So called "Superstorm Sandy" has made all kinds of news of late. The images of devastation along the Eastern seaboard, particularly in New York and New Jersey captured worldwide attention, and even got President Barack Obama and the (Republican) governor of New Jersey working together for common cause, setting aside politics while they focused on the needs of the people harmed by this storm.
As flood waters recede, the problems are many: people displaced by the storm, homes ruined, other homes inhabitable because of lack of power, possible gas leaks, flood damage, etc. However, one insidious little side-effect has largely escaped the public's notice: raw sewage, and hazardous and toxic chemicals "freed" by the storm.
The eastern seaboard does not lack for Superfund sites, such as the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, or Staten Island's North Shore. Just as homes, businesses, and subways were being filled with seawater, so were these sites. As the flood waters receded, they took pollutants with them--although these pollutants were not necessarily washed out to sea. They were deposited wherever the water went--into homes, businesses, etc.
Now, as people look to return home, they have multiple issues facing them--not the least of which is, "when the seawater retreated, what got left behind?" Cleaning out rotted drywall and basements full of sand is bad enough, but what if the debris also contains raw sewage, neurotoxins such as lead and mercury, radioactive materials, or other carcinogens?
Suffice to say that clean up is going to be expensive, hazardous, and very uncertain for these property owners who literally may have no idea what they're returning to. When people discuss the "costs" associated with environmental protection, where are these costs accounted for? Who will have to pay for this bill, especially when the responsible party will be unknown, and the specific harm caused may be outside the property owner's insurance coverage?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Alabama is Forever Wild--or at Least for Another 20 Years
Election Day 2012. National politics dominated the headlines. There were a lot of things at stake: the Presidency, control of the Senate, perhaps even a shifting in the balance of power in the House. Many people expect that 1 or more Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next term.
However, Alabama also had a little Amendment to the State's Constitution--one that would keep the funding mechanism in place to support the Forever Wild program for another 20 years. Created by constitutional amendment in 1992, Forever Wild is a land trust that purchases land for conservation and public use. Its 20 year charter was expiring. Essentially the people of Alabama could vote to continue funding Forever Wild, or let it drop by the wayside.
Some background. Alabama has the smallest percentage in the Southeast (less than 4%) of public conservation land. Forever Wild owns close to 166,000 acres permanently, or approximately 1/2 of 1% of Alabama's total land area. Forever Wild is active in the hunting, fishing, and boating communities. They act as a liason for reservations at State Parks. They have been instrumental in developing new recreational areas, such as the Coldwater Mountain bike trails, for public use.
Nevertheless, most of the people in Alabama aren't what you probably think of as "tree huggers." The state is reliably "red" in that it consistently votes Republican, and the general sentiment is not one of wanting more government regulation or intrusion into the rights of individuals.
Further, a friend of mine goes to a local Baptist church. Separation of church and state aside, his church issued "voter guides" on how the congregation should vote. (He gave me one of these guides). Stewardship of the Earth apparently did not rank with this group. They were told to vote AGAINST the Forever Wild extension. Similarly, the local Tea Party also opposed the extension.
Now, what's amazing is that in this economic and political climate, at a time when the country is more polarized, more distrustful of government than at any time I can remember, the voters of Alabama voted to KEEP Forever Wild! It wasn't even close. Roughly 75% of the electorate voted for extending Forever Wild's charter for another 20 years.
I'm not sure what to make of this? I'd like to think that somewhere, despite all of the political chattering and accusations (whether true or false), that people still have a connection to natural places. Perhaps this is even moreso in a relatively rural state like Alabama? You can talk about clean coal, or drill baby drill, or the energy technologies of the future, or government regulation, or... At the end of the day, people know that an unspoiled forest or stream has value. Maybe, just maybe, the message is getting through to people that we need to take care of this wonderful planet.
However, Alabama also had a little Amendment to the State's Constitution--one that would keep the funding mechanism in place to support the Forever Wild program for another 20 years. Created by constitutional amendment in 1992, Forever Wild is a land trust that purchases land for conservation and public use. Its 20 year charter was expiring. Essentially the people of Alabama could vote to continue funding Forever Wild, or let it drop by the wayside.
Some background. Alabama has the smallest percentage in the Southeast (less than 4%) of public conservation land. Forever Wild owns close to 166,000 acres permanently, or approximately 1/2 of 1% of Alabama's total land area. Forever Wild is active in the hunting, fishing, and boating communities. They act as a liason for reservations at State Parks. They have been instrumental in developing new recreational areas, such as the Coldwater Mountain bike trails, for public use.
Nevertheless, most of the people in Alabama aren't what you probably think of as "tree huggers." The state is reliably "red" in that it consistently votes Republican, and the general sentiment is not one of wanting more government regulation or intrusion into the rights of individuals.
Further, a friend of mine goes to a local Baptist church. Separation of church and state aside, his church issued "voter guides" on how the congregation should vote. (He gave me one of these guides). Stewardship of the Earth apparently did not rank with this group. They were told to vote AGAINST the Forever Wild extension. Similarly, the local Tea Party also opposed the extension.
Now, what's amazing is that in this economic and political climate, at a time when the country is more polarized, more distrustful of government than at any time I can remember, the voters of Alabama voted to KEEP Forever Wild! It wasn't even close. Roughly 75% of the electorate voted for extending Forever Wild's charter for another 20 years.
I'm not sure what to make of this? I'd like to think that somewhere, despite all of the political chattering and accusations (whether true or false), that people still have a connection to natural places. Perhaps this is even moreso in a relatively rural state like Alabama? You can talk about clean coal, or drill baby drill, or the energy technologies of the future, or government regulation, or... At the end of the day, people know that an unspoiled forest or stream has value. Maybe, just maybe, the message is getting through to people that we need to take care of this wonderful planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)