Planning and Environmental Justice

As I was riding my bike around town recently I noticed a new gravel crusher that had gone in this summer. The gravel crusher is temporary I assume because it's adjacent to airport and is being used for runway resurfacing. The crusher is in industrial zone but directly across the street from a mobile home park that houses mostly low-income and minority families.

When I saw the public notice posted at the site it was in English. Should the City have posted the notice in Spanish also? I don't think this is a huge issue, mostly because it's temporary but the crusher operates from about 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. Maybe the neighbors don't care or maybe they don't have the information to know that they have a say in the process.

Where I work I don't think it's that unusual to think that we don't have environmental justice issues because it's a small, rural area. However, as a planner one of the tenants of APA ethics is to make sure that all citizens have an opportunity to be informed and participate. When there are non-English speaking groups affected it seems that we should all work harder to make sure that all people impacted have the information they need.

Climate change vs. Global Warming--What's the difference?

Currently, the media and much of the public use the terms climate change and global warming interchangeably. It seems that climate change has become a more acceptable phrase to a larger group of people than global warming. Climate change seems to connote less political rancor. There are other differences in the terms however, NASA notes that, “To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases….Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect” (NASA).

Climate change is due to man-made influences. Although there is debate about the impacts of climate change and its causes, much of the debate appears to be politically and financially motivated (Brennan and Expose Exxon). The oft-cited Baliunas (2002) clearly misrepresents and misinterprets much of the literature on climate change and global warming. Much of the paper has been refuted and several editors have resigned over the paper (Goodness 2003). While there may be valid scientific debate about what exactly the impacts of climate change will be, few doubt that there will be serious impacts. The International Panel on Climate Change has submitted significant research and data on climate and finds that: “attribution of anthropogenic climate change must be pursued by: (a)

detecting that the climate has changed (as defined above); (b) demonstrating that the detected change is consistent with computer model simulations of the climate change ‘signal’ that is calculated to occur in response to anthropogenic forcing; and (c) demonstrating that the detected change is not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important anthropogenic forcings….The common conclusion of a wide range of fingerprint studies conducted over the past 15 years is that observed climate changes cannot be explained by natural factors alone. A substantial anthropogenic influence is required in order to best explain the observed changes. The evidence from this body of work strengthens the scientific case for a discernible human influence on global climate change” (IPCC 2007, 103). The counter arguments to refute climate change seem to lack significant scientific backing and significant basis in reality much of the argument appears to be politically and financially motivated.

Global warming is largely due to man-made influences. According to NASA (2), the global average temperature has increased 0.7 to 1.4 degrees since the late 1800’s and states that most experts estimate the average temperature will continue to rise another 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by 2100. The rate of increase appears to become greater over time. NASA (2) attributes global warming to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Additionally arguments that the earth has experienced significant cooling rates have been refuted. NASA (3) reports that David Easterling of the U.S. National Climate Data Center show that naturally occurring periods of no warming or even slight cooling can easily be part of longer-term pattern of global warming. Easterling and Wehner found that “it is possible, and indeed likely, to have a period as long as a decade or two of ‘cooling’ or no warming superimposed on a longer-term warming trend.” Although global warming may not always continue on a rising temperature trend over the long term it appears be a significant trend. The International Panel on Climate Change noted that “At the time of the TAR scientists could say that the abundances

of all the well-mixed greenhouse gases during the 1990s were greater than at any time during the last half-million years and this record now extends back nearly one million years (Section 6.3). Given this daunting picture of increasing greenhouse gas abundances in the atmosphere, it is noteworthy

that, for simpler challenges but still on a hemispheric or even global scale, humans have shown the ability to undo what they have done. Sulphate pollution in Greenland was reversed in the 1980s with the control of acid rain in North America and Europe and CFC abundances are declining globally because of their phase-out undertaken to protect the ozone layer. (IPCC 2007, 100). It seems that we have the ability to reverse the impacts of fossil fuel burning if changes are made.

Global warming would appear to be a clearer trend that could be agreed upon as compared with climate change. Certainly though scientists and politicians can and will interpret facts differently. It is important to note that whether we can agree on global warming or climate change we should be able to agree that there will be some affect from the increased burning of fossil fuels over past 100 years. We may not agree on what the impact or change is but there will certainly be some impact. The evidence from credible scientific sources clearly states that the earth is experiencing a significant warming trend over the past 150 years and that the climate is being impacted by this change.

References

Baliunas, Sallie. 2002. Warming up to the truth: The real story about climate change. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/
HL758.cfm

Brennan, Phil. 2008. What global warming? Such as it was is over. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9644

Easterling, David and Michael Wehner. 2009. Is the climate warming or cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett(36).

Expose Exxon. Global warming deniers and ExxonMobil. http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/gwdeniers.html

Goodness, Clare. 2003. Stormy times for climate research. Scientists for Global Responsibility. Newsletter 28, November 2003. http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

International Panel on Climate Change. 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 1). What’s in a name? Global warming vs. climate change. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/
earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 2). http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA 3). http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

China's Energy Policy

China’s energy policy does differ from U.S. energy policy on several fronts however much of China’s policy reflects past U.S. policy.  While the U.S. and other nations encourage China, largely due to its population and current industrialization, to curb its emissions and adopt cleaner standards we forget that many of these practices have been in place in the U.S. for years. Over the past 50 or so years the U.S. has focused much of its resources on obtaining foreign sources of oil for energy. Current policy is working to shift away from foreign dependence to create more domestic sources that create fewer emissions. Meanwhile, China is in the middle of a significant industrialization and modernization of the country. China is spending significant resources to acquire foreign sources of oil (McIntyre 2009). China has vast coal resources which supply about 70% of its electricity (The Economist 2009). China has also built the largest dam in the world—Three Gorges, that will supply hydropower for domestic use (Kennedy). China is experiencing astonishing growth that has surpassed their own predictions, the gross domestic product increased 11% from 2006 to 2007 (Brahic 2007). This growth and modernization are causing China to be predicted as the leader of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions (Brahic 2007).

Both China and the U.S. are attempting to make strides to reduce greenhouse emissions and create more sustainable energy economies. The U.S. faces the difficulty of the cost of implementing new alternative energy infrastructure and technology while China faces that hurdle along with exploding growth. The Economist (2009) said: “…even if Mr. Hu and Mr. Obama appear in broad agreement on what needs to be done, persuading politicians and the public in both countries will not be easy. China has set impressive targets but struggles with ill-motivated bureaucrats. In America even lackluster climate-change legislation now before Congress could founder as Mr. Obama devotes political energy to what he clearly sees as a higher priority: health-care reform.”

China has made some significant choices on the global energy market by investing heavily in international energy sources and heavily financing U.S. debt (McIntyre 2009). These actions put the U.S. in a precarious position as far as dictating what type of energy policy to adopt not to mention that the U.S. has its own energy policy issues to address. China can and likely will impact global energy sustainability because of their size and growing dominance on the world economic market. China has the opportunity to create changes to their policies that will lessen their global impact to resources and carbon emissions or they can continue on the path that was so clearly paved by the U.S. of utilizing unsustainable fossil fuels for a growing population. If China continues on its current path it will certainly become a global leader in carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption—not a particularly worthy title. It will be difficult for industrialized nations, such as the U.S., to dictate to the Chinese that they choose alternatives when other nations have so clearly exploited those resources and created the initial problem.

The U.S. should develop its own domestic supplies of energy. This can be accomplished through a variety of methods including development of areas such as the Bakken formation and ANWR. However, specifically in Alaska there are other environmental resources to consider in development of the oil resource. While utilizing domestic supplies of oil is certainly useful and will be a component of future U.S. energy policy it is critical to remember that fossil fuels cannot continue to meet all of our current and future needs. The U.S. needs to invest in a wide variety of renewable resources and infrastructure that will provide long term solutions to the energy issue.

References

Angang, Hu. 2006. Green development: The inevitable choice for China (part two). China Dialogue. http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/
show/single/en/135-Green-development-the-inevitable-choice-for-China-part-two-

Brahic, Catherine. 2007. China’s emissions may surpass the U.S. in 2007. New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11707

Claussen, Eileen. 2009. Roadmap for a U.S.-China partnership on climate change. http://www.pewclimate.org/op-ed/us-china-roadmap

Institute for Energy Research. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/
climate-change/climate-change-overview/

Kennedy, Bruce. China’s biggest construction project since the Great Wall generates controversy at home and abroad. http://www.cnn.com/
SPECIALS/1999/china.50/asian.superpower/three.gorges/

McIntyre, Douglas. 2009. China’s political battle to buy strategic interests around the globe. http://247wallst.com/2009/07/06/
china%E2%80%99s-political-battle-to-buy-strategic-interests-around-the-globe/

The Economist. 2009. The price of cleanliness. http://www.economist.com/
specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14678515

Wong, Julie and Andrew Light. 2009. China begins its transition to a clean-energy economy. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
2009/06/pdf/climatechinav3.pdf

Energy Corridors

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) designated the Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (including parts of California and Arizona). The designation of a national corridor accomplishes two tasks:

• It signifies that the federal government has concluded that a transmission congestion problem exists in the area and requires timely solution.
• It enables the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), under certain conditions, to approve siting and construction of transmission facilities within the Corridor (Meyer 2007).

According to the DOE the congestion in the Southwest is significant and will worsen without sustained and appropriate actions such as the Corridor designation. The DOE also states that the designation does not necessarily preempt state jurisdiction, although this is disputed by states and environmental groups. Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman said, “The goal is simple—to keep reliable supplies of electric energy flowing to all Americans. By designating these National Corridors, we are encouraging stakeholders in these regions to identify solutions and take prompt action” (U.S. DOE 2007). The DOE explains that the Corridor designation does not:

• Determine how the affected area’s congestion problem should be solved.
• Propose, direct, order or authorize any activity.
• Endorse particular transmission projects.
• Circumvent compliance with any existing federal environmental requirements concerning transmission or other facilities (Meyer 2007).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) may take action under the following circumstances:

·         The state does not have the authority to site the project.

·         The state does not have the authority to consider interstate benefits associated with the project.

·         The applicant does not qualify for a state permit because it does not serve end-use customers in the state.

·         The state has withheld approval of the project for more than one year.

·         The state has conditioned its approval such that the project would not significantly reduce congestion or be economically feasible (Meyer 2007).

The actions of FERC may be viewed by states and local jurisdictions as excluding their regulatory process. This appears to be a significant issue in the Corridor process receiving support from the states. The states of California and Arizona both opposed the corridor designation.

The State of California offered much of its comment through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). CPUC expressed general concern about the lack of state involvement in the FERC process. The FERC process generally seems to override any state concerns or denials. The CPUC noted that the corridor designation is “overly broad from a legislative and practical perspective, and could seriously impair California’s coordination of its transmission and renewable energy planning” (State of CA). CPUC also argued that potential litigation over the siting of transmission lines under the Corridor/FERC process could lead to significant litigation which would cause significant delays for all interested parties. CPUC continued to argue that these delays would make the process more onerous than the existing processes and it would be better to let the stakeholders work out a compromise than letting the issue linger in litigation (State of CA). The CPUC also argued that they are currently working to address the congested areas of Southern California and that the Corridor designation should not have occurred until the current state processes are complete.

California is currently addressing congestion and transmission lines in several projects. It is estimated that there is $2.3 billion in potential transmission infrastructure investment before the CPUC in 2008 and 2009. California has also worked to streamline their transmission process in order to expedite applications. According to the CPUC, California has adopted new energy policies which require substantial increases in the generation of electricity from renewable resources. These new energy policies will require “extensive improvements” to the electric transmission infrastructure to transfer the electricity generated from renewables to consumers. California has created the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) to address the transmission needs for the new renewable energy projects. RETI is also intended to support future energy policy and facilitate transmission corridor designation and transmission and generation siting and permitting (California Energy Commission). CPUC also notes that “RETI will assess all competitive renewable energy zones in California and possibly also in neighboring states that can provide significant electricity to California consumers by the year 2020. RETI will identify those zones that can be developed in the most cost effective and environmentally benign manner and will prepare detailed transmission plans for those zones identified for development (California Energy Commission).

The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is an agency similar to the California Public Utility Commission. In 2007 the ACC responded to a request for comments from the DOE regarding the Corridor designation. The ACC commented that the Corridor designation “in its entirety is unwarranted, not well founded on available information, and not needed in any location in Arizona” (ACC 2007). The ACC also expressed concerns similar to California regarding the lack of state and local control or interaction.

Arizona is also working toward creating improvements to their transmission capabilities. The ACC prepares a Biennial Transmission Assessment (BTA) every two years which is intended to inform the ACC regarding the adequacy of existing and planned transmission facilities in Arizona to meet present and future energy needs of Arizona customers, in a reliable manner (ACC 2007). The BTA process ensures that transmission issues are not placed on a back burner until they reach a critical point. By regularly assessing and identifying the existing situation, the Commission is kept aware of the necessity of transmission (Mayes 2009). The ACC works with transmission planning groups and government agencies to create regional planning efforts to address transmission. The ACC believes these efforts are “superior” to any federal process for transmission planning (ACC 2007). Arizona also employs a Line Siting Committee which is charged with efficient siting and construction of transmission lines. The Committee has 180 days to reach a decision from the date of filing of an application. The ACC says that “this streamlined approach is in part one of the reasons why the ACC has approved over twenty major transmission projects totaling in excess of 600 linear miles of transmission corridor plus associated substation facilities since 2000 (Mayes 2009).

The general function of a state is to serve the citizens of that particular state. It is to be expected that individual states would give siting priority to electric transmission projects that primarily serve their state over another state. However, this approach should be done within the legal confines of the siting process. If a state were to create a process that favored siting of transmission projects that only served that state it would seem to be open to a variety of lawsuits. Even though it is expected that states would favor projects in their own best interest it may not be the best choice. This puts everyone at a disadvantage and may create backlash among project proponents. The best approach would be for states to work together as part of a regional cooperative group that addressed the needs of a particular region rather than only identifying those needs within state boundaries. A regional approach favors the consumer and provides a better product in the end. Although the regional approach is not easy and does not always offer the best solution for individuals of a particular state it is likely the most effective approach for dealing with the increasingly congested transmission lines across the United States.

The Corridor designation is a difficult issue and comparable to the advantages and disadvantages of regional approaches. The most controversial part of the Corridor designation appears to be the implication that there is little to no local involvement and if a project has been denied by a state or delayed FERC can override that determination. It may have been more savvy to create a process whereby the states involved received a seat at the table and were allowed to participate in discussions or the permitting process. Although there certainly may be additional time required for such participation it is still important that states are able to represent the needs and concerns of their citizens and not be ignored by the federal government.

Reference List

Arizona Corporation Commission. 2007. http://www.cc.state.az.us/
Divisions/Administration/About/all_commissioners_07-10-2007.pdf

California Energy Commission. Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI). http://www.energy.ca.gov/reti/

California Public Utilities Commission. 2006. Developments in transmission siting at the PUC. ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/puc/
energy/transmission+update+at+puc+mtg+110906.ppt#304,16,Conclusions

Mayes, Kris. 2009. Arizona Corporation Commission. NARUC Electricity Committee Meeting. http://www.narucmeetings.org/
Presentations/mayes2.pdf

Meyer, David. 2007. Draft Southwest area national interest electric transmission corridor. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. http://sites.energetics.
com/NIETCpublicmeetings/pdfs/Public_Meeting s_western05-17-07.pdf

State of California. California Public Utilities Commission. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/wholesale/02_planning/01_eap/nietc.htm

U.S. Department of Energy. 2007. DOE designates Southwest area and Mid-Atlantic area national interest electric transmission corridors. http://www.energy.gov/news/5538.htm

Agriculture and Development Impacts: A Comparison of the Impacts and Discussion of the Preferred Method of Preservation and Development

Agriculture and development have significant impacts on the environment. While agriculture, and specifically cattle ranching, can cause severe damage to the environment the alternative of residential development causes different impacts that may be equally severe. It is important to consider the differing impacts of agriculture versus development in different countries in light of global agricultural impacts. The preservation of agriculture operations in the U.S., reduction of development of agricultural lands and prevention of further clearing of international lands for agriculture may be a better choice relative to environmental impacts. This is not a clear cut issue: agriculture provides a vital income for many in third world countries but the clear cutting of rainforests and other prime habitat has proven detrimental. The global community will need to weigh the benefits and costs of agricultural sustainability and human welfare.

In the Western United States cattle ranching is an important component of the western heritage. The cost of doing business is dramatically increasing over time with costs of raising cattle increasing, the price of beef decreasing and the temptation to develop high value land: “Increasingly, ranchers in Gunnison County face strong financial incentives to subdivide and develop their vast acreages into higher density uses to serve new residents, second home and tourism development” (Orens and Seidl 2004, 1). In Gunnison County, Colorado, ranching is a traditional way of life for many families. Agriculture accounts for 96% of the private land use in Gunnison County (Tadjion and Seidl 2006, 1). The County is currently considering instituting agricultural ranchland preservation regulations that would create a process to develop small portions of ranchland while preserving a significant portion of the ranch in perpetuity. These regulations are specifically aimed at large acreage operations—not feedlots. There is concern by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Gunnison County that continued financial pressure on ranchers will lead to more 35-acre developments throughout the County causing not only sprawl, but loss of the ranching heritage of Gunnison County; negative impacts to the tourism economy (Orens and Seidl 2004); habitat fragmentation and loss of scenic vistas and open space. These impacts can occur on a broad scale when rural land across the U.S. is regularly being converted to residential development. Preservation of the agricultural lands is shown to positively impact the local economy through tourism benefits and benefits to the public of the open space of ranches. Ranchlands are also considered an area of carbon sequestration; since the lands are left essentially undeveloped the County believes that the environmental impacts will be less than with residential development.

It is critical to compare the impacts of cattle ranching in the U.S. to impacts from development. There is no easy answer that clearly delineates one use as less impactful than the other. Cattle ranching has significant impacts on the environment:

In many situations, livestock are a major source of land-based pollution, emitting nutrients and organic matter, pathogens and drug residues into rivers, lakes and coastal seas. Animals and their wastes emit gases, some of which contribute to climate change, as do land-use changes caused by demand for feedgrains and grazing land. Livestock shape entire landscapes and their demands on land for pasture and feedcrop productions modify and reduce natural habitats (Steinfeld and others 2006, 4).

Residential subdivisions are the most common form of development on agricultural lands. Residential development leads to increased roads, larger number of septic systems in rural areas, habitat fragmentation and filling of wetlands. If this consumption continues as is, it will be important to understand that utilization of existing agricultural operations in the U.S. will not only provide local benefits through open space but may prevent large scale destruction of critical habitat in other parts of the world.

Brazil is a major exporter of beef in the world and continues to increase its market share (United States Department of Agriculture 2008). Much concern exists about Brazil’s land development policies and the destruction of rainforest for agricultural land:

Expansion of livestock production is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America where the greatest amount of deforestation is occurring – 70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder. About 20 percent of the world’s pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action. The dry lands in particular are affected by these trends, as livestock are often the only source of livelihoods for the people living in these areas (Steinfeld and others 2006, xxi).

The environmental impacts are not the only impacts to consider with agriculture, there are human and social impacts. Many individuals rely on agriculture as their livelihood. The difficulty with agriculture in developing nations is that it is often an unsustainable practice that is utilized as a sole means of survival and does not reflect the ability of the land to produce a viable product. Sustainable agriculture is largely connected to the larger problem of sustainable development in developing nations: “Small farmers are held responsible for environmental destruction as if they had a choice of resources to depend on for their livelihood, when they really don’t. In the context of basic survival, today’s needs tend to overshadow consideration for the environmental future. It is poverty that is responsible for the destruction of natural resources, not the poor (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, 127). The crux of the issue is: how will the global community address the needs of the citizens of developing nations? All citizens deserve the opportunity to earn a livelihood and provide for themselves and their families. The creation of a sustainable economy will lessen the dire impacts of unsustainable agricultural practices on the environment. The World Commission on Environment and Development recommends: “…reducing incentives that force overproduction and non-competitive production in the developed market economies and enhancing those that encourage food production in developing countries. At the same time, these incentive structures must be redesigned to promote farming practices that conserve and enhance the agricultural resource base” (1987, 132).

There is no easy answer but programs in the U.S. that would assist in the continued operation of agriculture will provide local benefits and may benefit the global environment by preventing more destruction of native landscapes abroad. However this perspective does not address the need for sustainable development in third world countries where agriculture offers a means of income that may not easily be replaced: “Ultimately, environmental issues are social issues: environmental cost created by some groups and nations are carried by others, or by the planet as a whole. The health of the environment and the availability of resources affect the welfare of future generations, and overuse of resources and excess environmental pollution by current generations are to their detriment” (Steinfeld and others 2006, 5). The global community should create a global agricultural policy that considers the value of the land relative to non-economic values such as watershed protection, carbon sequestration, habitat for flora and fauna and also considers the need for sustainable economic development. There are some places that agriculture is appropriate and viable and there are some places that it is not. The global community will need to reassess our growing consumption of animal products in light of the damage it incurs while balancing that against the impacts that development of agricultural lands incurs. The impacts of agriculture and development are critical at this time in history and are intertwined with social and political issues that are difficult to resolve but it is critical that the issue be addressed.

References

Orens, Adam and Andrew F. Seidl. 2004. Winter tourism and land development in Gunnison, Colorado. Economic Development Report, No. 10. http://dare.colostate.edu/pubs/edr04-10.pdf.

Steinfeld, Henning, Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, Cees de Hann. 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/FAO/ livestocks_long_shadow.pdf.

Tadjion, Omar and Andy Seidl. 2006. Economic impact of the livestock industry in Gunnison County, Colorado. Economic Development Report, No. 4. http://dare.colostate.edu/pubs/edr06-04.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service. 2008. Livestock and poultry: world markets and trade. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.