My Awesome Water in Taos

So, I took the fresh water quiz online at  http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-101-quiz/.  I missed two questions: The “constitutional rights of rivers” and “jeans.” So, I think I got the really important ones.

I am very fortunate to live in an isolated valley containing an aquifer that is AWESOME! Our water here is clean, delicious, and PLENTIFUL. Yes, I said plentiful. In short, the west side of the Sangre de Cristo mountain range is our watershed and the aquifer is bounded by the Rio Grande gorge. So, we have gobs of water here and if you cross the “Gorge bridge” it’s dry as a bone. Land is super cheap over there, so people do occupy it, and those guys have to manage their catchment water very efficiently and also haul it in. Ugh. We, on the other hand, aren’t going to run out, even if our population were to rise greatly here in Taos valley. I know that’s not a popular opinion for those who believe conservation is godliness, but I follow the belief that it is most important to preserve the quality of the water as it filters right back in to the aquifer. Avoiding evaporation however, is an issue I take to heart. So, all my landscaping is on a timed drip system and are native plants to the area (actually, this is not my doing – I rent and the landscaping company is super-environmentally-aware.) I know that our septic system is functioning properly and THAT seems to be the main thing between the water I use at home and the return to nature. Now, if I lived in Albuquerque, this would be a whole different story. They are over pumping their aquifer at a dangerous rate and water conservation is necessary in every possible front.

So, what do I do to retain water quality where I live? I recycle all my batteries, oil, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. I use phosphate free products (septic safe,) and I DO NOT DRINK BOTTLED WATER (or soda.) I think that is the craziest thing we people do here in the US. I know some of you don’t have sweet water like I have, but it seems ridiculous on so many levels to transport water across the country in little petroleum based containers. A radical idea would be to make it illegal. Maybe even rich people, who can afford to buy bottled water, would be forced to get something done locally about protecting their own water supply if they had to drink the same thing everyone else in their area drinks and give it to their children. I know. It’s radical, but America is getting really stupid when it comes to bottling things we should get locally. Comments?

Group 2 Topic - Renewable Energy

It was an interesting process, this picking a topic thing. There was some confusion about whether we should pick a topic individually, do some research on it and then choose between the individual choices as a group, or to work to together, pick a topic, research some and then post the same group topic information. I ended up doing both. I figured at least my group could look at what I thought in an organized way. But the process got us there because we all did some investigating and then hashed out a common topic between us. That topic came to be the importance of renewable energy. As we did some research, we found that Costa Rica supplies 99% of its electricity from renewable energy and is shooting to be 100% carbon free by 2021. That's pretty impressive.

Of course, there are some pitfalls and many energy issues are hotly debated. (Hydroelectric projects, for example.) It is important to understand the issues so one can speak effectively about new infrastructure decisions.

But since the energy sector is responsible for an enormous amount of carbon emissions, this seemed like an important topic to review. Comparing and contrasting renewable energy in both developing countries in Latin America and modern countries such as our own should provide some insight on how things are progressing (or not, as the case may be.)

I like my group members. We pulled together to get his done in short order and I believe we will find out some very interesting facts.

Transgenic-Free Costa Rica: Rejecting GMOs

Topic proposal for FOR365 Group Project

Introduction:

Much of the world is involved in a continuing debate about the function of Genetically Modified Organisms in society and the potential and unknown effects on biodiversity and health. As one of the 20 countries with the greatest biodiversity in the world, Costa Rica has much to risk in this debate. Currently, much of Costa Rica is transgenic-free and there is a push on both sides of the argument. As one of the leading nation states in environmental sustainability, I would like to look at the comparisons and contrasts between the effectiveness of environmental group’s resistance and governmental policy.

            The debate in the USA over labeling of GMO foods is ongoing and environmental group’s opposition to the use of GMO foods is strong, but has not stopped GMO seeds from being used prolifically here. 

           

            This topic is hotly debated because it has both the potential to feed a growing population, along with risks of ecological disaster in biodiversity. Costa Rica may very well take the lead as being an example at remaining a natural ecosystem without potential GMO hazards.

References

Biodiversity in Costa Rica. (2013). Retrieved October 23, 2013, from Instituto National de Biodiversidad website: http://www2.inbio.ac.cr/en/biod/bio_biodiver.htm

Byrne, P. (2010, September). Lebelling of genetically engineered foods [PDF]. Retrieved from http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09371.pdf

Genetically modified foods. (n.d.). Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://chge.med.harvard.edu/topic/genetically-modified-foods

Lopez, J. (2013, August 21). Stay out, Monsanto: Costa Rica is almost 100% transgenic-free. Costa Rica Star. Retrieved from http://news.co.cr/stay-out-monsanto-costa-rica-is-almost-100-transgenic-free/25046/

Pearson, T. W. (2013). “Life Is Not for Sale!”: Confronting free trade and iIntellectual property in Costa Rica. American Anthropologist, 115(1), 58-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01535.x

Sand, P. H. (n.d.). Labelling genetically modified food: The right to know. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 15(2), 185-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9388.2006.00520.x

Welsh, R., & Ervin, D. E. (2006). Precaution as an approach to technology development: The case of transgenic crops. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 31(2), 153-172.

Energy Quiz

So, National Geographic has a personal carbon footprint calculator to see just how much CO2 you personally belch to the atmosphere each year. I came out with 4.09 (tons/yr.) That’s 37 percent lower than the regional average and 23 percent lower than the national average. 

  

There are a few things working against me, and a few things working for me. First, our electricity provider, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative, offers the ability to “purchase renewable electricity,” which we do. It essentially cuts my electricity-based carbon down to zero. That helps a lot. Having said that, if I didn’t have that option, it would be pitiful because the lighting in this home I rent is ridiculously wasteful. Secondly, we augment our propane heat with a wood-burning stove and I think THAT helps tremendously.

            Now for what works against me. I have to drive quite a bit. There is no public transportation system out here in the boonies and I drive once a year across the country for business (reduces the flying miles though.) I also fly once a year (or so) on a “long trip” for various reasons it seems. The suggestion is to consider taking the train and I’ve been pondering that idea for a while. I have heard from friends that the train is actually a great way to travel and I want to give it a try.

  

            When we first came to New Mexico, we lived in an off-the-grid adobe house and were pretty self-sustaining, except for water. That’s really what drove us out. An insufficient supply of water is a real drag. But I long to have a place (with a well to our wonderful Taos Valley aquifer) that I can be self-sustainable again. Given the choices, I would prefer to have grid-tie solar/wind than be off-grid. It’s more efficient and easier.

   

            I can always find ways of doing renewable heating, electrical, and sustainable food. But that pesky automobile thing I can’t overcome yet. If I had the means, I would buy an electric car in a second. (I have an electric bike and I use it when the weather is nice. It’s awesome! But it’s just too far into town to do that regularly. If I lived in town, I would use it all the time except winter.)

            Which brings me to something we have been thinking about – moving into town. That would cut down on car travel significantly. These “carbon saving” things also save money.

Natural Gas Wells #2

Natural Gas Pads #2

I was assigned Natural Gas Unit #2. It is located in a valley between two mountain ranges in Eastern Wyoming.

This image is in 1994: The pins indicate where wells are placed in the future. There is nothing there now except possibly something being built next to #9 pin.

Here is the next available image, from 2005:

And this is the latest from 2009: What is noticeable here is the expansion of disturbance at the existing sites, as well as the additional sites.

Instructions said to write up a short blurb about this system, so I am leaving out all the verbosity left in the actual report.

The number of drilling rigs in service has increased significantly since 2004. Since the Google Earth image clearly shows more numbers of pads in 2009 compared to 2004, it is likely that trend has continued up to this day. Some research showed me that this field is in a sandstone deposit, with low porosity and permeability, and would not be considered profitable would it not be for its very large size. Air quality, water quality, and wildlife have all suffered. The gas in the two reservoirs in this basin would be able to supply all of the U.S. demand for about 28 months. There are 1.86 wells/ km², taking up about 5% of the area. The habitat disturbance has reduced Mule Deer herd populations, as well as Sage Grouse. The water ends up in the Flaming Gorge Reservoir, which I think is an interesting turn of events in a play on words that I hope does not become a reality.

River Ecosystem Service Valuation

...or "How much is that river worth?"

   

The assigned ecosystem service for me to report is “rivers.” What are they worth? I can hear James Brown singing “Rivers! Heyaheyaheya, What are they good for…absolutely nothin’, say it again.” Well, OK, he was singing about war – totally different thing.

              

Of all the water on the planet, 97% is in the oceans (Skinner, Porter, & Botkin, 1999, p. 190,) and rivers only add up to %0.00015 of all of Earth’s water ("Earth's Water Distribution," n.d.). That’s right, 15 thousandths of one percent. Heck, there’s WAY more water just in snow and ice on our big sphere. So, what’s the big deal about rivers and how do we put a value on them?

              

To write briefly about river ecosystem services may not even be possible, especially when one considers the value of the systems that exist simply because the rivers are in place, like the riparian buffer zones (the bank and land area off to the sides of the actual water) or estuaries. You don’t get one without the other, so they’re kind of inseparable. For that matter, if a river is providing water for an agricultural zone in a valley bottom, it’s just as impossible to separate the river value itself (say, just the water) from the value of the crops it helps to create. Just the riparian zone itself is responsible for sediment filtering, pollution filtering, pesticide filtering, bank stabilization, aquifer recharge, rich soil habitats, water storage and release, and more. That’s not even including the services of the river itself, the actual water being transported, sediment-deposits-and-all to faraway places. And THAT’S not even mentioning the habitat for entire ecosystems IN the water. Science is starting to catch up with the idea of placing values on these things, but it is very much in its infancy. We have to put a dollar amount on how much money that place is worth, the one where you put your butt down next to the water to fish! And then how much that fish you caught is worth.

             

Rivers are busy entities. They erode, transport water, transport sediment, provide water source throughout all the habitats they are in, they ARE the sole habitat for myriads of species and communities, they create the landscape by cutting channels, and making alluvial fans. They carry dissolved nutrients to other places, make deltas and estuaries, disperse seeds, cycle and move nutrients, maintain biodiversity, provide fresh water to human and animal populations, provide fresh water for agriculture, create recreation activities, offer aesthetic experiences, and more. Phew! That’s not even the whole of it, and that’s why I said it might be impossible to write briefly on the subject. Nevertheless, I try.

             

Fortunately, after much literature review of my own, I found the coup de gras. It is a recent (2011) literature review study done for The Nature Conservancy by Dr. Pamela Kaval, Ecological Economist in Fort Collins, Colorado. This paper set out to place a value, as much as can be determined at this point, to how much the Colorado River Basin is worth in terms of ecosystem services. A mighty effort indeed!

   

            One way of valuing ecosystem services is to break it into just three parts: Direct values, indirect values, and existence services. Direct values may include transportation, water supply, fishing, and recreation. Indirect values include flood protection, wetlands nutrient recycling, and genetic material. Existence services are “river services that provide the needed habitat to allow current biological ecosystems and their species to thrive. “(River Science at the U.S. Geological Survey, 2007) That’s one way.

               

Dr. Kaval divided ecosystem services into four categories: information, production, regulation, and habitat. As you will see, I believe this was a very good idea, as it also includes all the things we DON’T have to pay for because the ecosystem is providing it for us (for “free.”) Here is an example: The 1993 floods in the Mississippi valley resulted in property damages around 12 BILLION dollars, partially from the valley’s inability to lesson the impacts because the adjacent wetlands were drained and the channels altered (ESA, 2013). Are these “river” services? I think so. Without the river, there would be no wetland there.

               

Here is what Dr. Kaval means by the four categories: Information services are functions that contribute to human health, such as recreation, aesthetic experiences, and education. Production functions result in an output of living biomass, such as food and raw materials. Regulating services provide people with benefits, such as detoxification and flood regulation, just from the things they do naturally. Habitat refers to those functions that provide reproduction habitat and refuge to wild animals and plants (Kaval, 2011).

              

So, without further pause, let me summarize the summary. Actually, it is quite necessary, because the literature review “summary” has many categories and didn’t have totals. Go figure.

             

Information functions:  $20,456,000,000 per year – yep, 20.456 BILLION plus $228 - $454 per house per year.

Production:  $29,500,000,000 per year ($29.5 Billion/year)

Regulation:  This one is a little more tricky, as it isn’t per-year so much:

o   ~$298.00 per home per year

o   $5,000-14,000 per home per year near the river (valuation differences due to being near water.)

o   $68,000,000 per year per 25% decrease in river level.

o   And there were some other small ones, but you get the point….

Habitat: She noted that data was not found for this category specifically, but it directly relates to the other ones.

So, to sum up, all in all, the Colorado River Basin ecosystem services are worth about $50 Billion per year (Kaval, 2011). The moral of the story should be; “be nice to your river, it’s worth a lot of cash.” Of course, you wouldn’t need to tell me that, because I grew up on a river and no amount of money could create a better environment to grow up in/on/around. It was a little like Tom Sawyer, but with television on cold, rainy days.

  

I haven’t mentioned the overall function of rivers in the hydrologic cycle, the interplay between underground water, atmospheric water, and ocean water. Those functions cannot be valued short of life itself, but the quality of the rivers might just have the ability to be valued.

    

And if all that isn’t enough for you, the Riparian Tax Incentive Program of 1981 can offer landowners with rivers complete tax breaks to take care of the riverbanks (Ecological Society of, America, n.d.). Go government!

              

            I am not surprised that these amounts are what they are. I am surprised that they were actually given A value, understanding how difficult it seems to find a way to justify a particular amount. Some people may think this is overblown. I don’t and I think (hope) we will get much better at proving these values.

   

As for me, I have mixed feelings about placing dollar values on natural things. One part of me thinks it is a terrible thing to do, like putting a value on your baby.  The other, educated part of me, realizes that we live in a capitalist society and that if we are going to succeed at achieving environmental goals, we need to play the capitalist game and give everything a value. EVERYTHING. In some strange way, it works.

  

References

Earth's water distribution. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2013, from http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/waterdistribution.html

Ecological Society of, A. (n.d.). Fact sheet. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from Ecological Society of America website: http://www.esa.org/ecoservices/comm/body.comm.fact.ecos.html

Kaval, P. (2011, January). Ecosystem service valuation of the Colorado river basin: A literature review and assessment of the total economic value of the Colorado river basin. Nature Conservancy.

Skinner, B. J., Porter, S. C., & Botkin, D. B. (1999). The blue planet: An introduction to earth system science (2nd ed.). New York: J. Wiley.

Snow, P. (n.d.). Riparian lands tax incentive. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from http://www.dfw.state.or.us/lands/tax_overview.asp

Top 1 Environmental Issue Pick

Top  Environmental Issue 

     I believe the biggest issue facing our civilization is about replacing fossil fuel energy with renewable clean energy. Brown lists “cut carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2020” first in his book Plan B 4.0 (Brown, 2009). Cutting straight to the point, revamping energy generation is how we do this, at its core. The problem is simple; we use fossil fuels to create massive amounts of energy. The result is a buildup of greenhouse gasses, which creates a “greenhouse effect,” or global warming.  The solution; we need to create massive amounts of renewable, clean energy to take its place. Displacing 80 percent of fossil fuel energy WILL reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent.  This is a multi-faceted solution. We need more efficiency, persons in “first-world” countries need to get real about what they “need,” and we need to build green infrastructure like crazy. I know this is not without major problems itself and technology can be our friend here. We can be very innovative.

            The reason I choose energy as the most important topic is because energy is a solution to many problems. It is with this energy that we have large scale farming to feed the planet. This energy can MAKE clean water from seawater for many cities, leaving water available for agriculture. Distributing energy to poverty-stricken places can mean a light bulb to work by or learn by at night. (Of course, along with eliminating poverty.) Education is huge factor in change.

            Currently, only the wealthiest in the world have clear access to energy sources. It is a dividing line between the wealthy and the poor. My generation in the U.S. has been the worst at taking more than its share. My lifestyle is shameful compared to what is really necessary (and I have taken many efforts to improve that.) Clean, affordable energy everywhere can change the world. Perhaps I am too much of a Star Trek fan, but, fiction or not, I can envision a place where we help each other to reach our best selves.   

As Brown states in Plan B 4.0, all my “top three” issues are intertwined. No one thing can fix this mess. I chose energy, but that alone won’t save civilization.

References

Brown, L. R. (2009). Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to save civilization.

Top 3 Environmental Issues - Post reading comparison

Comparing my "Top 3 Environmental Issues"

My pre-reading picks for top three environmental issues were:
1) Energy, 2) Clean Water, 3) Global Climate change. Jason Mark’s article in Earth Island Journal listed the top three issues as 1) Superstorms,  2)Draught, and 3)End of peak oil (or rather “We’re not going to hit Peak Oil anytime soon.”
 
Conversely, Julia Whitty wrote a more positive piece in a Mother Jones article, outlining some positive news about environmental issues. Her top three picks were: 1) “Huge Drop in PCB Levels in Norwegian Polar Bears,” 2) “Amur Cats get their own park,” and 3) “Half Billion Dollars Funds Most Ambitious Conservation Programs Ever.”

My picks #1 and #3 were swapped with Mr. Mark’s choices. If I were to re-phrase his picks and say that “Superstorms” and “Draught” are simply the side effects of anthropogenic global climate change, and that “Peak Oil” is really about energy, then we aren’t too far off from each other. I would argue that energy is the basis for our modern civilization and that regardless of its woes, human’s ability to harness and manipulate energy is one of its greatest assets and an answer to many of its problems, if it can be done cleanly. (Example: Clean energy (lots of it) = clean drinking water from desalinization.) Revamping to clean energy is the basis for “fixing” the global warming issue. (Or at least stopping continued damage.) This is also the first in Brown’s four priorities in Plan B 4.0 (Brown, 2009). Mark may be correct in saying that these extreme weather events are going to be what is in front of us to cope with in the coming years.  My list is more of a “what we need to address first” in terms of priorities list.

Mark’s article was insightful, however. The fact that fossil energy is not in short supply and that, “Mother Nature won’t force the issue for us” (Mark, 2012) is eye opening. My view was that easy fossil fuels have been depleted, and that may be true, but it doesn’t mean that fossil fuels aren’t still in big supply. Enough to “fry the planet” (Mark, 2012) means the initiative must be self-motivated. In other words, the economic self-leveling idea of supply and demand won’t work here. We’ll foul the nest before we run out.

Whitty’s article reflects 1) Environmental Policy IS working and 2) Protection of natural resources are gaining ground. All in all, I find this very positive. If we, as a collective society, can do those things, then we just might be capable of fixing the problems of energy (global warming,) water, and climate change.  I especially enjoy hearing, as an aside on her page, “Phoenix Islands Protected Area conserves one of the Earth's last intact oceanic coral archipelago ecosystems” (Whitty, 2013). The size of California. Awesome!

 References
Brown, L. R. (2009). Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to save civilization.
Mark, J. (2012, December 25). The Top Ten Environmental Stories of 2012. Retrieved from http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/the_top_ten_environmental_stories_of_2012/
Whitty, J. (2013, April 20). 5 Pieces of Good News From Planet Earth. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/04/good-news-stories-earth-day

PRE-reading Top 3 Issues

I believe the top three natural resource issues facing us today are:

(Before the readings.)

1) Energy
2) Clean Water
3) Global Climate change

1) Energy: I grew up in the 60s and 70s. With the exception of the "Energy Crisis" of the Carter administration, my generation has thought nothing of digging up hydrocarbon fuels and burning them. The benefits have been enormous and the costs have been disastrous. Almost every "advancement" in civilization in the last 100 years can be attributed to the massive amounts of energy we have put to use from fossil fuels. It's been an amazing ride and it's been interesting to watch in my lifetime. But, the honeymoon is just about over and the costs, on every level, are getting higher. As such, we need to adapt. We need to be good examples of how to live smaller, not bigger. Use less, not more. Become creative with what we have, not throw-away.

2) Clean Water: I happen to live in one of the few places in the country with a wonderfully healthy aquifer that is not over-pumped. It's some of the best water imaginable (like the Crystal Geyser water from Owens Valley, but right from the well. After all, look at our watershed.) However, farms are being purchased in Northern New Mexico by the city of Albuquerque and Santa Fe for the water rights. Not so they can take THIS water, but so they can "legally" over pump their own aquifer. It's like a Ponzy scheme. Actually, it IS a Ponzy scheme. Eventually (probably sooner than later) their water will run out. Then what? Short sighted indeed. This is happening everywhere in our country and the world. Although water is "recyclable," it is not universally available. Throw in CONTAMINATION and it becomes unusable. To me, it's huge and will become the resource, even above energy, that the wealthy will control to kill off the poor. (Either consciously or unconsciously.)

3) Global Climate Change: See #1. We dug it up and burned it. At first, the smog was a problem (think Los Angeles circa 1970,) but we overcame that one with catalytic converters, using, um...platinum. But, in the end, it's the invisible, tasteless, odorless byproducts that are hurting us. And the truth is, we can't even IMAGINE the damage we have done. Waiting to see can not be an option. Tipping points do exist in natural systems and I would not like to see what happens when our natural systems "tip" to correct themselves by natural order. I believe that there is a natural order to our environment. Chaos does not reign supreme for any length of time. Like frequency resonance, at some point, all the dissonant harmonics will go away to return to order (resonance.) If humans are the dissonance, guess who is going away? It's time to live WITH our environment instead of in spite of it.