pounds
of carbon dioxide each year.
It’s
true that the collection, distribution and treatment of
drinking water and wastewater in the U.S. uses up significant
amounts of energy and releases some 116 billion pounds
of carbon dioxide (CO2) each year—as much global
warming pollution as 10 million cars on the road—according
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nationwide,
around four percent of power generation is used for water
supply and treatment, but in certain drier parts of the
country that number is far higher. For instance, in California
the water sector is the state’s largest energy user,
accounting for some 19 percent of total electricity consumed
there.
The key to
staving off water emergencies is to use less. “Reducing
water consumption saves energy because less water needs
to be treated and pumped to end users,” reports
the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “Moreover,
when energy use is reduced, water is saved because less
is needed in the operation of power plants.” Some
thermoelectric power plants, for example, use some 100
billion gallons of fresh water each day, which translates
into 25 gallons to produce each kilowatt-hour of electricity.
Another way
to reduce waste is by fixing leaky aging water pipes throughout
the U.S. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
many drinking water systems across the country lose as
much as 20 percent of treated drinking water each year
due to leaks in their pipe networks. Making a concerted
effort to fix these systems would go a long way toward
preserving our aquifers.
Water waste
can also be reduced significantly if new buildings and
developments integrate so-called “low impact design”
concepts into the planning stages, whereby the landscaping
surrounding structures is designed to mimic the natural
hydrology of the site, including strategically placed
native plants, rain barrels, green roofs, porous parking
lots and roads, etc. The idea is to retain rainfall on
site where plants and soil can filter pollutants out naturally
or where it can be re-used in gray water applications
(such as for landscape irrigation or water for toilet
flushing). Especially parched parts of the country can
recycle and reuse wastewater on a larger scale to avert
the costly importation of more fresh water.
Much water
is also wasted in agriculture. Farmers can help by adopting
any number of efficiency measures at their disposal, mostly
in the realm of efficient irrigation technologies. “Switching
from flood irrigation to drip irrigation, for instance,
can increase water use efficiency as much as 40 percent,”
reports NRDC, adding that even small changes can mean
a 10-15 percent gain in water use efficiency on farms.
And everyone
can do their part by turning off the water while brushing
teeth or shaving and limiting the length of showers and
the amount of lawn watering we do. Beyond these little
things, home- and business-owners should consider investing
in water fixtures that meet the EPA’s more rigorous
water efficiency “WaterSense” standards (look
for labels accordingly). To qualify for the label, fixtures
must be at least 20 percent more efficient than current
standards specify, while performing as well or better
than less efficient counterparts. The price of WaterSense
fixtures may be slightly higher, but most consumers will
make up the difference quickly if they are replacing older
inefficient faucets, taps or toilets.
