Nanticoke does not have a hotel. It does not have a restaurant. It has a red-brick thrift store that is open once a week for maybe two hours.

A tourist town this is not. But it’s still lovely. And it’s only a few miles from the Whitehaven Hotel, where you can stay and make a weekend trip out of exploring the area.

Nanticoke and its sister towns are about 3 hours from Baltimore, or if you're coming from someplace else, about 20 miles from Salisbury. You stay on 50 but don't take the bypass, and pick up 349 at the 7-11; you can also go through Hebron and Quantico, where my photoprapher friend swears the Hebron Family Restaurant is great.

I think Nanticoke, Tyaskin and Bivalve are some of the prettiest towns on the shore, and certainly the nicest in Wicomico County. None have much in the way of things to do; they are all a few miles from the only restaurant that’s open this time of year, which is appropriately called Boonies. And it does the basics pretty well, thankfully, or else you’d be stuck with crackers from the small convenience store on Route 349.

I love the way the whole place smells like salt marsh, and that there is still a wooden bridge over Wetipquin Creek in Tyaskin, and that the gas stations, when you can find them, have those old-fashioned pumps. I love how, if you have a kayak or a canoe, you can paddle among the marshes that seem to never end along the Nanticoke, one of the Shore’s most pristine and pretty rivers.

In a few years, this place may get more developed; marshes protect some of it from building, but the retirees just keep on coming. But for now, it’s unspoiled.

 

Posted by Rona Kobell at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

 

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)
                    

If you're looking for a place to go that's still unspoiled, check out the Local Travel feature tomorrow. And remember, now is a great time to go exploring -- rates are cheap, towns are bound to be less crowded than in the summer and it's not too cold...yet. If only the rain would stop.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

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 | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

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 | Comments (0)
                    

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 | Comments (0)
                    

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 | Comments (0)
                    

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 vi