I returned to the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge today for the first time since time an epic battle between conservationists and a developer over plans for a billion-dollar golf resort.

In the end, the environmentalists declared victory. But my visit raised questions about whether this cheer was just more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Soon after taking office earlier this year, Gov. Martin O’Malley agreed to buy and preserve 700 of the roughly 1,000 acres of wetlands, forests and farms that developer Duane Zentgraf wanted to build on near the entrance to the wildlife preserve. The preservation deal meant that Zentgraf could build only 700 homes instead of the 3,200 he originally wanted. And no golf resort, hotel, shopping complex or parking lot on the banks of the Little Blackwater River, a shady creek that flows into a wildlife sanctuary that the Nature Conservancy has called one of America’s "last great places."

But Zentgraf still gets to build 700 houses. And that will undoubtedly change the character of an area that is now golden fields and stands of trees.

Driving through the landscape, I was surprised to see that no construction had started. It made me wonder whether the real estate downturn had slowed the project. The road wound gently past wide-open soybean fields and scattered farmhouses. A bald eagle took flight from a drought-singed cornfield. Beams of sunlight blazed through the clouds.

But then, just around the corner from the preserved farmland, on Route 16, the picture changed. Bulldozers scraped acres of land down to bare dirt. Backhoes dug ditches for mammoth pipe segments. A sign proclaimed: "Gemcraft Homes at Blackwater Crossing." This is also near the banks of the Little Blackwater River. But it’s on the east side of the stream, out of the spotlight of public attention that hit the west side.

Down the road a little farther, a beige boxville called "Amber Meadows" has sprouted from the cornfields. Another sign proclaims: "75 acres for sale." There’s an explosion of blacktop in the whole area south of Cambridge.

Most of this construction is technically inside Cambridge’s city limits. In fact, the long-depressed city, to encourage growth, extended its boundaries. But the annexation of this strip of farmland, far outside the town’s center on the Choptank River, raises questions about whether the city is shooting itself in the foot.

Downtown Cambridge, long dogged by vacant storefronts and racial tension, is showing signs of life and hope. Antique stores and a new restaurant have opened on Race Street. Condos are flourishing along the city’s waterfront. Why would the city want to drain investment and people out of this core area, which has such beautiful architecture and interesting history?

Whatever the mass-produced cul-de-sacs offer the city – tax dollars to build a firehouse, cash to widen roads – can hardly compare to the soul of the town. Why not make it hard on developers who want to build outside of the city’s center? And instead, encourage them to invest along the downtown waterfront, among the cracked sidewalks and spreading oaks and old woodframe houses with broad porches. Yes, the plots of land there are smaller. It’s unlikely anyone could build 700 houses. But it’s more likely someone could build a home.

READER Mike Donoho, who lives in Cambridge, responds:

"Thank you for your wonderful article. I am a Cambridge native and long asked the same question. Like a pretty girl who thinks she is ugly because she is different, Cambridge has never appreciated itself for what it is and aspired to be ordinary. The "long-depressed" label has always been a pointless drag. Cambridge is in Maryland a place that is never "longed depressed." You can't grow up in Maryland and not have access to opportunity.

Cambridge's opportunity to develop as a delightful town, particularly appealing to retirees should always have been seen as separate from our larger commitment to see that every Marylander has opportunity to build his, or her, life. On that street with antique stores is also a satellite campus of Chesapeake College -- a stepping stone to opportunity within walking distance of the homes of many poor or low income Dorchester County families.

The developments you observed are not likely to provide opportunity to enhance life in Cambridge or the lives of the people who might live in them. There are not jobs nearby to support this housing. If people who lives in these developments need to work to support themselves, they may well have to commute across the Bay Bridge. If they have families their kids can well become latch-key kids left behind in what I would think would be a dreary setting.

These developments may seem like opportunity for the current city government to raise bucks for current projects by the lives that might be lived in them may be peculiarly low in opportunity.

Thanks again for your article.

MY RESPONSE: Mike is probably right about his "latch key" kids observation. Long commutes, all the way over the Bay Bridge, means less time with the family.

And another problem with living in a mass-produced pod of housing disconnected from the world -- except by car -- is the harm it causes to public health.  Obesity rates increase, when people can't walk anywhere except to the end of their driveway.  And of couse, greenhouse gas emissions go up when people have to drive an hour or more each way to work.

Why not take some of the billions of dollars our country spends every year on interstate construction and spent it, instead, on financial incentives for developers to build single family homes in wonderful places like downtown Cambridge? Maryland and our country would benefit if this jewel is polished instead of replaced.

Let's build up around Cambridge's cool old victorian houses and spreading trees beside the Choptank River -- not drain the life out of the area.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 9:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)
                       

I'm on deadline, so my very first "postcard" on a great place to go that's on the water is going to have to be a little shorter than i wanted it to be, but here goes....

Good Reader Sid emailed me to ask where was that nice hotel where they gave me a bottle of wine (i didn't drink it all) and offered a free bike.

It was Whitehaven, which I have to say is one of my favorite Shore towns. It's small, about 35 people, and incredibly charming. There are two restuarants nearby-Boonies and the Red Roost. they are both the traditional seafood palce variety, with some form of crab in nearly every dish. The only hotel in town, the Whitehaven Hotel, is a charming place; innkeeper Cindy Curran (yes, related distantly by marriage to the Curran clan that includes the First Lady of Maryland) is a great cook. If your group is big enough, she will even cook you dinner.

What is there to do? Sit, watch the ferry go by, relax, kayak, ride a bike, cross the ferry and ride some more on the other side. You can drive to Ocean City or Chincoteague for the day, but I wouldn't bother. Save that for another day. You're there to relax.

I admit I was once the sort of person who needed to do and see something while on vacation: museums, shopping, shows, whatever. It's taken me my whole life to realize that a real vacation actually means doing not much of anything.

Soon, I will post some photos and video of the town, but first my story has to run. Look for it Monday...

Posted by Rona Kobell at 12:45 PM | Permalink
                       

President Bush is holding a meeting on climate change this week with the leaders of China, India and other major polluters that, like the U.S., so far have refused to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

The Bush administration has already said it doesn't intend to discuss mandatory caps on the pollutants, only voluntary reductions.

A group of activists from Maryland, including the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, plan to offer their opinion of the president's stance during a rally at noon tomorrow (Friday, Sept. 28) in Washington's San Martín Park, at the corner of E Street, 21st Street, and Virginia Avenue NW.  Details follow: 

Here is the press release from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network:

WASHINGTON— Local activists from across the DC region concerned that President George Bush is advocating the wrong approach to global warming at his “major emitters” summit here this week will meet outside the State Department for a rally at 12 p.m. on Friday, September 28.  The rally will be held in San Martín Park, at the corner of E Street, 21st Street, and Virginia Avenue NW.

The rally will focus on sending the message to President Bush that he is going the “Wrong Way” on global warming.  Activists will hold up “Wrong Way” road signs and speakers will call for the United States to take a leadership role in fighting global warming.  Specifically, activists will ask the administration to:

• Support mandatory, rather than voluntary, limits on greenhouse gas emissions that would hold warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels;
• Show leadership at home by cutting U.S. emissions at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, regardless of what other countries do;
• Support the United Nations process that includes all nations and push for a strong-post Kyoto treaty; and
• Acknowledge that the “major emitters” causing global warming must help fund adaptation measures for the developing world.

Groups organizing the rally include the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Energy Action, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Oil Change International, SustainUS, the U.S. Climate Action Network, and the U.S. Climate Emergency Council.

WHAT:              “Wrong Way” Rally Responding to Bush’s Major Emitters Summit

WHEN:             12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., Friday, September 28

WHERE:           San Martín Park
                        E Street, 21st Street and Virginia Avenue NW (just north of the State                          Department), Washington, D.C. Four blocks from Foggy Bottom Metro Station.

###

Posted by Tom Pelton at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

When I’m not pecking away at my keyboard, or hiding from emails and editors while "out on assignment," I like to play guitar. I’m no good, but boy do I like banging away. My favorite thing to do is sit in front of my CD player at night and figure out new songs I can play for my family. My  daughter plays drums. We rock. We’re kinda like the White Stripes, except more intense, man. And she's nine years old. 

Anyway, I’m always on the prowl for new songs to pinch. Right now, I’m trying to find tunes about the Chesapeake Bay. Hey, readers – any CD’s you recommend? Please shoot me a message if you know of any good albums or places to go for music – especially for more traditional folk songs and/or sea shanties about the bay.

So far, I’ve found one, "Songs of the Chesapeake," produced by Richard Franyo of the Boatyard Bar & Grill in Annapolis. You can buy the CD at: http://www.voicesofthechesapeakebay.org/ and the money will go to environmental education.

There’s some good stuff on this CD. In particular, I recommend "Marina, Marina," by Them Eastport Oyster Boys. This is a highly original and funny band, based in Annapolis – er, sorry, the rebel breakaway Maritime Republic of Eastport. I’ve seen them live on the waterfront, and them boys can really play.  "Marina, Marina," is a pseudo Latin rumba, with their standard guitar and bass backed up by piano, trumpet and trombone. It’s the beery ballad of a bay sailor who’s lost his map and can’t find his way back into port. "Marina, Marina… are these your entrance markers I see? Is it red, right returning?" The backup singer replies: "I think it’s green."

Anyone out there have any CD’s to recommend? Let me know, and I’ll pass on the word.

READER Kim Ethridge of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation responded to let me know that http://www.voicesofthechesapeakebay.org/bay_music.htm has a list of great bay music. 

She says: "I really like like Robbin Thompson's "Out on the Chesapeake" -- you can hear some clips here: http://cdbaby.com/cd/rthompson2

I also like the acoustic guitar of Al Petteway's "The Waters and the
Wild" -- no vocals. Celtic, Cajun, and blues influenced.

David Norris' folk guitar pieces are nice and clear and mellow
http://davidnorrismusic.com/samples/MyOldRiver/08.mp3

And of course, all the Eastport Oyster Boys stuff -- "Miss Lonesome"
(Good Hat, Good Dog, Good Boat
http://ww.oysterboys.com/mp3/Them_Eastport_Oyster-Good_Hat_Good_Dog_Good
_.mp3) and "Full Moon Cruisin'"

Four very different styles, but I like them all."

Thanks very much for the tips, Kim. I'm going to check them out.

The following is the full list of Chesapeake Bay music from the website:

Chesapeake Scenes, 1996, various artists/group, Chestertown/Rock Hall, MD.
Songs and spoken reminiscences about Chesapeake Bay life. Tom McHugh (410) 639-7943

Dove, Deanna. 2002. Chesapeake. Island Girl Records, North Beach, MD
www.deannadove.com

Hildebrand, David & Ginger. 1990. Over the Hills and Far Away. Annapolis, MD.
The music and instruments of 18th-century Annapolis. http://members.aol.com/davenging      

Meyers, Bruce. 2001. Boat Logic, 1997. Stinkpots & Rags. Baltimore, MD. www.StinkpotAndRag.com

Petteway, Al. 1993. The Waters and the Wild. Maggie's Music, Annapolis, MD.
Acoustic guitar instrumentals inspired by the Chesapeake Bay. www.maggiesmusic.com

Them Eastport Oyster Boys. 1998. Miss Lonesome. Annapolis, MD. Oysterboys.com    jeffholland@annapolis.net
Humorous and topical songs about boats, crabs, hats, dogs, watermen and skipjacks.

Thompson, Robbin. Out On the Chesapeake, Richmond, VA. www.robbinthompson.com

Wisner, Tom. Made of Water: Songs and Celebrations of the Mid-Atlantic Rivers Into the Chesapeake, (2001), and other recordings. www.chestory.org

Zentz, Bob. 1999. Hove-to, and Drifting...,Norfolk, VA. Publisher. zentzfolk@aol.com

Posted by Tom Pelton at 1:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (3)
                       

This morning, I was on WVIE AM 1370 (formerly WCBM) to talk about oysters. Specifically, to discuss a story I wrote nearly a month ago about a group of oystermen that were forming their own association. Their goal is largely to bring back the repletion program, a state program for which they pay with their oyster surcharge that is supposed to move seed and shell around the bay to help the long-struggling industry.

It was pretty fun. They even promoted the blog when I asked them to! I've been on the radio a few times before, mostly on WTOP, and I have definitely gotten better at it (I think the first time or two was a disaster of "ums" and "wells" and throat clearings.)

 I'm certainly not the pro that Candy Thomson is, who sounds on the radio like she's sitting next to you, clear as a bell, making complete sense. And I'm not nearly as good as Mr. Pelton, who used to be on the radio all the time when he covered City Hall. (More than once, I had the experience of turning my ignition and hearing his voice. Now that so many Sun colleagues have landed at NPR, that happens a lot. Suddenly, it's like, 'how did David Folkenflik get in my car? Oh, right, it's just the radio.')

Anyway, I tried to convey the complexities of the repletion program issue, that watermen liked it because it created oysters but scientists didn't because it spread disease. It was nice because the host actually gave me time to talk, but came in with follow-ups quickly enough that I didn't have the time to ramble (often my inclination.)

At the end though, the host said something like, "Well, I hope they bring back this successful program, because there's nothing better than eating oysters, and I like them best from our bay."

They promised to send me the link, so when they do I will post it. I hope I didn't embarrass myself...

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:21 AM | Permalink
                       

I published a story in today's paper about the state's $130 million cleanup of a contaminated maritime junkyard in the Brooklyn section of far south Baltimore.  This is the notorious "shipbreaking" site that inspired The Sun's Will Englund and Gary Cohn to write their Pulitzer Prize winning investigative series "The Shipbreakers" in 1997.

The articles exposed how the U.S. Navy was trying to make a fast buck by selling proud old ships to irresponsible businessmen who then ripped them apart and tried to profit by hawking their parts.  In the wretched scrapyards, workers died and pollution oozed into waterways.

About three years ago, I decided to explore this industrial wasteland by kayak. It was an amazing tour of Baltimore's urban wetlands -- all the more shocking because the shipwrecks were brimming with life.

Amid half-sunken tugboats, and the rusty hulks of abandoned barges in Curtis Bay, a squadron of cow-nosed rays skimmed just below my boat. They were as big as tables but graceful, the tips of their wings knifing above the waves. It was magical and spooky -- to me, as unexpected as seeing killer whales in the Detroit River.

Also astounding to me was the fact that so many huge ships could be sitting abandoned in a public waterway.  Apparently, over centuries, people learned that if they wanted to ditch old ships  of any kind, they could just let them drift into the marshlands of south Baltimore -- and nobody would know or care.

In the rotting shells of World War I era cargo ships, trees grew and herons nested.  Thousands of  shrimp swarmed under the Interstate 895 bridge, near the smokestacks of a pesticide factory.

At the "shipbreaking" junkyard, a 150-foot-long passenger ferry -- three stories tall, with a pair of stout stacks -- was home to a family of swallows that had nested behind the bar. They whizzed through the cockeyed wreck, free to come and go because all the windows were shattered.

Amid the floating mats of garbage under Interstate 95, a carp as fat a log scared a shout from my lungs by slapping its tail next to my hand.  There were dozens of these monsters. They were somehow thriving in the super-polluted Middle Branch area of the Patapsco River, near the notorious Allied DDT pesticide factory that caused lung cancer in South Baltimore decades ago by spewing arsenic dust.  The water was about a foot deep, dotted with shopping carts, old bicycles, floating bottles and cans and speed boats that people had ditched in the weeds.  It boggles the mind that anything could live down there.  Yet, under the bobbing debris, schools of tiny fish flashed.  Perhaps fifty Canada geese waddled amid detergent bottles in the shadow of Ravens Stadium.

How is it possible to have so much life amid so much pollution?

I asked veteran fly fishing guide Phillip Krista, who knows these rivers as well as just about every other waterway in the Chesapeake Bay.  He said that Masonville Cove, the debris-littered wetlands area just west of the shipbreaking yard, attracts scores of striped bass, because it's shallow and warm and its crescent shape traps lots of edible critters.  "It's phenomenal striper fishing down there -- people don't know that," Krista said.

Because of the mercury and other toxins in the water, he doesn't recommend that people eat the fish -- just catch and release.  He hopes that the new public park being planned as part of the state's cleanup project will allow an area set aside for fly fishing.

Who would have thought?  A fly fishing haven beside the scene of one of worst environmental crimes in state history.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

This morning, Senators Cardin and Mikulski are praising final passage of the Water Resources Development Act, which gives more than $300 million to bay projects. According to Cardin press release, here's where the money will go:

• $30 million to significantly reduce nitrogen flowing from the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant into the Bay.  Blue Plains is the largest advanced sewage treatment facility in the world, servicing the entire Washington metropolitan area, including Prince George’s and Montgomery counties.  The bill also provides $40 million for other projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
  
• $195 million for expansion of the Bay’s Poplar Island project, which involves rebuilding the Island with dredged material from the channels serving the Port of Baltimore;
  

• $10.1 million for restoration of Smith Island by constructing two miles of off-shore breakwaters that will protect more than 2,100 acres of wetlands and underwater grasses;
  
• A $7 million increase in funding for Cumberland flood control and restoration of the C&O Canal;
  
• A $20 million increase in funding for the Army Corps of Engineers’ oyster restoration effort; and,
  
• $30 million of additional funding for the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Restoration and Protection Programs.
  

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

Officials with the oil company ConocoPhillips are inviting the public to a "town hall" meeting on global warming in Columbia, Maryland.  The company is expected to talk about its reseach into alternative energy and position on mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

Environmental activists with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network are urging people to turn out in large numbers -- with protest signs, and pointed questions to prevent any "greenwashing" of the company's record. 

The event is at  6:30 p.m. tomorrow night (Tuesday, Sept. 25) at Sheraton Columbia Hotel, 10207 Wincopin Circle, in Columbia. Seating is limited so people need to register at www.conocophillips.com/energy/RSVP or call 1-888-877-5917.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

The U.S. Senate is holding a hearing Wednesday (9/26/07) on the impact of climate change on the Chesapeake Bay.

Among those scheduled to testify at 9:30 a.m. in Room 406 of the Dirkson Federal Office Building in Washington are Gov. Martin O'Malley, Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Baker and Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

The Bay Foundation recently released a report on the subject, which you can read here.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

One of the things that was really interesting about this meeting: it gave me some insight into how the sausage (regulations) are made at DNR.

Recreational fishermen and environmentalists sometimes (often?) complain about the watermen's power, that it far outpaces their dwindling numbers. Watermen in turn complain they are being henpecked to death with regulations, adding to their already stressful lives.

Into that minefield steps DNR, who has to contend with both sides as well as their primary job -- keeping the resources healthy. So DNR often asks watermen to comment on proposed regulations. What I found surprising is that they actually seem to listen to the watermen: maybe not all the time, but certainly some of the time.

Here's a case in point: DNR assistant fishery director Gina Hunt asked the watermen at the meeting last week for advice on how to regulate against trotliners starting too early. Crabbers are allowed to begin their day a halfhour before sunrise. But there is no law on when they can set their lines in the water.

So here's the dilemma for DNR cops, as Hunt explained it: they come upon a crabber who appears to be illegally crabbing at 2 a.m. The guy frees his crabs quickly, and then tells police he is just setting his line early. The line is wet, and police don't know how long it had been in the water.

Hunt was suggesting some sort of law that says when a trotliner can set its line, so it would be easier to cite lawbreakers.  But the watermen basically talked her out of it, saying the scanario in quesiton was an isolated incident that had been dealt with.

Depending on your perspective, this is DNR either caving to the watermen or being reasonable, letting the guys work things out for themselves instead of making one more law. Either way, what resulted was a frank discussion about the problem with a promise that this particular infraction would not happen again.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:46 AM | Permalink
                       

As promised, more from the Tidal Fish meeting last week:

Watermen are mad about O'Malley's 21-member oyster commission, which we wrote about earlier here on bayblog. They used words like "ridiculous" and rigged" to describe the panel, which includes a real estate agent and a lawyer but only one packer and one waterman.

Neither the waterman nor the packer chosen actually oysters. Both used to, but don't anymore. Some watermen argued that it would make more sense to have someone who actually works on the water serve on the panel. That person give a real-life picture of what's going on in the bay.

But that might not be what the panel wants. Its goal is to come up with solutions to sustain the oyster in the bay, which we well know is struggling under the weight of two oyster diseases and bad water. Its primary goal does not seem to be to sustain an industry for years to come.  I still am somewhat curious about the lawyer and the real estate agent, how they fit into oyster recovery. But nobody asked me for my opinion...

The watermen have asked DNR to allow one more waterman and one more packer on to the committee. If the agency agrees, they''ll do it within the next couple weeks, because the next meeting is mid-October.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:37 AM | Permalink
                       

Growing up, I never would have connected Sukkot with the environmental movement. For me, it was a time to help my father connect worn particle boards around a metal frame, then stand on a ladder and put tree branches over the top (the original green roof?) to make a hut that was supposed to remind us of where the Jews slept when crossing the desert.

We never slept in ours, as some Jewish people do, but we had many a fine meal in there, and my sisters and I enjoyed decorating the place with paper chains.

Now, The Associated is making the green connection. On Sunday, Sept. 30 at the Pearlstone Conference Center in Reisterstown, the umbrella group of Jewish groups is hosting "It is Easy Being Green," a series of workshops about food, pesticides, and what the Torah tells us about environemtnalism. For more information, you can visit their web site  here.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:23 AM | Permalink
                       

CRAB CRACKDOWN!       

Warning to crabbers: Bring a ruler.  Or bring your lawyer.

The U.S. Department of Justice announced this week that it had imposed a $50,000 fine on a Crisfield, Md., based seafood processing company for selling illegal undersized blue crabs.

Working on a confidential tip, undercover agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service posed as seafood buyers from West Virginia. They bought soft crabs -- many about three inches long -- on three occasions in 2005 and 2006 from the MeTompkin Bay Oyster Company, according to a DOJ press release.  Then they raided the company's warehouse and seized 3,274 undersized soft crabs, labelled "PEE WEES." The company pleaded guilty this week and agreed to pay the fine.

"Blue crabs are famous Chesapeake Bay residents, but sadly their numbers are alarmingly low due to a host of factors including over-catching," said Ronald J. Temps, acting assistant attorney general for the U.S. Justice Department's natural resources division.

REMINDER TO READERS:  THE SIZE LIMIT IN MARYLAND FOR SOFT CRABS IS 3 1/2 INCHES. For male hard crabs, it's 5 inches for most of the year. For mature female crabs, there is no size limit. 

For a more detailed description of size limits, read the state regulations here.  You can also look at pictures showing the difference between male and female crabs. 

Read the jump, which follows, for the DOJ Press Release.   

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASE

________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                    ENRD

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2007                                                     (202) 514-2007

WWW.USDOJ.GOV                                                        TDD (202) 514-1888

SEAFOOD COMPANY PLEADS GUILTY TO

 SELLING ILLEGAL, UNDERSIZED CHESAPEAKE BAY CRABS

        WASHINGTON—MeTompkin Bay Oyster Company pleaded guilty today in federal court in Baltimore and will pay a $50,000 fine for selling illegal, undersized Chesapeake Bay crabs in interstate commerce in violation of the Lacey Act, Ronald J. Tenpas, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, and Sal Amato, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Special Agent in Charge, announced.  The Lacey Act prohibits the interstate sale of fish or wildlife knowingly taken or possessed in violation of state law.

        According to the joint factual statement provided to the Court, the investigation began when the government received information that crabbers from Tangier Island, Va. were selling soft shell blue crabs from the Chesapeake Bay to seafood dealers in Crisfield, Md., including MeTompkin.  Many of these crabs were found to be fewer than 3 and ½ inches in length in violation of Maryland state law.  Posing as representatives from a business in West Virginia, Special Agents from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and an officer from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources purchased approximately $1,500 worth of undersized crabs on three occasions in 2005 and 2006 from MeTompkin Bay Oyster Company.  A search warrant was later executed at the company warehouse and approximately 3,274 dozen undersized crabs labeled as “PEE WEES” were seized, valued at approximately $26,000.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:51 AM | Permalink
                       

I just returned from an unexpected reporting trip that went something like this:

Drive four hours, then arrive at a small hotel where a friendly innkeeper has a bottle of chilled red wine waiting for me. Then borrow a bike, ride a brisk seven miles on a FLAT road with almost no traffic, some of it along the water. Then join my friend, a photographer, for a seafood dinner at an old-fashioned crab house where a band is playing favorite old standards and the banjo player just happens to be the county administrator.

Lest it sound like my life is totally charmed, I worked a 16-hour day yesterday, starting at 7 a.m. on a boat and getting home at 11 p.m. after an action-packed Tidal Fish meeting at DNR. More on that later.

Lately, i have spent far too much time in the office working on a semi-project and this latest trip reminds me that I must get out more, both because I came home with about four story ideas and because I met such fun people (well, except for the guy at the Tidal Fish meeting who told me that I ought to be ashamed of myself --- apparently I never write anything positive about the watermen. I could think of no snappy comeback after my long day so i just shuffled off.)

Anyway, I'd like to start a weekly feature to run on Fridays featuring a great Shore destination. But I'm a bit tired, so i propose we start next week....

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:21 AM | Permalink
                       

Want to be cool? Buy a home in a place with sidewalks.  Don't care about pollution?  Live in a suburb, where you need to hop in the car just to get a cup of coffee.

That's the message of a new report released today by the nonprofit Urban Land Institute called "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change."

The study concludes that switching from gas-guzzling SUV's to hybrids won't be enough to cut down our carbon dioxide emissions by the 60 to 80 percent needed by 2050 to stave off environmental catastrophe.  We need to change the way we live, so we don't have to drive so many miles.

Since World War II, almost all new housing in the U.S. has been manufactured in spread-out patterns -- often without sidewalks, and segregated from stores, which are surrounded by vast oceans of blacktop.  So even if an average soccer mom wanted to walk more, her stroller would likely be clipped by an SUV as she tried to trudge along the breakdown lane of the highway to get to the mall.

"Americans drive so much because we have given ourselves little alternative," the report says.  "For 60 years,  we have built homes ever farther from workplaces, created schools that are inaccessible except by motor vehicle, and isolated other destinations -- such as shopping -- from work and home."

Since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive has grown three times faster than the U.S. population and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations.  All that means more vehicle exhaust, more carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and a warmer planet with rising sea levels and worsening storms.

The solution: live in a town were you can walk to work, school and the grocery store.  Places like.....Baltimore!  

READER JOE K RESPONDED: "Sounds good...perhaps the City of Baltimore should lower property taxes and solve the crime problem in order to attract people back into the city."

MY RESPONSE: That's true.  But perhaps people who care about the environment should also invest in the city -- despite its flaws -- to help Baltimore deal with its problems.  Certainly buying in the suburbs isn't going help the city -- nor will it help global warming, sprawl or the destruction of Maryland's beautiful green places.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

For those who want some hard-hitting science before their Monday night football, stop by Johns Hopkins University Sept. 24 at 5 p.m. to hear a distinguished atmospheric scientist explain the human causes and responses to climate change. 

Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, led a 2001 study requested by President Bush of the then-current state of climate change and its impact on the environment and human health.   His free public lecture, at Hodson Hall on the Homewood campus, comes the same week that President Bush hosts an international meeting in Washington on climate change.

For more information about the lecture, call 410-516-7136.  For a thumbnail bio of Cicerone, go here.  

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:36 PM in global warming | Permalink
                       

One major bill should be added to the list of hottest issues for this spring's session of the Maryland General Assembly: The Global Warming Solutions Act.

The same green team of lobbyists and activists that over the last two years have won approval of the Healthy Air Act (which cleaned up coal-fired power plants) and Clean Cars Bill (which cuts car pollution) this year is pushing legislation that would greenhouse gases from all sources by 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.  It would follow California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's model of allowing the state government to devise a sweeping plan to ramp down carbon dioxide emissions from every industry and segment of the economy.

The green team includes bill sponsor Sen. Paul Pinsky (above, with fellow global warming fighter), as well as Brad Heavner of Environment Maryland, Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Cindy Schwartz of the Maryland League of Conservation Voters, Brenda Azfal of the University of Maryland School of Nursing and many others.  Nurses marching door-to-door in Annapolis and buttonholing lawmakers has proven to be highly effective.

Last year, the bill was killed without even a vote in committee. Senate President Thomas "Mike" Miller (below) blocked all fee-generating legsislation that didn't include tax hikes or slot machine gambling he thought was needed to close the state's looming billion-dollar budget gap.

Constellation Energy, in a presentation to Miller, warned that carbon-dioxide limits in Maryland (but not in neighboring states) could have a crippling effect on the state's economy, and even restrict how much commuters can drive, boaters boat and farmers farm.  The bill's supporters say this was the same kind of exaggerated doom-and-gloom forecast that the power companies gave before the passage of the Healthy Air Act two years ago, which certainly didn't put Constellation out of business. (Although it could have playing a role in killing their plans to sell out to Florida Power & Light).

Right now, the O'Malley administration has a task force studying possible solutions to global warming.  This commission will come out with recommendations this winter.  The green team is hoping that it will include legislation similar to that passed by California, with a goal of cutting 80 percent of global warming gasses by 2050. If not, Pinsky could reintroduce his bill from last year, with some tweaks.

Here is a letter that the Green Team sent to The Sun about global warming:

-------------------

As a coalition of environmental, health, and faith-based organizations that fought for last year’s Clean Cars Act, we applaud the Sun’s editorial “A boost for clean cars” (September 14).

Posted by Tom Pelton at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (8)
                       

 Maryland's Department of Natural Resources is just now getting around to announcing who is on their oyster panel, though the names have been known for weeks and the panel had its first meeting yesterday. This 21-member group was created by a new law last year to revive oyster restoration and do a better job of coordinating all the moving parts at the federal, state and nonprofit levels. Let's hope they had something to say about that artificial reef the state's contractors put in the wrong spot. And the commitee membership goes to:

 Chair: William Eichbaum, World Wildlife Fund

Sherman Baynard, Maryland Coastal Conservation Association

Don Boesch, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Torrey Brown, Intralytix, Inc. & Oyster Recovery Partnership

Mark Bryer, The Nature Conservancy

Kim Coble, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Richard Colburn, Maryland State Senator

Stephen Lafferty, Maryland State Delegate

Douglas Legum, Real Estate Developer

Doug Lipton, University of Maryland Sea Grant Program

Mark Luckenbach, Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Pat Montanio, National Oceanic and Administrative Administration

Tony O’Donnell, Maryland State Delegate

Midgett Parker, Linowes & Blocher, LLP

Ben Parks, Maryland Watermen’s Association

Bill Richkus, Versar, Inc.

Brian Rothschild, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth

Jason Ruth, W.H. Harris Oyster Company

Eric Schott, University of Maryland Center for Marine Biotechnology

Don Webster, University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service

Bill Windley, Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen’s Association

Some familiar names (Coble, Torrey Brown, Boesch), some not so familiar names (Doug Legum? Midgett Parker?) but all constituencies appear represented.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:45 AM | Permalink
                       

It's the boxer rebellion of the You Tube generation.

New federal energy efficiency guidelines are requiring more washing machines to be front-loaded instead of top loaded.  And the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute -- the same group that launched an ad campaign praising carbon dioxide pollution as the stuff of life -- has now created a slick You Tube ad attacking all this government meddling in our laundry rooms.  They're urging outraged consumers to -- literally -- send their dirty underwear to the U.S. Undersecretary of Energy.

Here is a hilarious rebuttal to the CEI ad campaign on the blog Treehugger.com, where you can also link to and watch the You Tube ad.

Readers, what do you think of government regulations to require compact fluorescent lilghtbulbs, more fuel-efficient cars, more frugal toilets, etc?  Prudent public policy?  Or Big Brother?  

Whatever you think, DO NOT send your shorts to Rona and Me, your humble baybloggers.  We had nothing to do with the boxer rebellion plot.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:11 AM | Permalink
                       

I know, it's only September, but the chill in the air, as well as Andy Green's front page story on O'Malley's tax plans,  reminds me that the legislative session will soon be upon us. What to expect? Budgets, slots talk, and the like.

Environmentally, there is always a long list of priorities. And there is the inevitable tug of war between environmental groups who want to restrict or end a fishery (think yellow perch or terrapins last year) and the watermen who fight back to save their livelihoods.

So here's a few things we here at bayblog except to come down the pike:

Cellulosic ethanol - Del. Justin Ross plans to introduce a bill to encourage ethanol made from plants, instead of from corn, with a tax credit. Farmers would grow the plants, which can then be converted into ethanol for cars, and be compensated through the credits because there's not much of a market yet for the product. Ross said the bill is in repsonse to reports issued this summer (and covered in The Sun) that growing corn for ethanol is producing more nutrient pollution that are going into the bay, which could make it a zero-sum gain for us.

Ghost pots - Candy Thomson's excellent story Sunday alluded to a bill that may be introduced by the Coastal Conservation Association, or legislators sympathetic to their cause, to restrict ghost pots in the bay or hold watermen responsible for them. Expect a pushback by Larry Simns on anything of this kind; especially if the watermen will be fined or otherwise punished for losing their pots.

"Green Fund" - Expect the Bay Foundation to once again push this tax on new development to generate more money for bay cleanup. Check out Frank Roylance's musings about how all of the blacktop we already have is causing a mess.

My colleague, Mr. Pelton, will take up the baton later to blog about the larger environmental priorities. He's the expert.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:08 AM | Permalink
                       

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:05 AM | Permalink
                       

The large number of toxic algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay this summer were "outrageous" and demand "immediate action" by the government, leaders of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation said in press conference this morning.<

The Annapolis-based nonprofit organization is pushing the Maryland General Assembly to create a "green fund" tax on new blacktop and development. It would help pay for $60 million to $100 million a year in farm runoff control programs and better planning to prevent suburban sprawl.

In a new Bay Foundation report (available here), you can read about the causes of this summer's fish kills. 

One thing you may notice is that the report talks about 45 fish kills in Maryland's portion of the bay -- while The Sun reported yesterday (on Sunday) about 120 fish kills.  The difference is that the CBF's number only takes into account two months this summer, from June 3 through early August, while The Sun's number is an estimate for the whole year.

The larger number was provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment on Friday. It's slightly higher than the average of about 110 fish kills a year recorded by the state agency over the last 20 years.  Part of the difference may be the roughly 15 fish kills this summer linked to the toxic algae karlodinium. It multiplied like crazy with high fertilizer pollution levels and saltier bay waters that resulted from this summer's low rainfall.

Allen Place, a biochemist at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, has concluded that at least 15 of this summer's fish kills in the Chesapeake Bay were linked to toxic karlodinium algae blooms.  That was the most in recent memory -- although historical comparisons are difficult, because not until recently have scientists looked for this species.  "This was a very productive year for karlodinium, and the fish kills were collateral damage," Place said. 

"Karlo," which forms coffee-colored stains on the bay called "mahogany tide," suffocates fish.  Place believes that karlodinium -- once called by a different name, gyrodinium -- is the little-known organism actually responsible for the much-publicized 1997 fish kills that shut down the Pocomoke River. These were attributed to another toxic algae, Pfiesteria.

Pictured above is karlodinium.

And this is Pfiesteria. Both are similar, in that they are types of algae that are all over the bay and in the oceans. They thrive by devouring other algae that boom in numbers when there's too much fertilizer pollution.  But Place says he's tried repeatedly to get the Pfiesteria to produce a toxin that might cause a fish kill -- and he's been unable to.  But the karlodinium algae readily makes a toxin that kills fish by eating holes in gill cells, making them explode.

Another difference: Karlodinium doesn't hurt people, only fish.  Researchers still debate whether Pfiesteria could have caused the short-term memory loss in 31 people on the Pocomoke River that made the 1997 fish kills international news.

But from a public policy perspective, whether it was one form of toxic algae or another might not matter as much as the fact that fertlizer runoff is killing the bay.

Around the world, too much fertilizer pollution and overfishing are transforming the oceans.  All the larger, advanced organisms -- whales, sharks, cod, etc. -- are disappearing.  They are being replaced by ancient, primordial life forms like algae and jellyfish that thrive in human waste.

It's the "Rise of Slime."  Los Angeles Times reporter Ken Weiss won a Pulitzer Prize earlier this year for documenting the crisis.  The goo is taking over the Pactific Ocean.  And it's oozing across the Chesapeake Bay, too.

If you can't find any blue crabs for your next seafood feast, don't worry -- there's plenty of jelly fish.  I wonder how they'd taste with a little Old Bay seasoning.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 1:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)
                       

Sorry, I have been away the last few days and am just catching up on all the environmental news that's fit to blog.

First, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation issued their "bad waters' report, which you can find here.

Fellow blogger Tom Pelton is at their press conference, and he will have the complete report in tomorrow's paper, so look for it there...

Also, my former colleague Don Hopey had this interesting story about a family under investigationby the U.S. Attorney's office for illegally drilling and cutting down trees in Western Pa's Allegheny Forest. Here's the first part:

 Ironically, it might be that the approval documents weren't issued when the company expected them to be because oil and gas development in the 513,000-acre national forest is outstripping the U.S. Forest Service's ability to process the paperwork.

The federal investigation is focused on the Minard Run Oil Co., whose president and chief executive officer, Fred Fesenmyer, is also chairman of the Pennsylvania Oil & Gas Association.

The oil company was clearing trees last month and drilling the first of 19 wells off state Route 59, also known as the Longhouse National Scenic Byway, east of the Allegheny Reservoir in McKean County, when the operation was shut down by the Forest Service.

Minard Oil didn't have a timber contract allowing it to cut the trees or a "notice to proceed," both issued by the Forest Service and both required before any tree-cutting, road-building or well-drilling can take place in the state's only national forest.

The Forest Service has refused to comment on what it termed "an ongoing criminal investigation," and the U.S. attorney's office in Pittsburgh would only say that it is "looking into the situation."

Mr. Fesenmyer admitted that Minard Oil didn't have the required documents to begin clearing trees or drilling a well, but said the 60-day review period had run its course when he decided to proceed. He also said the Forest Service hadn't responded to phone calls and letters requesting the documents.

"We were left hanging and at the end of 75 days I said we'd done what we could except for getting the two documents," Mr. Fesenmyer said. "So we weren't doing anything illegal except that we did not have documentation."

And a plug for Candy Thomson, whose excellent article on ghost crab pots ran yesterday, with wonderful photos byt Chris Assaf, who blogs at PhotoEdge. You can find it at Baltimoresun.com.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 11:53 AM | Permalink
                       

With America's growing hunger for electricity has come a resurgence of the coal industry across the U.S.  And as coal mines have boomed, black lung disease has made a quiet comeback -- perhaps because safety standards aren't being enforced.

The Charleston (W.V.) Gazette reports today that rates of black lung disease among miners nationally have doubled over the last decade.  And that was after many health professionals thought the disease was becoming less common, because of safety laws passed a quarter century ago.

“I think it’s a very significant concern,” said Dr. Edward L. Petsonk, top black lung researcher at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in Morgantown, W.VA.

United Mine workers union president Cecil Roberts said: “Black lung is a preventable disease that was supposed to be on the way out after the passage of the 1969 Coal Mine Safety and Health Act.  That act contained a respirable dust standard that all the experts said would be low enough to prevent miners from getting this horrible disease. But now what we’re seeing is a trend upward in the prevalence of the disease among miners who began working in the industry after that act was passed."

Roberts said that either the existing Department of Labor dust standard is not strong enough, or it’s not being strictly enforced. “It’s likely to be the result of a combination of both factors,” he said.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 2:09 PM | Permalink
                       

Talk about quick reaction!  The Sun published a story today about a plan by Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold to raise funds for repairing waterways fouled by storm-water runoff.

Lack of government funding for maintaining storm-water management facilities is one of the reasons why growth is hindering efforts to restore Chesapeake Bay, according to the EPA Inspector General's report I wrote about here yesterday.  David Fahrenthold also wrote about the report in today's Washington Post .

As colleague Phill McGowan points out in his story, Leopold's move has been in the works for some time.  He had pledged to tackle storm-water pollution along Anne Arundel's 530 miles of shoreline during his successful campaign last fall for county executive. 

The Arundel executive's approach bears some resemblance to the much more ambitious "Green Fund" legislation that would have raised $130 million for bay restoration, which passed the House but died in the state Senate earlier this year.  The county proposal would levy a fee based on the amount of pavement or impervious surface created by new development, and would charge no fee if a new structure is built within the footprint of an existing building.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 12:22 PM in growth/land use | Permalink
                       

A few years ago, when I was living in Somerville, Mass., and training for the New York Marathon, I developed a chronic cough that my doctors told me was actually asthma.  The first thing I thought was: it's the diesel exhaust from buses and trucks. 

I had no proof for it, of course. But I was living in a third-floor walkup apartment above a bus stop on a major thoroughfare, and running every day along very busy urban streets.

Now here is a story, published in Time yesteday, that suggests that some scientists now believe there is a link between asthma, heart attacks and jogging along urban streets with lots of diesel exhaust.

Perhaps the solution is a return to the electric street cars that once were so popular in Baltimore and other cities? Perhaps electric buses? Or perhaps just diesel buses with better emission filter systems.

I still run a lot, but whenever possible I try to avoid bus and truck routes (not easy in downtown Baltimore!)  And I ALWAYS wear gear like the attractive workout cap in the picture above. 

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:25 AM | Permalink
                       

Runoff from new development is polluting Chesapeake Bay faster than communities in Maryland and the rest of the region are acting to curb it, says a new report by the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Inspector General that you can find here. 

The report, released Wednesday, warns that restoration of the Cheapeake is jeopardized by the failure of all levels of government to keep nutrients and mud from washing off newly developed land.  Though developed land generates less pollution than farm runoff and sewage treatment plants, correcting it could be very costly, the report adds.

The Inspector General, who audits EPA's performance, calls for the agency to push bay states and communities to adopt binding caps, or limits, on nutrient pollution from developed and developing lands.  Curbing runoff could be achieved through stricter stormwater controls and through requiring more concentrated development with environmentally sensitive designs, the report says.   

Stormwater runoff and seepage from septic waste-treatment systems account for about 24 percent of the nitrogen and 30 percent of the phosphorus fouling the bay, by EPA estimates.  But because development continues to sprawl with relatively modest runoff controls across the six-state bay region, the amount of pollution is increasing.  The amount of pavement covering the 64,000 square mile watershed increased by 41 percent during the 1990s, EPA estimates, while population grew by only 8 percent.

The report says that of eight communities it checked in the region, only the District had set hard goals for reducing urban runoff.  And while EPA and the bay states have agreed to curb sprawl as a way of restoring the bay, officials can't even agree on how to define sprawl, so have done nothing to track it in a measurable way, the report adds.

The report also faults EPA and the bay states for not using their legal authority to regulate stormwater runoff.   Maryland's General Assembly did adopt a new stormwater law this year, but the state Department of the Environment is still drafting regulations to carry it out.  And while federal and state governments have oversight, enforcement of stormwater controls is left up to local governments.

"A lot of the local governments, either through (lack of) resources or political will, have not stepped up to the plate," said Neil Weinstein, head of the Low Impact Development Center, a nonprofit in Beltsville that advises governments and private developers on how to reduce the environmental harm done by new buildings and pavement.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 5:43 PM in growth/land use | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

Posted by Tom Pelton at 5:20 PM | Permalink
                       

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration today launched a new website with data on the Chesapeake Bay's health. "We designed BayStat to help us better coordinate, track, target -- and ultimately improve -- our statewide restoration efforts," O'Malley said.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:31 PM | Permalink
                       

Maryland-based author and climate change activist Mike Tidwell makes this provocative argument on Grist's blog.  You can also read and respond to it on the blog of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, founded by Tidwell, author of "The Ravaging Tide."  In Maryland, Tidwell's organization is among the groups lobbying the Maryland General Assembly to pass a California-style law that would compel an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Essentially, Tidwell argues that small, voluntary, incremental steps to reduce carbon dioxide pollution suck the political momentum away from the push for necessary laws to force America to break its addiction to coal and oil.  He's trying to shift the discussion from a navel-gazing "what can I do to make myself more virtuous" and toward a more politically engaged debate over how to change the government to make everyone more green.

Here's more of his thinking, which cuts against the grain of what many mainstream environmental organizations have been arguing: 

"Every time an activist or politician hectors the public to voluntarily reach for a new bulb or spend extra on a Prius, ExxonMobil heaves a big sigh of relief....

But what's the solution? Most media sidebars and web links quickly send us to that peppy and bright list we all know so well, one vaguely reminiscent of Better Homes and Gardens: "10 Things You Can Do to Save the Planet." Standard steps include: change three light bulbs. Consider a hybrid car for your next purchase. Tell the kids to turn out the lights. Even during the recent Al Gore-inspired Live Earth concerts, the phrase "planetary emergency" was followed by "wear more clothes indoors in winter" and "download your music at home to save on the shipping fuel for CDs."

Nice little gestures all, but are you kidding me? Does anyone think this is the answer?

Imagine if this had been the dominant response to racial segregation 50 years ago. Apartheid rules across much of our land and here are three things you can do: "Take time, if possible, to feed three negroes who seek food at your lunch counter each month. Consider giving up your use of the N-word, or at least cut down. And avoid vacationing in states where National Guardsmen are needed to enroll blacks in public schools."

This would obviously be absurd, Tidwell suggests. The Civil Rights Act and the federal government's intervention was required. In a similar way, the U.S. government must now mount a massive and expensive effort to shift away from petroleum -- a project so sweeping, it would require an effort similar to the muscle it took to win World War II. "To move our nation off of fossil fuels, we need inspired Churchillian leadership and sweeping statutes a la the Big War or the civil-rights movement," Tidwell writes.

Are you on board with this?  One person who won't heed Tidwell's call to arms is Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and now his new book, "Cool It." 

Yesterday's New York Times summarizes Lomborg's argument, which is essentially that global warming is happening -- but not a big deal.  Our government shouldn't waste too much of our time or money trying to solve the problem -- because it can't, Lomborg asserts.  And, anyway, buying an air conditioner and building up our shorelines with rock barriers might be enough.

The Times reports: "The best strategy, Lomborg says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York, so that people elsewhere can afford to do things like shore up their coastlines and buy air conditioners."

So who's right? Everyone now agrees that climate change is really happening.  Is it something that demands personal virtue as a response?  Sweeping government regulations?  Or just a few air conditioners? Readers, what do you think?

Posted by Tom Pelton at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                       

Stories of questionable "carbon offset" sales schemes keep blowing in.  Here are articles on this hot global warming industry in The Sun, The Washington Post, The Kansas City Star and some discussion of the problems on businessGreenblog.

It's beginning to sound like multiple sightings of the emperor's lack of clothing.  Perhaps one problem lies in the ambiguity of the term "carbon offset" itself -- which smells of an Orwellian pollution of the English language.

After all, when you buy "carbon offsets" that doesn't necessarily mean you're paying for a reduction in carbon dioxide pollution.  You could be sending payments to a utility company that might (or might not) use your money to help build a wind turbine that might eventually generate a small amount of electricity -- as it continues to build more coal-fired power plants that spew even more greenhouse gases.

But that's the magic of the word "offset" -- it doesn't promise a reduction. It doesn't really promise anything.  You are "setting" something "off" somewhere -- perhaps only setting off a migrane in customers trying to figure out where the hell their money is going.

As I reported in The Sun, a growing number of firms -- including the nonprofit group Carbonfund in Silver Spring, Md. -- are selling what is essentially an invisible balm to soothe people's feelings of guilt over global warming.

If you feel bad about the carbon dioxide generated by your driving and flying, you can type your credit card number in to the website of Carbonfund and for $99 get a "total carbon offset" for a whole year -- meaning a bumper sticker proclaiming that you are fighting global warming.  In theory, that money could go to plant trees (which absorb carbon dioxide as they grow).  But some critics argue that the real cause of deforestation is government land-use policies and development -- which won't be affected by a few hundred bucks donated to plant saplings.

Or the money you donate could go to buy "renewable energy certificates" (another wonderfully opaque term). These are essentially subsidies sent to utilies after they build wind turnbines to make the wind industry in general more profitable. But that doesn't mean the money is going to build new wind turbines.  It could be going to build profit.

Or as David Fahrenthold and Steven Mufson of The Washington Post wrote in their Aug. 16 story: "The offset is among the most unusual of commodities.  It's substance is intangible, the absence of something.  Some pollution would have existed, somewhere, sometime, the seller says, and now it won't."

Businessgreenblog writes of the industry: "Several experts claim there are instances where the same carbon credit - representing a tonne of saved carbon - has been sold several times over. There are also concerns that calculations used to work out if a tonne of carbon has genuinely been saved are unreliable, with some critics suggesting credits are being sold on the basis of projects that may have gone ahead anyway."

Concerned? Here is a consumer's guide to buying carbon offsets.

Some carbon offset companies pay a fee to be able to display a "Green E" guarantee on their website -- which supposedly means that an independent firm has verified the offsets.  But the Green E program told The Sun that they routinely let their clients display this logo for up to a year before they do any checking of anything -- and then it's only a paper check. Oh, and they don't actually certify carbon offsets -- just alternative energy projects.   So the Green E is essentially a big green question mark.

A simple solution: stop calling them "carbon offsets."  Instead, if you want to raise donations to plant trees, market yourself as a tree planting organization.  If you want to build wind turbines, call yourself a wind power firm.  That way, there would be no linguistic ambiguity -- and people could hold you responsible for doing exactly what you say you're going to do with their money.

Nobody would be left twisting in the wind.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                       

File this under the what-will-they-think-of next department: the Green Bag Lunch.

For $5, the Green Bag Lunch company will deliver to your child's school a healthy lunch, packed in recyclable and biodegradable materials. You order the lunch online -- choices include a main dish, such as a turkey sandwich, two veggie/fruit sides, and a dessert. Food arrives in coolers before lunchtime.

According to a Chicago Tribune story, Green Bag Lunch has taken off in Chicago. And they hope to get the price down to $3 to make it more palatable for parents, though they say it will cost about $4 if you make the lunch at home yourself. (excuse me, but a box of mac and cheese is, like, two or three dollars, and in my house that is lunch for about three days. Throw in a piece of fruit and a cheese stick and I still think it won't top $2.)

But so many questions remain. Where do they deliver? Does every school participate? What is the reaction of the school administrators about having to take custody of the lunches? The link from treehugger.com doesn't answer a lot of these issues. But for all of us who spend a lot of time preparing our kids' lunches, the idea is at least intriguing.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 12:09 PM | Permalink
                       

 I've always considered DC a fairly green city. There are so many parks and it's very walkable.

In the three years that I lived there, I never felt the need to have a car -- the Metro goes almost everywhere, and the bus goes where the Metro doesn't. Everyone I knew who had a car complained bitterly about parking tickets, traffic circles, one-way streets and rush-hour bottlenecks.

But now DC Mayor Adrian Fenty wants to make the car-less life an official policy. So he's declaring Sept. 18 car free day.   You can register on the web site and pledge that, for that one day, you won't drive. With about a third of the city's residents taking public transportation anyway, the impact isn't clear. But it will give those meter maids a little less to do.

Perhaps more significantly, Fenty is naming a Green-Collar Jobs Advisory Council. The group is charged with helping to enforce a new law that, by 2012, requires all buildings larger than 50,000 square feet to be built "green." And therein lie the jobs -- many people will be needed to build these structures.

.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 11:29 AM | Permalink
                       

We already know global warming is melting glaciers and washing away islands.  Now we learn it might break our hearts, too -- literally.

This Associated Press story from Austria reports that leading cardiologists, including the chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins, believe that rising temperatures will cause more cardiac arrests and hardening of the arteries.

"The hardening of the heart's arteries is like rust developing on a car," said Dr. Gordon Tomaselli, chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University. ''Rust develops much more quickly at warm temperatures and so does atherosclerosis,'' said Tomaselli, who is program chair at the American Heart Association.

In higher temperatures, we sweat to get rid of heat. During that process, blood is sent to the skin where temperatures are cooler, which opens up the blood vessels. In turn, the heart rate rises and blood pressure drops. That combination can be dangerous for older people and those with weakened cardiovascular systems.

This theory backs up another study released by Environment Maryland, an advocacy group, this week, that predicts that heat-related deaths in the Baltimore area will rise from about 48 a year to 141 a year by the middle of the century. 

The odd thing is: this report suggests that in cities that are already warm, like Miami, people don't often die of heat-related illnesses.  That's perhaps because their bodies and lives are accustomed to warm weather.  But at some point, if Baltimore becomes as warm as Miami, won't we all become accustomed to hot weather?  Wouldn't the number of deaths eventually drop off as more people get used to the heat or buy air conditioners?

Any thoughts? 

Posted by Tom Pelton at 3:04 PM | Permalink
                       

California votes to protect endangered condors. And why not? Wouldn't you want to help this beautiful bird?

Posted by Rona Kobell at 4:30 PM | Permalink
                       

The EPA's inspector general released its report today on which federal wastewater facilities are complying with the clean water laws. There are 100 federal facilities that discharge into the bay, nine of them considered major.

Only four are officially not in compliance with the law. They are: Fort Indiantown Gap in Pennsylvania, the Washington Aquaduct in D.C., The U.S. Marine Corps base in Quantico, Va., and the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Indian Head.

Quantico has fixed its problems, which were due to a waterline break. Indiantown Gap just finished upgrades to its wastewater treatment facilities.The aquaduct upgrades will be done by 2009.

And Indian Head? They're disputing the EPA's findings, contending that the laboratory analyst "failed to follow Standard Operating Proceduces" during testing. EPA said it is sitll waiting on a stormwater management plan from the Charles County military base.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 3:04 PM | Permalink
                       

Last week, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation named this blog on their list of favorites as part of BlogDay...thanks!

Posted by Rona Kobell at 5:48 PM | Permalink
                       

The leader of the world's largest church is urging Catholics to become environmentalists.

During an open-air mass in Loreto, Italy, on Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI told 500,000 worshippers that it was "up to them to save the planet from development that had often ignored 'nature's delicate equilibrium,'" according to an Associated Press report.

"Before it's too late, we need to make courageous choices that will recreate a strong alliance between man and Earth," Benedict said in his homily. "We need a decisive 'yes' to care for creation and a strong commitment to reverse those trends that risk making the situation of decay irreversible."

USA Today reported earlier this year that the Vatican planned to become the first "carbon neutral" sovereign state by planting trees to absorb its carbon dioxide emissions.

In May, Catholic Online reported that the Vatican believes that "Global warming threatens world’s security, existence." 

But the Catholic Church also opposes limits on carbon dioxide that might impede the economic growth of poor countries.  And it is against artificial means of birth control, which could limit greenhouse gas emissions by limiting the Earth's population.

Is it possible for the Catholic Church to fight global warming without urging action against population growth? 

Evangelical Christians are bitterly split over global warming, The New York Times has reported.

In Feburary, 86 evangelical Christian leaders decided to back a major initiative to fight global warming, saying "millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors," The Times reported.

"Some of the nation's most high-profile evangelical leaders, however, have tried to derail such action. Twenty-two of them signed a letter in January declaring, "Global warming is not a consensus issue." Among the signers were Charles W. Colson, the founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; and Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention."

What role should religion play in the debate over climate change? Readers, are any of you hearing messages from your pastors or rabbis on the issue?

READER LOU LINTEREUR in L.A. makes the argument that Catholic leaders have always preached against greed and consumption.  He writes: "Perhaps if more people actually followed the teachings of the Catholic Church we would not have cultures of hyper-consumption that are behind the fashionable global warming hypotheses."

The first part of his answer makes sense, about the culture of hyperconsumption.  But the second I don't understand.  Why would a culture of consumption want to push a global warming "hypothesis?"  Greedy consumers may have to change their ways -- buying less, wasting less and driving less -- to fight global warming.  So it would cramp their style to pollute less.  It wouldn't bother a modest, humble person to use less energy.

I put the question to Lou. He responded that he believes that global warming is happening, but he doesn't believe that science has yet proven that human industry is the reason for this climate change.  (On this point, I urge him to read a report by a committee of more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded in Feburary that it is more than 90 percent certain that people are in fact the cause of global warming). 

Lou continues: "You are correct that business has an incentive to encourage a culture of consumption. You are also correct that greedy people will not want to change their behaviors for the benefit of others. You are correct a third time when you conclude that the Catholic Church is on the right side of both of these issues. Unfortunately, the Church has a growing problem of so-called "cafeteria Catholics." These are people who choose the Catholic teachings that are the most convenient to follow and ignore the rest. So the problem is not with the teachings of the Church, including its position on birth control, but with a greedy, selfish culture that refuses live according to God's will."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 5:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

We know that the crabs are moving north. Now comes word that pelicans, which generally don't go north of Tilghman Island, have been seen at Fort McHenry. The reason? They're chasing saltwater-loving fish, and with the salt line further north, the fish are further north. And so are the birds.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 5:25 PM | Permalink
                       

We had a story in today's paper about the Bay Commission's ethanol report, which was released today. In short, the report says ethanol could be very bad for the bay if we just produce more and more corn, but could work out well for the region if we take the need for biofuels as an opportunity. That means figuring out a way to plant more switchgrass, and making biofuel out of plant matter.

I've heard from quite a few readers today. One said ethanol is a "total scam" and doesn't get us anywhere because we burn so much fossil fuel creating it.

Another person thinks it's the greatest thing, and still another is terrified because of what is happening in Brazil.

And still another reader -- a longtime bay watcher and advocate - pointed out that farmers aren't going to grow switchgrass without some sort of incentive for obvious reasons -- there's no established market for it. This same person said the report is typical of bay agency literature- paint a rosy picture of something because that's what the farmers want. Interesting feedback, all of it.

The commission's whole report can be found here.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 5:17 PM | Permalink
                       

Animal rights groups have launched an attack on global warming activist Al Gore. Their claim: a vegetarian diet would be more effective in reducing greenhouse gases than switching from SUV's to cleaner cars.

"You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist," said Matt A. Prescot, manager of vegan campaigns for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, in an article in The New York Times.

PETA is raising billboards across the country showing a cartoon of a flabby Al Gore munching on a drumstick with the tagline "Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat
Is the #1 Cause of Global Warming."

The personal attack -- which mocks Gore's weight and lifestyle -- angered some environmentalists, who respect the former vice president for speaking out eloquently on the climate change crisis.  And the debate between groups sometimes lumped together under the label "liberal" has underscored an underlying truth, according to activists on both sides. Animal rights crusaders are not the same as environmentalists.  Just because someone is passionate about the rights of house cats does not mean they will fight suburban sprawl. They may well live in the 'burbs.  And just because someone lobbies for protecting the Chesapeake Bay from sewage doesn't mean they don't hunt deer.

Politically, the question is: Would it be easier to get Americans to give up SUV's and McMansions?  Or steak and milk?  Either lifestyle change might be difficult.  People have been eating meat for millions of years, ever since there have been people.  We've been burning coal and oil for about two centuries.

RiverStone posted this defense of Gore recently on the blog Democratic Underground blog:

"Though I appreciate the point that raising animals for food contributes to greenhouse gases more than cars; I don't agree with their tactic to target Al Gore with billboards. Chicken in hand or not, Al's education and fight to reduce global warming not only serves to make the world more habitable over the long haul for humans, but animals as well (ask any polar bear). It seems very hypocritical for PETA to attack a man so dedicated to making the world a better place for ALL living things! I do appreciate some of PETA's goals, though here they want to shoot the wrong messenger. I think this billboard tactic will back fire - don't pick on Al!"

Here is PETA'S position, from a press release they sent out last week:

"Why is PETA picking on Gore? The meat industry is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions, but Gore has repeatedly refused even to discuss the issue. Consider what scientists are saying:

* In its recent report "Livestock's Long Shadow-Environmental Issues and Options," the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. The report goes on to say that meat is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."

* Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

Here is the University of Chicago report.

Some conservatives are using PETA's campaign as a tool to discredit the whole idea that Americans should do something about global warming.  Bloggers on the right have already started the mockery.  They're trying to conflate the animal rights campaigners with environmentalists.

Here is what the blogger Drudge wrote on a web site called A Little More to the Right: "I find myself compelled to defend the wacko Al Gore on this. The arrogant fringe Leftwing suppose to tell society what to eat, how to dress, what to think, and how to talk. They even target their own wackos. Have at it, I guess. I’ll leave it to Al discover the inconvenient truth that his political party has become completely unhinged…."

Is PETA the Democratic party? 

Most would say it's tiny part, at best. Like the Log Cabin Republicans are a part of the Republican Party.  But the idea that the battle against global warming may involve changes in diet is not just the opinion of a few in the animal rights crowd.

For one, Gore believes it.  On Page 317 of the book version of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore suggests: "modify your diet to include less meat."

Locally, we have Maryland-based author Mike Tidwell, who founded the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. He wrote in his recent book "The Ravaging Tide" that the number one source of methane (a greenhouse gas) worldwide is animal agriculture. "Every year, livestock raised for human consumption release nearly 90 million tons of methane as part of their natural digestive processes....So any nation serious about fighting global warming would patriotically encourage a reduction in animal meat consumption in favor of farm-raised fish and savery, soy-based meat substitutes."

Which leaves the question: Would some Americans, especially those who live inland -- in cold Midwestern states, for example, distant from the coastal liberal enclaves most vulerable to "the ravaging tide" -- prefer global warming to a soy-based diet?

Readers, what do you think about all this?

RESPONSE from reader Sandra Sittler:  Hasn't anyone heard yet about some special ingredient or medicine that can be given to cows to reduce massively their gas??? They are doing this in Germany, and it is real. Maybe our agencies should look into it. They called it in one article Moolanta, however I think that part was a joke. But if it was put in the feed of cows across the world, that would greatly keep down the global warming.

Reader Kim Ethridge provided this link to an article that ran in The Guardian of London about efforts to change cow diet to reduce global warming gases.

Which raises another rather impolite issue.... Would changing human diets increase our own output of methane?  If more people became vegans, would they have to eat more beans to get enough protein? Would this produce blowback, so to speak?

Posted by Tom Pelton at 11:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (3)