Posted by Rona Kobell at 8:00 AM in Local travel | Permalink
                       

I just returned from a brief family holiday in Las Vegas, where a surprising number of people spend Christmas.  While strolling along the Strip Monday taking in the sights, I was intrigued by the abundant use of water in the landscaping decorating the casino hotels.  Isn't this the desert? I wondered.  And isn't southern Nevada in the grip of a long-term drought?  

Yes, and yes, are the answers.  Las Vegas gets its water from the Colorado River, which is enduring its worst drought on record.  Lake Mead, the reservoir for the region, is about 100 feet lower than it was in 2000.  The Southern Nevada Water Authority has imposed water-use restrictions and promotes water efficiency and "water-smart" landscaping to ease the region's thirst.

Outside the Venetian Hotel, with its faux canals, I saw plaques explaining that the water features there are in compliance with official drought restrictions.  The ornate fountains were dripping rather than spraying, and the pool-clear water on which the gondolas floated appeared only a few feet deep - perhaps another sign of restraint.  I didn't see any signs about water-use restrictions outside the nearby Mirage, with its gushing waterfall and big, manmade lake.

Extravagant as the casinos' water use seems, it's apparently only a small fraction of what's consumed in Vegas, one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country.  The population increases by nearly 70,000 residents a year in an area that receives only about 3.5 inches of rain annually.  Residential development, particularly sprinkling or irrigating lawns, gobbles up far more water. 

Conservation efforts have paid off, as consumptive water use has declined significantly in the region.  But with no letup of the drought in sight, some officials are pushing a plan to ease reliance on the Colorado by pumping water from underground aquifers to the north.  Only problem is, ranchers and farmers rely on those aquifers for irrigation, setting up a tug-of-war over the precious resource between people and agriculture.

A recent study by the Pacific Institute found, though, that while Las Vegas has taken steps to use water more efficiently, it's falling behind other Western cities in cutting wasteful uses of water.  Greater conservation efforts could defer or eliminate the need for new water supplies.  

Growth continues apace in Las Vegas, meanwhile.  My hotel TV devoted one entire channel to a glowing promotion for the new CityCenter project, a 76-acre "city within a city" being developed by MGM Mirage.  The $7.4 billion project is being designed to meet LEED certification by the U.S. Green Building Council.   So it goes.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

Posted by Rona Kobell at 1:33 PM | Permalink
                       

For a few hours yesterday, it seemed an eerie peace had broken out on Capitol Hill.  It was almost as if the greens and the auto lobby were holding hands and singing in unison about the glories of higher fuel efficiency standards. But it was like a total eclipse -- rare and fleeting.   By sunset, the knives were out again.  Perhaps it was a hallucination -- or an illusion.   

In the morning, President Bush signed a bill boosting fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 32 years.  And it wasn't just a little -- it was a meaty 40 percent hike, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.  Both Sierra Club and General Motors sent out press releases praising the same bill.  How often does that happen?  Greenpeace and the White House appeared to be on the same page. 

Carl Pope, director of the Sierra Club, said in a press release: "As it becomes ever clearer that urgent action is needed to combat global warming, this bill will make real progress by achieving a quarter of the cuts we need by 2030 if we are to avert the most catastrophic effects of a warming climate."

Rick Wagoner, Chairman of General Motors, said: "GM commends the Congress and President for passage of an energy bill. The new fuel economy standards within the bill set a tough, national target that GM will strive to meet."

But if you looked carefully at the rhetoric about the Energy Bill, which also mandated the production of more ethanol, you could sense that the Republicans and Democrats were focused on different things.  The Republicans and General Motors didn't talk about global warming -- they talked about "energy independence."  Regardless of whether they believe that climate change is a problem, they wanted to reduce the amount of American cash flowing to hostile oil-producing governments in Venezuela and Iran, for national security reasons.  The Democrats also said they want to reduce dependence on foreign fuel -- but they were singing a different tune, mostly about climate change.

By night fall, it became clear just how different the songs were.  At 6:15 p.m. the public relations agents for the Bush EPA were frantically calling reporters across the country, informing them of a hastily-arranged telephone press conference with EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.  During the 6:30 p.m. teleconference, Johnson said that his agency will block the efforts by California, Maryland and 15 other states to create programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 30 percent by 2016.   Johnson suggested that Bush signing the Energy Bill was enough -- and that his agency didn't have to do anything more to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  He said his agency would not grant Califnoria's request for a waiver that would allow it and the other states proceed with their "clean cars" programs. Johnson said a federal standard was preferable to a "patchwork" of different state regulations. (But this was misleading -- the alternative idea, approved by Congress in 1967, is two separate auto emission standards, California's and the federal standards, and states for decades have had the option to choose between them).

What really happened here?  Why would the President act green in the morning -- and then undercut that image by nightfall?  Perhaps it was just as Bush's EPA Administrator said -- that the administration felt that federal standards were better in principal for a universal problem like climate change. But that doesn't square with the Republican party's long-standing position that state rights should be respected.

Maybe the president was essentially forced to sign the fuel efficiency standards, because they were backed by Democratic-led majorities in the House and Senate.   But he wasn't forced to grant the EPA waiver to allow California and Maryland to move forward with climate change programs. So he did only want he absolutely had to do, and no more.

David Doniger, climate center policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it wasn't necessarily the case that Bush was forced to sign the Energy Bill, because he faced a veto-proof majority. Bush had threatened to veto an earlier version of the bill, which would have mandated more spending on alternative energy like wind power, and the killing of tax breaks for big oil companies.

But Bush backed the final version of the bill, because it had been weakened to his liking by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Reid knew he didn't have the two thirds majority necessary to override a veto, and so he removed many of the parts of the bill most objectionable to Bush.  Bush didn't get everything he wanted, however -- for example, the president wanted to have a provision in the bill that would have subordinated California's pollution control regulations to the federal Department of Transportation. Reid and Congress rejected this.

But Bush accepted the tightened fuel economy standards -- although Doniger said this was more of a passive acceptance of legislation that was driven by House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat (and former Baltimorean), as well as Reid and others.

So why would both decisions be announced in the same day, as part of the same news cycle? Doniger speculated that the Bush administration had a tacit deal with the auto industry. "It looks like there was a quid pro quo...they (the Bush administration) said you're going to have to live with the fuel economy standards... But we are going to keep you from having to live with the (tougher) California standards."

The White House asserted that Bush had been pushing Congress for the increased fuel efficiency standards.

In fact, during Bush's last State of the Union address,the President made a proposal for a 20 percent reduction in the use of gasoline over the next 10 years. The next day, he said translated to an increase in fuel economy by four pecent a year.  But Doniger noted that the Democrats did almost all of the lobbying to pass the bill, and Bush didn't twist any Republican arms to get them to vote for the fuel efficiency standards.  "They didn't lift a finger to get it done," Doniger said of the White House.

This isn't the White House's version of events.  According to a Bush administration press release, the President deserves credit for launching the idea in his January "State of the Union" address. "The bill the President signed ....responds to the challenge of his bold 'Twenty in Ten' initiative, which President Bush announced in January.  It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing our dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change."

Most observers agree that the program by California, Maryland, New York and 14 other states would have reduced more greenhouse gases quicker than the federal program.  But the federal program will help, too.

Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland, an advocacy group, said he thinks voters will come away more repelled that the President denied the state initiatives than happy that he signed the federal law.

"I think its disasterous for the Republican party that the preident is fighting all these clean energy policies," Heavner said. "I really think its surprising."

But not everybody likes the increased fuel efficiency standards.  They will certainly mean smaller cars in the future -- and some Americans like big old gas guzzling SUV's and Hummers.

The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute sent out a press release warning: “American families now face the prospect of paying more for food, gas, and vehicles... Under the guise of addressing our energy problems, the Congress and President have made them worse. The new law includes an increase in fuel economy regulations for cars and light trucks, making a program that already contributes to thousands of highway deaths a year even more deadly. The federal rules for new vehicles force carmakers to downsize their new vehicles, making them less crashworthy in the case of an accident."

This safety argument doesn't seem to square with other reports that SUV's tend to flip over more often. And while big trucks may be more safe to those inside their armored walls, they may not be so safe to the drivers of regular sized cars that happen to get crushed beneath the high bumpers of the big trucks.

Any thoughts on this debate, dear readers?

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

I have to say, the Town That Fooled The British has never been one of may favorite bay places.

St. Michael's is beautiful, no doubt. I love visiting the Chesapeake Maritime Museum and its signature lighthouses, and walking along the river and watching the boats go by. it may be a bay cliche, but it's a pretty cliche.

The problem is that it's just too expensive. Meals, lodging, shopping -- it's all beyond my budget. It's fun to browse, but when even the coffee seems expensive, it's not that much fun.

But the good news is that the crowds thin in the winter, and the prices drop. And it's still possible to glimpse some of the town's favorite residents: The Cheneys and the Rumsfelds, who are known to enjoy the local eateries.

I've heard tale that one of St. Michael's finest properties, The Inn at Perry Cabin, has some incredible winter mid-week special. But it's not listed on their web site.

 The Five Gables Inn and Spa has winter specials listed on their site, though it doesn't specify what they are. The Old Brick Inn has all kinds of specials, including throwing in dinner at 208 Talbot with a two-night stay. And the cottages at Two Swan Inn are always moderately priced, at least in comparison to the other places.

The Old Brick even encourages the celebration of your babymoon-- apparently a trip before the baby is born to celebrate the birth. I always thought the birth was celebration enough, but nevertheless, I would have liked to have known there was such a thing so I could have convinced my husband to take me to St. Michaesl (or, perhaps, Hawaii) to celebrate...but I digress.

There are so many well-known restaurants in St. Michaels: The Town Dock is pretty famous; there's the french Bistro St. Michaels, and the afroementioned 208 Talbot. I think most are known for their seafood.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 12:15 PM in Local travel | Permalink
                       

I had a story in today's paper about the growing scientific evidence that feeding antibiotics to hogs in large industrial-style feeding operations can breed antibiotic resistant bacteria that can escape into the air, streams and drinking wells.  These supergerms can threaten the health of neighbors and spread in the community, according to researchers at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

Even more dangerous is the possibility that overusing these important drugs, by routinely feeding them to farm animals, can make bacteria evolve so that the drugs become useless when doctors need them to save human lives, according to Dr. Robert Lawrence, director of the Center for a Livable Future at Hopkins.

Just north of the Maryland state line, Mark and Diane Thomas (below) and their neighbors have called a University of Maryland public health expert to testify against the expansion of a local hog farm tonight (12/18/07) during a hearing of the Delta, Pa., zoning board.

The Thomas family claims that they became ill with headaches, an infection, diarrhea and other digestive problems after their neighbor spread hog manure fertilizer on the fields around their home. They say it contaminated their drinking water and created such a powerful odor they couldn't open their windows.  Now this neighbor's family is proposing to increase the size of their farm, from 450 hogs to 4,400 hogs -- and the Thomases are trying to stop them.  The neighbor, David Gemmill, says the waste from his hogs hasn't harmed the Thomas' water or made them sick. And he argues that the spreading of manure he's doing today is no different than what livestock operators have done for generations.

The University of Maryland public health expert, Amy Sapkota, disagrees.  

Sapkota argues that the confinement of large numbers of drug-dosed animals into buildings called "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" (or CAFO's) has created a new public health threat.   Sapkota co-authored studies in Environmental Health and Perspectives in 2005 (read it here) and 2007 (click here) that documented antibiotic resistant bacteria escaping into the air from a local hog farm, and also running off into nearby streams and underground water supplies. She points to a study in North Carolina, that found neighbors of these large hog operations reported more headaches, coughing, diarrhea and other digestive problems than the general population. 

"It's not just here (in Delta, Pa.) but neighbors of CAFO's across the country have reported similar symptoms," Sapkota said.

There are 67,300 hog farms in the U.S. with 104 million pigs.  The most are in Iowa and other midwestern states, as well as North Carolina.  But Pennsylvnia ranks as the nation's 12th biggest pork producing state, with about a million pigs on 3,100 farms.  Maryland is 33rd on the list, with 34,000 hogs on 400 farms. 

But the problem isn't just in pigs -- it's in chickens, too. That is significant for Maryland, which has a large poultry industry on the Eastern Shore.  A study published yesterday by Lance Price, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, found that half of 16 poultry industry workers surveyed in Maryland and Virginia were carrying e-coli bacteria (in their intestines) resistant to the antibiotic gentamycin. This made them 33 times more likely to carry these germs than the general population.  Gentamycin is commonly injected into chicks while they're still growing in their eggs.

"Nontherapeutic antibiotics should be banned from all animals," Price said.  "We are really on the brink of a public health nightmare, and if we don't start preserving the antibiotics we have we are on a collision course.... One of the greatest threats to public health today is the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria."

 Microbiologist Lance Price (third from left)

Julie DeYoung, vice president of corporate communications for Maryland-based Perdue Farms, the nation's third largest poultry company, confirmed that her company routinely injects chicks with the antibiotic gentamycin while they are still growing in their eggs.  She said the company gives the drug along with vaccines to prevent disease, with the antibiotic functioning as a way to stop any infections that might happen during the injection process.

"All gentamycin and other products...are used as approved by the FDA," said DeYoung.  "Yes, we, like much of the industry, may use it (gentamycin) with vaccine that's injected into eggs."

She added, in her opinion, Price's study doesn't prove anything because the sample size was so small.  "According to our medical officer, gentamycin resistant bacteria is not a public health concern," DeYoung said.

That may be the industry's conclusion.  But other scientists have questioned the whole practice of routinely giving antibiotics to farm animals.

For example, a 1999 article by Dr. Kare Molbak in the New England Journal of Medicine recommended that the use of antibiotics in food animals "should be restricted" after a pig farm was found to be the source of an outbreak in Denmark of difficult-to-treat salmonella bacteria with antibiotic resistance.

A study published in August by University of Illinois researcher Tony Yannarelli in the journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology found that feeding the antibiotic tetracycline to hogs created drug resistant germs that were passed like batons from one bacterial species to another, with the supergerms escaping into ground water. 

To hog farmers like David Gemmill and his family, such talk about germs from pigs doesn't make any sense.  He said he's never gotten ill from his hogs, and he doubts that any of his neighbors have, either.

"I think it's just off the wall to believe that," Gemmill said of hog bacteria spreading.  "My grandfather lived to be 93 years old, and he was never in a hospital a day in his life....My family has been farming here for over 150 years.  I am the fourth generation and my son is the fifth generation...We've dealt with manure before and it's not a problem."

Gemmill, 54, said the expansion from 450 hogs to 4,400 hogs is a matter of economic necessity for his family.  The 300 acres of grain they grow don't bring in enough money for the family to survive without second jobs.  He drives school buses on the side.  His son, Eric, 24, wants to run this expanded hog operation so he can continue the family's tradition into the next generation.

"If the boy is going to stay here on the family farm, he's got to produce more income or he can't do it," David Gemmill said.

David Gemmill said he tries not to use antibiotics -- except when his pigs are sick. But the pork company his family may sign a contract with, Hershey Ag., uses antibiotics in all pigs during their first four weeks of life.

Meanwhile, the Thomases, who live next to the Gemmill barn with 450 pigs, portray themselves as also a family with a farming background that is facing hardship. They moved to their home 2.5 years ago, not knowing that there was a hog farm next door.

Mark Thomas, a Major in the Maryland Air National Guard, served in the Iraq war recently.  He returned to find his family at war with pollution.  As the hog manure was spread on the fields around their home, they found they could no longer drink or cook with their water. The levels of nitrates (a pollutant often from fertilizer) in their drinking well doubled to more than twice the federal health limit.    Meanwhile, both Mark, 45,  and wife Diane, 43, as well as their children, aged 11 and 6, kept getting sick with diarrhea and other digestive problems.

"The smell was horrific, and it gets in your clothes and hair," Diane Thomas said.  "You can't open the windows.  You can't drink the water.  It's very offensive, and sometimes you get these bad headaches."

Mark Thomas grew up on farms and moved from rural Harford County, Maryland, to Pennsylvania, in part so the family could have more space to ride their horses.  But the pig operation next door puts their quality of life at risk, he said.

"We thought, something has to be causing all this illness," he said. "We are not some urbanites who thought it was vogue to go live in a farming area... I have no problem with farmers, farming or the smell of farms...but it doesn’t seem fair to me put everybody else’s health at risk."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                       

After a stall last month, the U.S. Senate recently voted in favor of about $200 million in additional funding over five years to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

The money -- part of a revision of the federal Farm Bill -- will go to farm conservation practices, such as payments to compensate farmers for not using fertilizer while planting crops in the fall, the creation of fertilizer-free buffer strips along streams, and the construction of fences to keep livestock out of streams.

Advocates with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, who have been lobbying for the money, say this is good news for bay cleanup.  And they say it's a change in direction.  This blog reported back on Nov. 25 that the increased funding had become stalled in the Senate.  "Political Gridlock pollutes the bay," was the headline back then.

But don't cash the check -- it ain't over yet.  First, the Senate version of the legislation must now be reconciled with the U.S. House version. The House in July voted to approve an additional  $520 million over five years to reduce fertilizer from farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Both the House and Senate appear to be headed in the direction of more bay funding.  But the thornier issue is a potential veto threat by President Bush.  If he decides to veto the additional spending -- perhaps in a belated attempt to make his administration look fiscally conservative -- then the revised Farm Bill would need at least 67 votes in the Senate to override the veto.  More Senators than that voted for the additional money last week. But a Bush veto threat could potentially swing the votes of some Republican Senators, killing the initiative.

John Surrick, spokesman for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the vote on Friday by the Senate was a big victory.  "It would be a major step toward reducing pollution, even at the smaller figure approved by the Senate," he said. "Conservation funding in agriculture is the most cost effecitve way to pay for the removal of nutrient pollution from the bay."

The next step: the staffs from the House and Senate are going to meet during the holiday recess and try to hammer out their differences over the Farm Bill.

The foundation's Federal Affairs Director, Doug Siglin, praised Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, both Democrats, for helping to move the legislation forward.

"We look forward to working with Senate and House negotiators to ensure that the final bill promotes water quality improvements in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to the greatest possible degree," Siglin said.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

A few days ago, I linked to Angus Phillips' and Candy Thomson's columns on oysters. Now The Washington Times' Gene Mueller is weighing in.

Here's his lead:

Ken Hastings of the Southern Maryland chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association recently attended a two-day workshop on the future of the Chesapeake Bay's oyster population.

Afterward, he said in complete wonder, "I didn't think it was possible, but [this] workshop may have topped [them all]. It is amazing to me that there is much knowledge on the subject of oysters with so many brilliant people working on it and we can still be so totally screwed up."

Mueller then criticizes the state's yellow perch regulations, and shares with us an email he sent to DNR. It's not clear whether they ever wrote back....

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:27 AM | Permalink
                       

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on Jan. 30 and 31 on whether the state should allow developers to build wind turbines in state forests, a proposal that is being advanced by a Pennsylvania company.

U.S. Wind Force is asking Gov. Martin O’Malley’s administration for leases in the Potomac State Forest and Savage River State Forest in Western Maryland so it can clear about 400 mountaintop acres and raise about 100 wind turbines. The machines would be about 40 stories tall and visible from some of the region’s most popular recreation areas, including Deep Creek Lake and the Savage River Reservoir (above).

The state is considering whether to put these leases up for public bidding. But first state must decide on a broader policy about whether to allow turbines owned by private companies on public lands at all, officials said.

"Maryland is committed to developing clean, renewable energy sources that support a healthy environment," said DNR Secretary John Griffin. "However, our public lands belong to Maryland’s citizens and it is critical they have a voice in a decision making process that could forever change our rural landscape."

The first meeting will be from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Jan 30 at the Garrett College Auditorium, 687 Mosser Road in McHenry. The second meeting will be from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Jan. 31 at the Arundel Center, 44 Calvert Street in Annapolis.

U.S. Wind Force has estimated that the leases could bring Maryland about $30 million over 20 years, although others have suggested the final figure could be significantly smaller than that after lease negotiations.

Advocates promote the wind turbines as a clean source of power and a way to fight global warming. But detractors say the windmills will be too unreliable as a source of electricity and will mar the scenic mountains of Western Maryland.

Frank Maisano, a spokesman for wind developers who also represents coal-fired power companies, said: "Not only will (wind power) provide essential environmental benefits for the state, the nation and the world, it will provide a great deal of economic development and tax revenue for the communities of Western Maryland.  In addition, the revenues from the few industrial sites on public land will also provide a state coffers with much-needed funding for improvements to state lands, controlling gypsy moth populations, preserving other properties as wilderness areas or for whatever purpose DNR deems necessary."

Among those who will be at the hearings protesting the development plan will be John Bambacus, former state senator from western Maryland from 1983 to 1991 and mayor of Frostburg from 1994 to 2002. He said he's going to ask friends and neighbors to attend the meetings and demand a ban on wind turbines in state parks or forests.

"My environmental frients are very much in favor of wind farms as a means to energy independence. But I use the analogy of what coal companies do with mountaintop destruction, where they take the mountains down and say they're making our nation more energy independent... It doesn't make any sense... We are destroying resources that can never be put back together again," said Bambacus, a former U.S. Marine and professor.

"The reason most people come to Westsern Maryland, either to live here to visit, is because of the scenic beauty of the mountains in Garrett and Allegany counties. It's kinda all we have. And I feel very strongly that, for one reason or another, things often occur up here in Western Maryland -- like the construction of prisons -- because it's the path of least resistance."

"Once you put these things up, you are going to destroy a resource that can never be replaced," said Bambacus. "It's very troubling to me that the governror is even considering this action."

On the other side of the debate is reader Barbara Glick of Columbia, who wrote a letter to The Sun. "Unless we get really serious about developing clean, efficient energy in this state there will be little left of our natural environment to enjoy.   Unchecked global warming is
projected to bring one to three foot sea-level rise to the Chesapeake Bay, which will doom
many wetlands and coastal tourism assets.   According to the U.S. EPA, warming could also reduce major agricultural yields by 40 percent in Maryland. And heat wave deaths in a much warming world would become public-health enemy No. 1, according to leading researchers at Johns Hopkins
School of Public Health. We shouldn't put wind farms everywhere, and no one's suggesting that. But Gov. Martin O'Malley is correct to consider approval of 100 windmills in the Savage River State Forest, an area already routinely logged by private timber companies. If we want to save these forests and our state as a whole, we need properly sited wind power now."

Alan Cohen of Catonville, a volunteer for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, is one of the members of that group who supports the development project. "Wind power is clean, fights
global warming, and helps keep Maryland's tax dollars in the state instead of shipping them
to West Virginia for energy generated in part by devastating "mountaintop removal" coal
mining - which is the most ruinous way I know of, at least in this country, to get energy.....  We're not talking about pristine wilderness here. We're talking about state land that ready is
regularly logged and with trees already stunted by acid rain from coal-fired electricity use.
 This same forest area is now vulnerable to the coming megadroughts and wildfires of global
warming unless we switch to responsibly sited wind farms."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 5:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

China has committed to follow the U.S. and impose mandatory reductions on global warming gases if America, the world's biggest polluter, acts first, Senator John Kerry said after meeting with Chinese representatives.

"We have to do a 'follow us,' not a 'you first,' Kerry said of America's leadership role during a telephone news conference in Washington today (12/11/07). "If we do a 'follow us,' it's not going to happen....  up until now our absense has been an excuse for a lot of countries to not do everything they could do."

The Massachusetts Democrat and former Presidential candidate recently flew back from Bali, Indonesia, where he was the only member of U.S. Congress to participate in talks on global warming with leaders from around the world. The Bush administration's chief climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, is talking with dozens of other officials with the stated goal of developing a plan for what the world should do about climate change after the 1997 Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. 

Although European nations, Japan and other countries signed the 10-year-old Kyoto agreement to impose modest limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, America and China did not sign.

And now these two economic giants remain obstacles to the next phase of global action on reducing the pollution, said Kerry. Other countries, especially in Europe, take the issue more seriously.  "I picked up an increased sense of urgency from the scientists and a strong consensus to have a mandate that comes out of Bali that is strong broad and clear and adheres to the science, and regrettably our country is aligned with very few couties, including Sauda Arabia and Canada, which are really restraining that effort," Kerry said today 
  
 "They seem to be limiting the conference to its most narrow purpose, a road map of the most limited kind rather than a road map that etablishes a legacy for the Bush adminstration," Kerry said. "It's an opportunity that has a potential to be missed."

Kerry noted that China -- which doesn't have a very green reputation -- in some ways has already been more progressive than the U.S., for example by creating more mass transit and imposing a 36 mpg fuel efficiency requirement on their vehicles.  The U.S Congress is only now debating increasing fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020, and it's not clear this will pass.

Earlier this year, the Bush administration argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that it doesn't want to use its authority under federal clean air laws to regulate greenhouse gases.  One reason is the administration does't want to hurt American industries, or impose regulations that competitors in China, India and other rising countries do not face.

Meanwhile, Maryland has joined with 11 other Northeastern States in forming an alliance to reduce carbon dioxide pollution from power plants through a regional "cap and trade" system that penalizes polluters and rewards clean businesses.   Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley appointed an advisory task force, that has recommended that the state slash its global warming pollution by 90 percent by 2050 -- among the most ambitious goals in the country.

In the U.S. Senate, the committee that handles environmental legislation recently voted to advance a bill introduced by Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Warner that would create a national "cap and trade" system in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

Here are some recent report from the Associated Press on what's going on with international negotiations in Bali:

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent 

BALI, Indonesia - In a largely symbolic duel over numbers, the United States on Monday resisted efforts at the U.N. climate conference to suggest that upcoming negotiations consider a specific range of targets for sharp cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions.

A proposed text for the Bali conference's final document notes — in a nonbinding way — a widely accepted view that reductions of 25 to 40 percent in richer nations' emissions would be required by 2020, and even deeper cuts later, to head off the worst of global warming.

"It's important to give a clear signal that that's where industrialized countries intend to go," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters.

The European Union, which pushed for this mention of potential targets, has itself committed to 20 to 30 percent reductions below 1990 levels by 2020.

But the chief U.S. negotiator said that, because of "many uncertainties," raising such specific numbers would limit the scope of future talks.

"To start with a predetermined answer, we don't think is an appropriate thing to do," Harlan Watson said.

The U.S. is expected to win out, since Bali's decisions require consensus, and the final "Bali roadmap" is expected to be what has been long anticipated — a vague, broad mandate for two years of negotiations on an agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.

The 1997 pact requires 36 industrial nations to reduce carbon dioxide and other industrial, transportation and agricultural gases blamed for global warming by an average 5 percent below 1990 levels in the next five years.

The U.S. is the only major industrial nations to reject Kyoto. President Bush contended the emissions cuts would harm the U.S. economy, and should have been imposed on China, India and other fast-growing poorer economies.

The rest of the world hopes to enlist the United States in the next, post-Kyoto phase of internationally binding greenhouse-gas reductions. The change in U.S. administrations after next November's presidential election is expected to introduce a new attitude on climate change.

The talks here, in the second of two weeks, are expected to intensify with Tuesday's arrival of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has made climate his top priority, and Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, who reversed his country's stand and ratified the Kyoto Protocol last week.

U.S. Sen. John Kerry, a longtime supporter of action on climate change, flew into Bali for a day's rapid-fire meetings Monday, at which he told delegates he expects the January 2009 change at the White House to end the U.S. isolation on climate.

In an Associated Press interview, Kerry said he favored the mention of the 25-to-40 percent target range in the document to be adopted here Friday.

"I believe you need to be relatively specific in the context of what Kyoto has already set out," he said.

A spokeswoman for the main coalition of environmental groups here viewed the numbers dispute as central. "This will show whether governments are serious or not," said Jennifer Morgan.

But the 25-to-40-percent reference was included only in the nonbinding preamble of the "draft decision," and not in the decisional paragraphs, where such numbers would impose an obligation on negotiators to limit their discussions to that range.

In fact, the environmentalists' daily bulletin in Bali commented that it "believes that these numbers belong in the operative part of the text, not in the preamble."

The proposed text also includes a vague reference to emissions reductions by developing countries — the most important of which are big emitters China and India. In the upcoming negotiations, the willingness of such fast-developing nations to rein in the growth of their emissions will be key to winning agreement to deeper, binding reductions by richer nations.

--------

Report from today:

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Posted by Tom Pelton at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

From one of our readers, here's an ad that appeared in Roll Call. I suspect it's the kind of thing that plays better in Washington than anywhere else ... thanks to Ben for passing it along.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 2:25 PM | Permalink
                       

Neither is quite the yacht that former Gov. Ehrlich sold on ebay to save the state some money (he apparently wasn't much of a yachter) ... but Maryland's Department of Natural Resources is selling two boats.

"Now is the chance to get that boat you've always wanted," the auction site says.

Bidding for the first one, a flat-bottom with no motor, begins at $75.

The second one is a 1968 Monark Runabout with a trailer, going for a minimum bid of $150.

I don't know about you, but the boat I've always wanted costs a teensy bit more than that and comes with a motor, among other things. But hey, these are tough times.

You have to go to the Albert Powell Hatchery in Hagerstown (there's a hatchery in Hagerstown?) to pick them up. If you're interested, call Cathy Beachley at 301-791-4736.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 2:11 PM | Permalink
                       

Is there something in the water?

Two outdoor columnists are writing about the scarcity of oysters and what to do about it.

Here's Angus Phillips in The Post:

By the mid-1900s, as the resource grew scarcer and many bars were fished out, the catch fell to a more manageable 1 to 2 million bushels a year. Then disease, in the form of two natural waterborne pathogens, MSX and dermo, wreaked more havoc in the 1980s and the harvest dwindled precipitously. These days, Maryland watermen are lucky to catch 100,000 bushels a year; in 2004, the worst year on record, they landed 24,000 bushels.

If that weren't depressing enough, the fishery today is propped up by lavish government programs that artificially boost the catch as oyster larvae are hatched out and grown in sanctuaries, then transplanted to public oyster bars to be harvested as they grow near market size.

And here is our own Candy Thomson...

How can we be sure the state's oyster reserves are nothing but a make-work project for watermen? Let DNR tell you in its own words on its Web site: "A managed oyster reserve is a site where oyster spat are planted and grown specifically for the purpose of maximizing the economic value of the oysters for watermen. ... Reserve openings are focused during times of peak demand, such as around holidays, to further enhance their market value."

Gee, DNR, what are you giving the rest of us for Christmas?

Perhaps a better solution is coming. A group established by the legislature, the Oyster Advisory Commission, is preparing a report for lawmakers. Its next meeting is Dec. 20.

But even if the commission comes up with a bold plan of action, chances are the Legislature will water it down like a drink in a cheap bar and charge us extra.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

I am attempting to continue my somewhat erratic efforts to be a Chesapeake Bay tour guide.

 At the suggestion of our multi-media editor, I'm going to try to post these travel bits every Thursday, in order to give anyone who wants to go a little planning time. We'll call them "Local travel."

First, let me say that the winter is a great time to explore the Shore. When I visited Cambridge two weeks ago, I had one of the town's top bed and breakfasts all to myself...and I would venture that anywhere you go, it will be the same, especially if you're able to travel on a weeknight.

Why Cambridge? Well, this Dorchester County city sits on the Choptank, and its downtown is getting a facelift. There are at least four restaurants, three antique shops, several upscale boutiques and art galleries. Here's a list of all of them, courtesy of Main Street Cambridge, which has been working to breathe new life into the town. I particularly liked A Few of My Favorite Things, an eclectic store featuring chocolate, coffee, piggy banks and lots of flamingoes.

(For those looking for a bargain, they have two thrift shops. But act quickly: I saw a $5 plastic kitchen I wanted to buy for my daughter, but when I went back 1 hour later, it was gone.)

There is wireless internet for everyone downtown, and Main Street has put up these computer kiosks that tell you in real time what's happening around town and who is offering discounts on what, so you can decide to get a last-minute massage or stay overnight if a special becomes available.

Where to stay? Cambridge is known for the Hyatt, but I can never seem to get a rate quote of under $300, so I don't stay there much. And the Holiday Inn on Route 50 is certainly clean enough and probably a fine choice if you want a certain atmosphere. But I would recommend staying in the historic district so you can really take in this very walkable town.

I stayed at Cambridge House, a Bed and Breakfast on High Street, for a small fraction of what the Hyatt usually charges. The rooms had TVs, a great selection of magazines and charming innkeepers. The Mill Street Inn also looks very nice. Both are walkable to all attractions. Ask if they allow children; they might, even if their web site doesn't specify it.

What to do there? Shop, of course.  And there's the sailwinds park, which offers sweeping river views. There are also a few small museums. At the moment, I don't know of any place that rents boats, but with Cambridge surrounded by water, that seems like it would be a fine addition. And if you bring your own, there are many options.

The people of Cambridge have long been trying to coax people off of Route 50 and into their town. If you, like me, have often bypassed the place in your rush to get to the beach or some other place, you will likely be surprised at how much it has changed since your last visit. I sure was. The last time I was there was a couple of years ago, and there wasn't much happening.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 6:35 AM in Local travel | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

This picture is a bit dark, but at this top you can make out a row of wind turbines along a ridge.  This is a computer assisted simulation, courtesy of Pennsylvania-based U.S. Wind Force, of what their 40-story wind turbines might look like atop Meadow Mountain east of Grantsville in Western Maryland, as seen from the eastbound lanes of I-68.  Similar turbines already can be seen from the highway north of the Pennsylvania state line in Meyersdale.

I had a story in today's paper  about U.S. Wind Force's request to lease about 400 acres of state forests in Western Maryland from Gov. Martin O'Malley's admistration to build about 100 wind turbines, each about 400 feet tall. The northenmost point of the wind farms would be near I-68, as shown above, with the southern most extent southeast of Deep Creek Lane, near the West Virginia line.

The state could earn about $30 million over 20 years by renting out parts of Savage River State Forest and Potomac River State Forest, and the electricity generated could supply thousands of homes with clean power. (That is, when the wind blows).  Some critics question whether the large industrial machines would disrupt wildlife and spoil the attractiveness of some of Western Maryland's most beautiful places, including Savage River Reservoir and Deep Creek Lake.  There's also the question of whether public forest lands should be used for large construction projects by private industry. 

The O'Malley administration says it's still pondering the question.  I received a lot of sharp opinions about the debate today.   And I need to make one important correction: In my original story, I wrote that the project could bring the state $30 million to $40 million "per year." That's not true.  The figure (provided by the developers) was meant to refer to the 20 year life of the lease, not annually.  And today they called me back to indicate a better figure would be about $1.5 million a year for 20 years, or about $30 million.  Someone else I talked to suggested the final figure might be considerably lower -- but we'll see how it shakes out if lease negotiations even get underway.  

Here is some of the feedback I've received on the idea of building wind turbines in the state forests.

Author and climate change activist Mike Tidwell, founder of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (and a writer of great talent and passion) called me this morning to say my article was slanted.  He said my decision to quote frequent wind power critics Dan Boone and Ajax Eastman at great length made the article sound like the wind farms would bring nothing but destruction.  He suggested that my future articles point out that these state forests are already used for logging, which is also a use by private industry.  In addition, he said that climate change is already harming the ecosystem of the Appalachian highlands, and the state has an obligation to take action by creating clean energy before those scenic hilltops are ruined by global warming.

"I am proud to support US Wind Force ...in the development of new wind farms in Allegany and Garrett counties that will generate clean energy to our region and help to fight the adverse impact of global warming," Tidwell said in a letter sent to Gov. O'Malley. "Wind farms in Western Maryland give us a viable option to create reliable energy, which can help stabilize electricity price volatility in our region, but not at the expense of the environment.  Furthermore, the wind farms would provide a tremendous economic opportunity for the region."

Joe Shapiro, spokesman for Comptroller Peter Franchot, was concerned that I wrote in the article that Franchot was not available for comment (which is true, he wasn't) but I failed to print a quote from Shapiro. Meanwhile, I printed the quote from O'Malley's spokesman.  My apologies to Joe -- no slight intended to him or Franchot.  For the record, here's what Shapiro told me yesterday: Franchot "is examining this specific case and will be getting more details....The comptroller is committed to finding alternative forms of energy that are cost effective and environmentally friendly."

 John N. Bambacus, former mayor of Frostburg and state senator from Western Maryland, wrote an email that was highly critical of the idea of auctioning off state forests for the wind industry. He wrote in an email: "For those who believe 400 foot wind turbines in our pristine state forests are a good idea, may I suggest that you instead place them around the two beltways in central Maryland.  Why destroy our beautiful forests and mountaintops in Western Maryland?  After the coal companies and developers destroy what's left of our scenic heritage, what kind of legacy do we leave for our children?"

As a lawmaker, Bambaucus was the sponsor of a measure to create wildlands protections for Savage River State Forest and Green Ridge State Forest.

Reader Joe Joyner, of  Brookeville, Md., wrote: "Why do they have to destroy the forest on top of the mountain for this?  They can put up the wind farms off the coast line of the beaches for this type of activity.  The forest is shelter for the animals also food source, and they produce air to breath. So lets not let them do this for the clean air act  (THAT IS DESTROY THE AIR PRODUCER TO SAVE THE CLEAN AIR, AND BY THE WAY HOW ABOUT THE WILDLIFE WHERE ARE THEY TO GO?)"

 Reader Juanita James of Kitzmiller, Md., was so upset she typed in all capital letters.  "DOESN’T ALL OF THIS SOUND JUST PERFECT?  GARRETT CO. MARYLAND, A WILDERNESS AREA, RURAL WITH SIMPLE MINDED FOLKS WHO CAN BE MANIPULATED INTO ANYTHING.....   WHY THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON IN THEIR OWN STATE.  THEY DON’T KNOW THAT THEIR GOVERNOR IS SELLING THEIR RESOURCES OUT FROM UNDER THEM.  HOW PERFECT, FOR THE GOOD OLD STATE OF MARYLAND TO CUT ITS OWN NOSE OFF IN ORDER TO SPITE THEIR OWN WELFARE.  HOW WONDERFUL OF OUR GOVERNOR TO LET OUTSIDE INTERESTS CLEAR CUT MORE OF OUR FOREST." 

Reader Stephen G. Gunnulfsen of Laytonsville, Md., wrote: "Wait a minute. Did I read this right? In Thursday morning's Sun there's an article about a Pennsylvania-based company that wants to lease 400 acres of state forests for wind farms.
 In another newspaper this same morning, I read a small blurb that says the Maryland and Virginia governors are pledging to save thousands of acres of forests to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
 And didn't then gubernatorial candidate Martin O'Malley who blasted the Ehrlich administration for trying to sell off state forests to his polically connected developers?
 State forests, parks, and wildlife sanctuaries are for the public - not to be used for private, out of state, companies can reap windfall profits (pun intended).
 Instead of putting these industrial machines in Western Maryland, why not put them closer to where most of their potential customers are?  I suggest putting some wind mills on Oregon Ridge or Federal Hill. There already are power lines on or near Oregon Ridge and of course, the windmills on Federal Hill could be painted and designed to blend into their architectural scheme."

Reader Sean Hall of Baltimore wrote: "For more than a decade now, my family, friends and I
have been traveling from Baltimore and as far away as Pittsburgh to enjoy the natural
beauty of our Appalachian forests in Western Maryland. We have spent much time
and money in and around Garrett County, and greatly prize the opportunity to still find
pristine, unspoiled old growth forests so near to home. Thus, it was with great dis´
may that I read about the wind farms proposed for some of Maryland's most striking land´
Scapes ("State forests sought for wind farms," Dec. 6).

While I am well aware of Maryland's energy needs and the importance of cleaner ener´
gy sources, the minimal gain these wind farms would provide do not outweigh the trage´
dy that would be the destruction of some of the most impressive land in Maryland for
the benefit of out-of-state, private, for-profit companies.

I sincerely hope the governor, theBoard of Public Works, and the Department of Natural Re´
sources don't sell out our public lands.

It would be a shame to have to look outside Maryland to find comparable recreational opportunities, but I doubt if we would return to visit a landscape spoiled for monetary gain. We can't just think cleaner and greener - we've got the think smarter as well," Hall wrote.

That's all the reactions I've got so far today -- one in favor of this wind turbine project in state forests (Tidwell) and five against (Bambaucus, Joyner, James, Gunnulfsen and Hall.)  We don't know how the governor, state comptroller or treasurer will vote.

Anyone else out there care to weigh in?  If so, please reply to this blog.

Dave Friend, a vice president of U.S. Wind Force, sent an email that suggested the state forests are already used by businesses, including logging companies.  "These sites are not the pristine forests that many people believe they are and that they have been used for commercial purposes for years," Friend wrote.  "The public benefits from this.  The revenue from leases, for timber operations, communication towers or wind turbines goes to the state.  The state can use that revenue to make improvements to state lands, controll gypsy moth populations, preserve other properties as wilderness areas or for whatever purpose they deem necessary.  The story we here from the locals is that DNR never has enough money to do all the things they need or want to do with the state lands."

The Sun's editorial page ran an editoral today that strongly opposed the idea of using state forests for industrial structures.  It was headlined: "Gone with the Wind." Here is what it said:

"During a week filled with concerns about protecting the environment comes the alarming news that state officials are considering exploiting one resource to develop another.

    As reported by The Sun's Tom Pelton, the O'Malley administration is weighing a request from Pennsylvania developers to lease and clear-cut 400 mountaintop acres in two state forests in Western Maryland so they can erect 100 wind turbines, 40 stories tall, to supply clean power to just 55,000 homes.This counterproductive proposal should be rejected out of hand. Publicly owned land should be not be leased to private developers for any purpose, much less one that by definition will deny access to and enjoyment of that land to the public.

    Further, those trees are making their own important contribution to the environment. They filter the air, slow the rush of rainwater, sequester carbon and support wildlife habitat. Maryland needs more forests and more land conservation; destroying some of what little pristine land it has put aside is an unnecessary waste of scarce resources.

    Wind power is very attractive because it offers a renewable energy source that does not emit the pollutants that contribute to global warming and poison the Chesapeake Bay. But windmills don't come without their own costs to the environment and to the quality of life of those who live nearby. Whether densely populated Maryland is an appropriate place for wind farms is still an open question.

    The only windmill project to win state approval so far got it through a General Assembly mandate to overrule environmental conditions applied by the Public Service Commission.

    Reports this week from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Maryland Commission on Climate Change outlined a grim scenario unless bold action is taken soon to better protect and manage the natural resources that have been the state's greatest asset.

    There is no single perfect solution. What's required is a broad, comprehensive approach that involves conservation as well as cleaner energy sources, and that shows more respect for Maryland's fragile ecology. For example, many of the trees in those forests have been damaged by a gypsy moth infestation that the state had neither the money nor manpower to treat.

    The trees shouldn't be cut down, though. They should be restored to good health and returned to active duty as stewards of the environment. Put the windmills someplace else."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

This year, Andy Green covered the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council meeting.

He did a great job with what has become known around here as a thankless assignment.

The Chesapeake Bay Executive Council is the group of governors from Md, Pa., and Va. and the D.C. mayor that get together once a year to talk about how the Chesapeake bay cleanup is going. They often sign proclamations or make promises or talk about the successes and failures.

As a veteran State House reporter, Andy gets to watch the governor in action all the time. But I only get the chance every so often. What I always thought would be interesting about the council meetings is that you get to hear what the governors are thinking, how they reach their conclusions. It's really a once-a-year chance to be up close and personal with the big decision makers.

Except it's not. The governors -- and their staffs -- meet in private, then come out and give a press conference telling everyone what they've decided.

The year I went, it was even worse-- Ehrlich was governor, and he left early; D.C. mayor sent a representative, so that left just then-Va. Gov. Mark Warner and Pa. Gov. Ed Rendell to tell us what they were going to do to help the bay. Not exactly worth treking to Mount Vernon for, even if we did get to walk around George's old stomping grounds.

During the question-and-answer period, I confronted Rendell, then the group's chairman.

"Why don't you make these meetings open to the public?" I asked.

He responded no one had ever asked him that before, and that he would take it under advisement.

Nothing changed-in fact, the group having the private meeting got bigger.

As I explained to the Bay Program people two years ago, and again this week, what's interesting to me is not more promises to clean up the bay, or more acknowledgements that we won't reach goals.

What's interesting is to watch how these governors think, how they process information about the bay, how much they know. That's why it's fascinating to follow around Martin O'Malley when he tours an oyster hatchery, or sit in on a Chesapeake Bay Commission meeting (which, by the way, are open to the public and includes many state senators and delegates, plus special guest speakers).

I had basically figured they were never going to change how it's done, but then Bay Program director Jeff Lape called me and said he liked my idea, and he would think about it. Here's hoping they open things up a bit more, to give all of us a little more insight.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

For decades, Anne Arundel County has had a major problem.

It is one of the state's most developed counties, and yet it also has a huge amount of shoreline. over the years, that has meant a deluge of pollution in tiny creeks and bigger rivers all over the area. Furnace Creek, Marley Creek, even lovely Weems Creek -- they're all in peril.

What to do? Some in government have suggested a tax that would help pay to improve runoff. But that failed last night, as reported by the Annapolis Capital. Seems that, between property taxes, sales taxes, room taxes, titling taxes and even more taxes coming, residents are feeling overtaxed.

So, county government is trying something different -- an opt-in. As Councilman Ron Dillon puts it:

"This is simply: if you don't want to pay it, you don't. If you care about the bay, you pay it. If you don't, you pass."

I guess, in that way, it's kind of like getting a Chesapeake Bay plate. But wait, should it be more like paying a Bay Bridge toll?

 The Capital continues:

County Executive John R. Leopold said he plans to submit a new SMART Fund bill within two weeks that will have "refinements," but still would be based on taxing new development that creates impervious surface. He said it presents "the most practicable and equitable mechanisms to raise funds for stormwater management."

 This will be an interesting case to watch. Like politics, pollution is often local. And whether people want to admit it or not, a new housing development is adding more pollution to a creek than an 18th-century home in the historic district. Where we live matters.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 10:50 AM | Permalink
                       

 Frank O'Donnell, an environmental activist who goes by the handle of "Clean Air Frank," noted that Presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the bill because of what he called its multi-billion dollar giveaways to coal-burning companies. 

"Hillary Clinton, very shrewdly, had an amendment put up during yesterday’s committee battle that would have fixed this problem.  But her amendment was defeated because of opposition led by Boxer and Lieberman (who called it a "poison pill.") Several senators -- including Cardin of Maryland and Lautenberg of New Jersey -- sat on the fence until it was clear the amendment would lose – then voted on Hillary’s side.  That’s politics for you!" O'Donnel wrote.
 
Here is John Edwards' statement: "Addressing global warming is one of the great moral tests of our generation, and it’s time for bold action and leadership to address this crisis that threatens the globe. While I’m glad to see that global warming legislation is finally moving in the Senate, unfortunately the Lieberman-Warner bill doesn’t go far enough to address the crisis of global warming. We cannot be limited in our approach by the armies of lobbyists from big oil companies and other special interests. This bill gives away pollution permits to industry for free -- a massive corporate windfall -- instead of doing what is right and selling them so that we can use these resources to invest in clean energy research, create a new economy of green jobs, and help regular families and business go green.

I believe it is our moral obligation to do everything climate science says is needed to save our planet. Ending global warming won't be easy, but it is time to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war. If we start taking the bold action I have recommended, we can emerge from the crisis of global warming with an economy built on clean, renewable energy and more than one million new jobs."

Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation, said: "This evening’s vote marks a new era in Congress and a new approach to global warming. After years of empty promises in Congress, this evening’s victory is a sign that the leadership and political will are at hand to get the job done."

The final vote was 11-8 in favor.  Maryland Sen. Cardin was one of the votes favoring the measure. The next step is for the bill to be debated on the Senate floor.  No date has yet been set for that.

Doug Siglin, director of federal legislative affairs for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said: "Global climate change poses significant threats both to the health of the Chesapeake Bay and to those who live in this region. The Lieberman-Warner legislation is a significant step forward in the United States’ effort to reduce the effects of climate change and sea level rise. Increasingly, scientists are expressing concern that climate change is likely to produce severe regional weather events, cause flooding of wetlands and other low-lying areas, and make the job of restoring the Chesapeake Bay even more difficult.  CBF is particularly pleased that the bill allocates a significant amount of funding derived from its emission allowance auction to states and federal agencies in the Chesapeake Bay region to help mitigate the impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and habitats. We commend committee members John Warner (R-VA) and Ben Cardin (D-MD), for their co-sponsorship of the legislation, and look forward to working with them and other senators to further strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process."

Posted by Tom Pelton at 8:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                       

I did tell the people at Environmental Defense that I would do a post on their report, and then I didn't do it. So I now feel obliged to post this comment. While I don't think it's really good news, I will give them their say. Plus, aren't we all a little fatigued about climate change? At least this is something else:

In response to Ms. Kobell’s comment “Somebody, tell me something good!” I’d say “but Environmental Defense’s report IS good news!”  The report, “Farming for Clean Water” lists faster, more efficient ways to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.  And while more money would help (did you ever see a report saying that more money would NOT help?) the report recognizes the reality of tight state budgets and limited federal funding.  With that in mind, the report calls for doing more with the money we already have, and finding ways to make environmentally-friendly farming pay for itself.  

For example, the report’s recommended objectives include:
 
*Targeting funds and attention to conservation practices that have proven most cost-effective in reducing farm runoff

*Increasing resources for technical assistance and financial rewards for farmers who produce clean water and other environmental benefits

*Embracing innovation in farm management systems and practices — such as dairy feed management and alternative cropping systems — that will help both the Bay and farmers’ bottom lines

Ms. Kobell is right that if we keep doing more of the same we’ll continue to get the same “doom and gloom” news year after year.  What we need now is leadership – from our elected officials and the agencies they oversee – to redirect cleanup efforts so that we get to our goal – a clean Bay – faster and more cost-effectively.  Environmental Defense’s report gives us a roadmap for doing just that.

Eileen McLellan
Chesapeake Bay Project Coordinator
Environmental Defense

Posted by Rona Kobell at 5:11 PM | Permalink
                       

Just how walkable are Baltimore and its suburbs?   A new report from the Brookings Institution in Washington rates the nation's top 30 metropolitan areas by the number of walkable places or neighborhoods they have.  Good ol' Charm City comes in 15th, with just two places -- the Inner Harbor and Fells Point -- meeting the think tank's criteria for inclusion.

While we all might be able to think of places around Baltimore that are charming to walk - my own neighborhood of Catonsville springs to mind - the ranking only includes what it considers to be places of regional significance, as focuses of employment, shopping, entertainment or culture.  It also was limited to places that were at or near what the report calls "critical mass," so thriving that they do not need public or private subsidies to attract new development.

"You're in the top 15," points out the report's author, Christopher B. Leinberger, a land-use thinker and teacher with a long history as a developer.  A visiting scholar at Brookings, he lives in Washington and teaches real estate at the University of Michigan.

I did question Leinberger's failure to include downtown Annapolis as a regionally significant walkable place in the Baltimore area.   He acknowledged it certainly would qualify, assuming it's officially counted in the Baltimore metro area, and may even move us up in the rankings.

So, what were the most walkable cities?  Our neighbor, Washington, D.C. is tops.  Though New York City has more walkable places, the DC area has the most walkable places per capita, according to Leinberger. Other highly walkable cities include Boston, San Francisco, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Miami and Pittsburgh.  Least walkable were Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla., Cleveland, Cincinnati, Sacramento

Rail transit is often a key to walkability, according to Leinberger.  Two-thirds of the 157 walkable places identified in the top 30 metro areas were served by rail.  And geographically speaking, the most walkable cities tended to be in the Northeast (we're lumped in there) and on the West Coast.

Lastly, Leinberger points out that walkability is something that can be created or improved upon.  He points out that Denver is one city that had no walkable centers 20 years ago, but now has five.

Batimore has lots of potential to boost its walkability, Leinberger thinks.  Towson, the Charles Street corridor and East Baltimore around Johns Hopkins all could develop in ways that make them great places to be afoot sans auto, he says.  Columbia could be another one, depending on how plans for building up the town center shake out.

For another take on Baltimore's walkability, pick up a copy of Charm City: A Walk Through Baltimore, by noted local novelist Madison Smartt Bell.  Here's a story about it from The Sun. 

Walkablity has economic importance, Leinberger contends, beyond its value for promoting urban and suburban quality of life.  Without walkability, he argues, metro areas are going to lose their young people to areas with walkability, particularly those with good transit systems.  And it's those Gen-Xers and young adults, he says, who are starting businesses and supporting culture and commerce.

"I'm fearful of 'A Tale of Two Metro Areas,'" Leingberger says, "those that keep their children and young adults and those that don't."

The hopeful news for Baltimore, he concludes, is that we've already got two (or maybe three) major walkable areas, a few other areas that could be made walkable, and at least the rudiments of a rail transit system.

"You've got the backbone,"he says.  "It's now a matter of political will." 

Perhaps this will give ammo to transit advocates here in Baltimore, who are pushing for an east-west Red Line.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 4:19 PM in growth/land use | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

Who says folks don't care about climate change?

The Drudge Report featured as its top news item today this blog's posting yesterday on the "historic vote" on climate change legislation coming up before a U.S. Senate committee.

As a result, tens of thousands of readers swarmed to this site.  My e-mail inbox has been inundated with more than 200 comments from Drudge readers, which I am posting as fast as I can. Many of them are from what appear to be politically conservative skeptics of climate change, who ridicule the whole idea of man-made global warming. Some of them portray climate change as a loony, neo-socialist conspiracy of the liberal media and Al Gore (whom they don't seem to like very much).

While all this feedback was coming in from the Right, a task force appointed by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley today recommended perhaps the most ambitious goal for reducing global warming pollution in the nation -- a 90 percent cut by 2050.

If there is anyone else out there with a different opinion on climate change, please post a comment. Right now, a casual reader might think that most people in America think that climate change is a hoax. 

Posted by Tom Pelton at 2:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (7)
                       

I am normally not interested in promoting eco-friendly holiday gifts, if only because I get so many of them emailed to me. But this one from Kevin, Oceana staffer and regular bayblog reader (or so he says - flattery will get you everywhere), piqued my interest.

They've launched a campaign called "Eat a Cookie, Save the Oceans," that partners with the Food Network's Warren Brown (host of Sugar Rush and owner of DC bakery CakeLove, soon coming to Canton). Here's Kevin's pitch:

Warren has developed a special sugar cookie recipe that goes along with 16 marine creature cookie cutters and an Oceana baking mitt, which we're offering holiday shoppers. Funds raised from this gift option go toward our work to protect coral reefs, fight global warming, protect sea creatures and eliminate unsustainable fishing. ... Besides the charitable and ecological aspect of this program, it also presents a fun and meaningful activity between parent and child that encourages learning and passion for ocean creatures.

I like the idea. I'm not much of a baker, but I like the IDEA of baking, and an assortment of marine cookies will probably be more of a conversation piece than the usual menorahs and Christmas trees. Plus, there's the good cause.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

It's not a regular week around here without at least one news conference, report or conference call pointing to how bad off our environment is, or specifically the Chesapeake Bay.

But even by my jaded standards, these last seven days have been too much.

First, Environmental Defense, a relative newcomer to Chesapeake Bay causes, issued a report about the farm pollution flowing into the Chesapeake Bay and how we need more conservation measures available to us and more money (and presumably, a farm bill that can provide both).

Next came the Chesapeake Bay Program's summer forecast. In that, the only thing sunny was the headline. The rest was more doom and gloom, how the drought failed to show much improvement,

Yesterday brought us the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's annual state of the bay report, an annual exercise in depression. For the life of me, I don't understand how Will Baker never seems to age, delivering the same gloomy news to the press year after year.

He says he's frustrated, sure, that all the lack of improvements give him even more resolve to work harder. In other words, no pints of Ben and Jerry's and re-runs of Friends for him. He's got work to do.

Today it's Pew's turn. They're issuing a report on Climate Change in the Chesapeake Bay.

Tomorrow, it's the executive council -- the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania will be sitting in a room, joined by EPA administrator Steve Johnson and a few lower-level feds, to talk about the bay and how bad things are. When they're done, they'll come out and tell all of us what they've decided to do about it.

And I haven't even mentioned the oyster events going on: right now, there's a meeting in La Plata to discuss the health of the Chesapeake Bay's bivalves. I'm pretty sure there won't be any good news there. The one event that was billed as a "celebration" -- the Oyster Recovery Partnership's opening of its oyster reserves to harvest -- was canceled yesterday, on account of high winds.

It's too much to cover it all; if I'm getting bad-news fatigue, I have to assume readers are, too. Somebody, tell me something good!

Posted by Rona Kobell at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                       

A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled for an historic vote on a global warming bill this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday.  Environmental groups are planning a flurry of press conferences tomorrow (12/4/2007) to try to influence the vote.

Meanwhile, in Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley's advisory Commission on Climate Change is scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss possible steps to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emmissions. The 22-member goup, headed by state Environmental Secretary Shari T. Wilson, is looking to recommend that the state adopt laws to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020, and then move aggressively to slash the pollutants by 90 percent by 2050, according to a draft report. To achieve these goals, the state should tighten its energy efficiency standards, strengthen building codes, require more clean energy generation, among other steps.

"As a coastal state with extensive low-lying land on the Eastern Shore and around the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland is exceeded only by Louisiana, Florida and Delaware in the percentage of its land vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise," the draft report warns.

On the Federal level, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday is expected to debate amendments to a bill proposed by Sens. Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner of Virginia that would create a "cap and trade" system designed to cut total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. These systems require industries to pay fees when they emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit, with the money going to reward cleaner businesses.

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland is a co-sponsor of the bill.  A group of Maryland environmental groups recently wrote a letter to Cardin (see below) urging him to strengthen the bill. They praise the proposal as a good first step, but they want to end the bill's free giveaway of pollution credits to power companies and amend the legislation to create a more aggressive target of an 80 percent cut by 2050.

"This is the first time ever a Senate commitee is voting on a globval warming bill, and that's historic," said  Brad Heavner, director of Environment Maryland.  "There is some reasonable expectation that this will get to the floor, but the big question is will it get stronger or weaker?....We think it needs to be stronger."

As this blog reported last month, Europe tried a pollution credit trading system to curb carbon dioxide emissions after it passed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and power companies worked the system to make billions in profits.  Electricity customers paid higher bills, thinking they were contributing to a cooler planet.  But their money just went into the pockets of the electric companies, which didn't end up actually cutting down on their carbon dioxide emissions.

On the other side of the political spectrum from these environmental groups, most Republicans on the committee are unlikely to vote in favor of the bill's current requirements, according to the online journal Grist.

"Right now, there's little reason to expect that any Republican on the committee other than John Warner (R-Va.) himself will vote for it. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) spoke critically of it at the first subcommittee hearing last week, and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) took to the podium of the National Press Club two days later to pillory the bill.

Voinovich said: 'I have significant reservations about the bill. I have recently heard the concerns of a variety of constituents, including both industry and labor representatives, who are especially concerned that the bill presents an overly aggressive first phase of emissions reductions that will hit well before we can reasonably expect commercially available technologies to deal with the problem.'

Without the support of more Republicans, it's unclear if the measure will make it out of the full Senate -- not to mention survive a veto by President Bush, if he chose to use that power.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit Pew Center on Global Climate Change is releasing a report  tomorrow on the impact of global warming on the Chesapeake Bay.  Environment Maryland tomorrow morning is releasing a report on changes in local rainfall expected because of climate change.

Posted by Tom Pelton at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (388)