Featured stories in this issue...
New U.S. Government Report Predicts Dire Consequences of Warming
A new report from the U.S. Climate Science Program concludes that
damage to the U.S. from global warming will likely be widespread and
significant.
There's No Inherent Right To Local Self Government, Says Pennsy AG
The fight by local governments to control corporate behavior is
heating up. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit
against Pennsy towns that have passed local laws stopping corporations
from dumping contaminated sewage sludge on farmland.
Shutting Down Coal Plants Improves Brain Development of Children
"This study provides direct evidence that governmental action to
eliminate polluting coal-burning sources benefits children's
neurodevelopment."
Coal-to-liquid-fuel Plan Means a Kentucky Fried Earth
Plans to construct a $4 billion coal-to-liquid-fuel plant in
Kentucky is a sign of desperate times in the U.S.
Career of a Chemical
Recent media superficialities have concentrated on cancer caused by
dioxin. Many other types of damage, notably birth defects, are also
expected from dioxin dosages. But let us never forget: the main harm
from the USA's chemical warfare in Vietnam was on Vietnamese people
and ecosystems.
Chesapeake Watermen Fear Blue Crab Not Coming Back
It is hard to imagine the Pacific Northwest without salmon or the
Chesapeake Bay without blue crabs. But that seems to be the world our
children will inherit from us. Who is guarding the future?
Trawlermen Cling on as Oceans Empty of Fish...
"Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us
and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a
glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems."
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #968
Thursday, July 17, 2008
From: Greenwire
July 17, 2008
NEW U.S. GOVERNMENT REPORT PREDICTS DIRE CONSEQUENCES OF WARMING
[Rachel's introduction: A new report from the U.S. Climate Science Program concludes that damage to the U.S. from global warming will likely be widespread and significant.]
By Katherine Boyle, Greenwire reporter
Global warming could have devastating effects across the United States, harming human health, settlements and welfare, according to a report (2.4 Mbyte PDF) released today by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
The study arrives in the wake of the Bush administration's decision to reject the idea of using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases last week. In the past, watchdog groups have accused the White House of attempting to suppress reports from the climate change program.
This particular report, which was led by the Global Change Research Program in EPA's Research and Development Office, concludes the damage from climate change will likely be widespread and significant.
Changes in the intensity and frequency of precipitation, more frequent heat waves, more persistent and extreme drought conditions and associated water shortages are likely to create problems across the country, the study says. Extreme temperatures, potential increases in strong tropical storms, sea-level rise and increases in the occurrence of coastal and riverine flooding also are likely effects of climate change.
Those challenges will be compounded as the nation struggles to cope with population growth, aging citizens, migration patterns, and urban and coastal development, the report notes.
The shifting climate is likely to have a drastic effect on U.S. residents' lifestyles, affecting where they live, work and play.
Health
The report predicts human health effects will be substantial, though the United States may skirt some of the illness and death that could plague the developing world, thanks to its better developed public health infrastructure and greater wealth.
It is very likely heat-related illness and mortality will rise over the coming decades, the study says. The United States' rising population of elderly citizens will be most susceptible to the temperature extremes. By 2030, about 20 percent of the general population, more than 50 million people, will be over 65. Poor and minority populations concentrated in inner city neighborhoods also would be affected as they are more likely to lack air conditioning.
Higher temperatures, which lead to a spike in ozone levels, are likely to cause or exacerbate cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses if current regulatory standards are not attained, the report notes. Air pollution in urban centers may also increase thanks to stagnant air masses related to climate change.
The rising temperatures may lead to an increase of disease caused by food and water-borne pathogens as well, particularly among vulnerable populations.
Physical features of communities, like housing quality and green space, can help or hurt the United States' efforts to cope with global warming. Social programs that affect access to health care and additional social and cultural factors also will have an effect, the study says.
As a result, climate change will probably accentuate the disparities in the nation's health care system, the report notes.
Extreme weather events, including hurricanes, floods and wildfires, also have the potential to affect public health. They also could take a toll on public infrastructure, such as sanitation, transportation, supply lines for food and energy and communication.
High energy use, thanks to a growing population and more extreme temperatures, also probably will result from global warming, the study says.
Regional variation
Overall, health effects are expected to vary by region, particularly in those prone to wildfires and flooding.
The northern parts of the nation will probably experience the largest increases in average temperatures and ground-level ozone and other airborne pollutants, the report says. As a result, people living in Midwestern and Northern cities are likely to be disproportionately affected by heat-related illnesses.
The range of areas in which certain diseases occur is likely to grow, particularly in a northerly direction.
Forest fires are also expected to increase in frequency, severity, distribution and duration in the Southeast, the Intermountain West and the West.
One of the areas most vulnerable to climate change is Alaska, which is likely to experience increased permafrost melt, flood-risk coastal zones and river basins, and arid areas. In parts of the state, the economic base is particularly climate sensitive.
States across the nation will face likely reductions in snowmelt, river flows and groundwater levels, as well as an increase in saline intrusion into coastal rivers and groundwater, the report says.
Coastal areas, which have seen a population surge as people move toward the water, face some of the biggest dangers.
Adaptation and mitigation
The United States is in a position to mitigate some of the effects of climate change and adapt to others that cannot be avoided, according to the report.
The most important step the United States can take to adapt to climate change is to support and maintain its public health infrastructure, the study says.
The nation's capacity for disaster planning and emergency response also is a key asset that should allow the United States to adapt to many of the health effects associated with climate change.
Despite their vulnerability, large cities have a good opportunity to adapt infrastructure and limit their susceptibility to global warming, as do coastal areas, the study notes.
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program integrates federal research on climate and global change and is sponsored by 13 federal agencies. The Science and Technology Policy Office, the Council on Environmental Quality, the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget oversee the program.
Click here to read the report (2.4 Mbyte PDF).
Copyright 1996-2008 E&E Publishing, LLC
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund
July 12, 2008
THERE'S NO INHERENT RIGHT TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SAYS PENNSY AG
[Rachel's introduction: The fight by local governments to control corporate behavior is heating up. The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit against Pennsy towns that have passed local laws stopping corporations from dumping contaminated sewage sludge on farmland.]
By Ben Price
The Attorney General of Pennsylvania has filed a lawsuit to prevent the town of East Brunswick, Pennsylvania (Schuylkill County) from passing a local law that stops corporations from dumping sewage sludge on farmland.
In response, municipal governments across Pennsylvania are voting their support for the right of a municipality to protect its citizens' against corporate sludge dumping.
On December 6, 2006, the Board of Supervisors in East Brunswick Township upheld their oaths to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community by enacting an Ordinance that prohibits corporate sludge dumping. Their vote came after months of petitioning and organizing by residents, who argued that Pennsylvanians retain the right to make local self-governing decisions for the protection of their communities, and that those rights cannot be preempted by the State.
With reports continuing to come in, so far twenty-two local governments have reported passing Resolutions in support of East Brunswick, and in opposition to State Attorney General Thomas Corbett's law suit in which he has asked the Commonwealth Court to strip the community of its local law.
Five other communities and organizations have signed on as legal allies of East Brunswick, filing "friend of the court" briefs, and asking the Commonwealth Court to leave the Ordinance intact. Those allies include: Tamaqua Borough in Schuylkill County, Donegal Township in Washington County, Blaine Township in Washington County, the Town of Barnstead in New Hampshire, the Town of Halifax in Virginia, the Pennsylvania Farmers Union, the Pennsylvania Family Farm Coalition, and Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County California.
In a legal brief filed with the Court against East Brunswick on January 31, 2008, the Attorney General's office had this to say: "There is no inherent right to local self government." Municipal officials and Pennsylvanians from a growing list of communities have made a point to publicly and officially disagree.
On June 27th, Stephen C. Brown, Township Manager for London Grove Township in Chester County wrote on behalf of that municipality: "The Board voted 5-0 to support East Brunswick Township in your drive to support the right of Townships to local self-government. The London Grove Supervisors believe this basic issue of self-determination is of the utmost importance to our community and to communities throughout the Commonwealth."
Bethel Township in Berks County passed a Resolution on June 16th expressing "concern about actions of certain Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Agencies which seek to limit and/or impair the ability of local government to enact Ordinances and take actions that directly impact on the health, safety and welfare of residents within local government jurisdiction."
Conewango Township in Warren County passed their Resolution on the 9th of June, explaining their "full support of East Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors and its residents in their efforts to defend their sewage sludge Ordinance against the suit filed by the Office of the Attorney General," saying in part "representatives of agribusiness and waste disposal corporations succeeded, after years of efforts opposed by communities and local governments, in driving anti- democratic legislation through the Pennsylvania General Assembly to strip municipalities of self-governing authority over issues that directly effect local citizens..."
On June 5th, York County's Hopewell Township joined others in prefacing their support for East Brunswick's stand with provisions like the se: "Whereas, just government is ever at the consent of the governed, and the People of East Brunswick have taken a clear stand in enacting said Ordinance indicating that they do not consent to the disposal of sewage sludge in their community; and Whereas, a denial of local self-governing authority by the State on behalf of corporations that will especially benefit from such usurpation is unjust, illegitimate and beyond the authority of the State or any government..."
Borough Manager Chris L. Boehm of Macungie wrote on June 13th, "We agree that the people who reside in the community and are directly affected by decisions must be the ones to make them. We support East Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors and its residents in their efforts to defend their sludge ordinance and wish you all the best."
A partial list of communities that have passed similar Resolutions in support of Local Self-Government:
London Grove Township in Chester County
Bethel Township in Berks County
Conewango Township in Warren County
Daugherty Township in Beaver County
Eden Township in Lancaster County
Elk Township in Warren County
Hopewell Township in York County
Lancaster Township in Lancaster County
Lausanne Township in Carbon County
Macungie Borough in Lehigh County
Maidencreek Township in Berks County
Maxatawny Township in Berks County
Millersburg Borough in Dauphin County
Oregon Township in Wayne County
Oxford Township in Adams County
Peters Township in Washington County
Shrewsbury Township in York County
Tamaqua Borough in Schuylkill County
Thompson Township in Fulton County
Tilden Township in Berks County
West Brandywine Township in Chester County
West Brunswick Township in Schuylkill County
Since the Attorney General filed his law suit against East Brunswick, these (and perhaps other) municipalities have adopted Ordinances to prohibit and make impractical the surface dumping of sewage sludge:
Mahanoy Township in Schuylkill County
Packer Township in Carbon County
Branch Township in Schuylkill County
Other communities are actively considering adoption of similar Ordinances, including Shrewsbury Township in York County, which has voted to advertise a public hearing to consider adoption, with a vote likely in September.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Science Daily
July 15, 2008
SHUTTING DOWN COAL PLANTS IMPROVES BRAIN DEVELOPMENT OF CHILDREN
[Rachel's introduction: "This study provides direct evidence that governmental action to eliminate polluting coal-burning sources benefits children's neurodevelopment."]
Closing coal-fired power plants can have a direct, positive impact on children's cognitive development and health according to a study released by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health (CCCEH) at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. The study allowed researchers to track and compare the development of two groups of children born in Tongliang, a city in China's Chongqing Municipality -- one in utero while a coal-fired power plant was operating in the city and one in utero after the Chinese government had closed the plant.
Among the first group of children, prenatal exposure to coal-burning emissions was associated with significantly lower average developmental scores and reduced motor development at age two. In the second unexposed group, these adverse effects were no longer observed; and the frequency of delayed motor developmental was significantly reduced. The study findings are published in the July 14th Environmental Health Perspectives.
"This study provides direct evidence that governmental action to eliminate polluting coal-burning sources benefits children's neurodevelopment," said Frederica Perera, DrPH, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health, director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, and lead author of the study. "These findings have major implications for environmental health and energy policy as they demonstrate that reduction in dependence on coal for energy can have a measurable positive impact on children's development and health -- in China and elsewhere."
To conduct the study, researchers from CCCEH partnered with physicians and scientists from the Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, the School of Public Health at Fudan University in Shanghai, and the School of Environmental Science and Engineering at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The researchers followed two successive cohorts of Chinese newborns through age two. Children in both cohorts were born in Tongliang, a city with a coal-fired power plant that operated seasonally until it was shutdown by the government in May 2004. The first cohort involved 107 women whose children were born in 2002, prior to the plant closing. The second involved 110 women whose children were born in 2005, when the coal plant was no longer in operation.
"This is a unique environmental intervention study using molecular techniques to demonstrate the relationship between a cleaner environment and healthier children," added Deliang Tang, MD, DrPh, associate professor of clinical Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School, director of the Tongliang Project, and co-author of the study.
Prenatal exposure to plant emissions was measured by a biomarker of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure in umbilical cord blood. The investigators controlled for exposures to other pollutants, such as tobacco smoke and lead, which might have contributed to neurodevelopment problems.
Children in the first cohort had varying exposure prenatally to PAHs emitted by the coal-fired power plant. This exposure was recorded by monitoring the levels of PAHs in air during the mothers' pregnancies and in measuring a marker of PAH exposure in cord blood-- specifically the levels of PAHs bound to DNA, known as "PAH-DNA adducts". Among these children, the researchers found significant associations between the marker of exposure in cord blood and delayed motor and average development at age two. The second group of children, who were conceived after the closure of the plant, had significantly lower levels of the marker in cord blood and their incidence of delayed motor development was one-third that of the first cohort.
Coal-fired power plants provide the majority of the energy for China's industry, as well as the electricity needs of the U.S. The Chinese government has ordered the closure of older, more polluting coal-fired power plants such as the one in Tongliang.
The study is one of four parallel international cohort studies being conducted by the CCCEH that examine the health effects of exposure of pregnant women and babies to indoor and outdoor air pollutants in urban areas. Additional studies are being conducted in New York City and Krakow, Poland.
The Center's prior research findings have shown that exposure to air pollutants are associated with an increase in risk for developmental delays among children living in New York City. Today's findings contribute to a further understanding of how air pollution impacts child health.
Other investigators on the study include Tin-yu Li, Zhi-jun Zhou, Tao Yuan, Yu-hui Chen, Lirong Qu, Virginia A. Rauh, and Yiguan Zhang.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Huffington Post
July 16, 2008
COAL TO LIQUID PLAN MEANS A KENTUCKY FRIED EARTH
[Rachel's introduction: Plans to construct a $4 billion coal-to- liquid-fuel plant in Kentucky is a sign of desperate times in the U.S.]
By Kevin Grandia
An announcement today for plans to construct a $4 billion coal to liquid fuel facility in Kentucky is a sign of the desperate times America is in.
Converting coal to liquid fuel has not been used on a large scale since the 1930's when Nazi Germany developed the technology because the country had lots of coal but no petroleum of its own.
But the sell-job is well underway right now in Kentucky to re-frame coal to liquid as a miracle answer to America's energy woes.
One proponent of the Kentucky project went so far as to state that:
"(This) will allow the United States to become energy independent and free of foreign oil, and money going overseas can actually be invested back in the United States."
In the same vein is this quote from a local Kentucky newspaper:
"The coal industry and its supporters say such efforts could help wean the nation from its reliance on foreign oil for transportation. They insist that the technology would strengthen national security and be cheaper than petroleum."
The United States currently burns through about 20 million barrels of oil a day. The Kentucky coal to liquid plant is projected to produce 50,000 barrels a day -- a far cry from the grand promise of energy independence. Pardon my rough math (and love of simply stated facts) but based on the coal to liquid model being proposed in Kentucky, we would need to build at least 120 such projects to produce 6 million barrels of oil a day -- at a start-up cost for all the plants of around $480 billion.
Doesn't look like much of a silver bullet to me.
And then there's the costs to our environment -- the one we'll passing on to our children.
No amount of words will make the processing of coal into a liquid fuel clean.
But that hasn't stopped Kentucky project cheerleaders, like Pike County Judge-Executive Wayne T. Rutherford from trying:
"Our goal is to not put anything out in the ozone," Ruther--ford said. "We know there is no concept in this world right now that does that, but there's a lot of research going on."
And this in the local newspaper:
"... they are committed to having a plant that is as environmentally conscious as possible. They say they will choose a company that is also environmentally friendly."
Not much assurance when you consider that we have yet to be able to make regular-old coal-fired electric plants environmentally friendly. Now we are to somehow think that an even dirtier process like coal to liquid will somehow turn into a green, clean energy machine?
Beyond the obvious implications of increased mountaintop removal coal mining and hazardous pollution (like the ever-increasing amounts of mercury being pumped into the air) that would result from a coal-to- liquids scheme, using liquid coal as a transportation fuel would nearly double the amount of global warming pollution per gallon of fuel compared to petroleum.
At a time when the world's leading scientists say we need to cut our emissions by at least 80 percent to curtail destructive climate change, the idea of nearly doubling global warming pollution from liquid coal fuels ought to be tossed aside as a no-brainer.
As the folks at the Natural Resource Defense Council (turn your speakers down, an auto-play video starts when you click) point out, "it would be the height of folly to invest in just another technology that drives us further down the path to dependency on carbon fuels."
==============
Kevin Grandia is the Managing Editor of the award-winning site, DeSmogBlog. He is also the managing editor of http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/, a site managed in joint partnership with Greepeace USA and Rainforest Action Network.
Copyright 2008 Huffington Post
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Investigate
July 1, 2008
CAREER OF A CHEMICAL
[Rachel's introduction: Recent media superficialities have concentrated on cancer caused by dioxin. Many other types of damage, notably birth defects, are also expected from dioxin dosages. But let us never forget: the main harm from the USA's chemical warfare in Vietnam was on Vietnamese people and ecosystems.]
By L. R. B. Mann and R. B. Elliott
On May 28 2008, the prime minister [of New Zealand] stated in Parliament an Apology to Viet Nam war veterans, giving some emphasis to monetary compensation for exposure to Agent Orange. Previously (December 14 2004) a governmental Apology was presented in Parliament for damage to Viet Nam war veterans by defoliant chemicals.
As the scientists who first (1971) pointed out to the New Zealand public the potential for birth defects caused by the dioxin in the herbicide 2,4,5-T, we would like to draw together main facts at this late stage in the career of a chemical.
Within New Zealand, this particular phenoxy herbicide was for a few decades widely used -- to varying effect -- on woody weeds e.g. gorse and manuka. The factory in New Plymouth was greatly expanded, and a 1:1 subsidy created for the manufacturer, at a time when the whole USA production of 2,4,5-T was being bought by the Pentagon for chemical warfare which was later stopped under pressure from highly respected American scientists such as Edsall of Harvard. USA armed forces medicos had been reporting strong impressions of birth defect epidemics in the sprayed districts. Some NZ soldiers were also sprayed.
Some farming districts in New Zealand had higher densities of dioxin- containing 2,4,5-T aerially sprayed upon them than the total attributable to Agent Orange (50:50 2,4,5-T/2,4-D) in Vietnam. This was done mainly in springtime. Aerial drift onto human dwellings in these sparsely populated areas, as well as into local towns, was unavoidable, given the lax methods of spraying. Drinking water collected on roofs could, as we pointed out in 1971, contain dangerous doses of dioxin.
A rural GP got in touch with his cousin the medical school deputy dean: "Stop those staff of yours saying 2,4,5-T can cause birth defects! I've not noticed any increase in my district." Such statistics as had been voluntarily sent to the Health Dept from that district did actually show significant increases; and guess who had sent those figures in?! This illustrates how what you don't know can hurt you -- considerable increases in harm can go unnoticed. We continued to press for creation of a mandatory system to report birth defects accurately.
A decade after this controversy began, statistics of some reliability were being gathered. One of us (R.E) discovered that the birth defect rates across Northland were correlated with the 2,4,5-T spray densities from one coast to the other.
The potential for harm of aerial spraying in New Zealand was always emphatically denied by the Health Dept and their buddies the Agricultural Chemicals Board whose dogged mantra intoned "no scientific evidence from anywhere in the world has yet been presented to the Board to support the contention that 2,4,5-T has adverse effects on human reproduction". Attempts to purge one of us (R.M) from university employment were defeated only after expressions of resistance by hundreds of colleagues.
New Zealand was the last country to produce 2,4,5-T, and its dioxin content until the last few years of operation of the factory was high. Exposure of the factory's neighbours has been studied only very sluggishly, but looks high (from the partial results recently trickled out).
It took 18 years of sporadic strife to shut down that last 2,4,5-T factory. The replacement herbicide is one atom different but has, so far, escaped comparable scrutiny.
Three decades into this dishonesty-riddled dispute, it is now recognised that some Vietnam veterans, and some of their children, have suffered and continue to suffer ill health caused by aerially- sprayed dioxin in Vietnam. The same should also be recognised for all those in New Zealand similarly exposed -- many with much higher exposure than soldiers in Vietnam who were, after all, voluntarily in harm's way.
Recent media superficialities have concentrated on cancer caused by dioxin. Many other types of damage, notably birth defects, are also expected from dioxin dosages imposed on New Zealanders. But let us never forget: the main harm from the USA's chemical warfare in Vietnam was on Vietnamese people and ecosystems. Could New Zealand's foreign aid make at least some gesture to those victims?
==============
Dr Mann was a biochemistry lecturer, and Professor Elliott the head of paediatrics, in the Auckland medical school.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Associated Press
July 16, 2008
CHESAPEAKE WATERMEN FEAR BLUE CRAB NOT COMING BACK
[Rachel's introduction: It is hard to imagine the Pacific Northwest without salmon or the Chesapeake Bay without blue crabs. But that seems to be the world our children will inherit from us. Who is guarding the future?]
By Kristen Wyatt, Associated Press Writer
RIDGE, Md. -- Chesapeake Bay crabber Paul Kellam has advice for the teenage boys who help tend his traps every summer: You better have a backup plan.
It's an anxious summer for watermen harvesting the Chesapeake's best- loved seafood, the blue crab. The way some see it, the crabbing business here isn't just dying. It's already dead.
Crabs have thrived in the bottom muck of the Chesapeake and its tributaries even as centuries of overfishing harmed oysters, fish and other species in the nation's largest estuary. Now blue crabs are in trouble, too, and when they go, a way of life is sure to go with them.
"There was a time when crabbers were only out here from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Now, it's about all we have left," says Kellam, 53, steering his 30-year-old rig "Christy" out of the Potomac River and onto the bay for a day of crabbing. The contradictory decor in the cabin sums up the outlook of today's waterman: a red wooden good-luck horseshoe dangles over a mud-splattered copy of "The Worst-Case Scenario Survival Handbook."
The bay's blue crab stock is down 70 percent since 1990 due to overfishing and water pollution, according to Virginia and Maryland fisheries managers. The states have imposed steep cuts on this year's female crab harvest, aiming to reduce the number of crabs taken by more than a third.
For Kellam and his neighbors in southern Maryland, where the working rigs and crab picking houses that sustained these communities for generations have been replaced by yachts and vacation homes, hopes are dim that the blue crabs will ever come back.
"It's looking worse every year," says Bob McKay, who at 74 is the oldest working waterman in St. Mary's County. He still sells crabs out of a shed in his yard but doubts the industry will live much longer than he does. "I don't know what the solution could be."
Watermen have turned to real estate and automobile repair. They've opened seafood restaurants and bakeries.
The best way to make money on the Chesapeake these days is taking businessmen from Washington and Philadelphia on charter fishing trips. Those who still rely on crabbing are further hurt by a double punch of higher fuel costs and an economic downturn that's meant fewer consumers dropping up to $200 on a bushel of crabs.
"People don't have the disposable income. They're just not buying," says Kellam, who spends up to $150 a day on diesel, which costs about $5 a gallon at a nearby marina.
There was a time when Chesapeake watermen made their living off the winter oyster harvest, using hand tongs and later power dredges to supply most of the world's oysters. But disease and over-harvesting nearly wiped out Chesapeake oysters in the 1980s, and despite millions invested in restoration, they've never recovered. Scientists estimate the Chesapeake now contains about 1 percent of the oysters it once did.
After the oyster industry collapsed, watermen looked to hardy blue crabs to make up the slack. But the next generation may not have another option.
"I want to make a living on the water," says Randy Plummer, a chain- smoking 19-year-old who works on Kellam's crab rig. "But there ain't no future in it. Everybody knows that."
Plummer has wanted to crab since he was a boy, but is instead headed to community college this fall, at the urging of Kellam and his parents.
Even scientists who called for the harvest reductions say overfishing isn't entirely to blame.
The main culprit is water pollution and soil runoff from development throughout a watershed that is home to 10 million people. Excess nutrients wash into the Chesapeake, causing algae blooms and choking the native plant life that crabs rely on for food and habitat. In the summer, large swaths of the Chesapeake contain so little oxygen that scientists call them "dead zones," because few critters can live there.
Watermen call it "bad water," and they track it all summer, following crabs as they skitter to shallower water that contains more oxygen. Even when watermen luck out and pull up a pot full of crabs, long- timers say the crabs are nothing like they used to be.
"Sometimes in the summer, you pull the pots up, they've got algae and mud all over them. The bad water comes in and coats everything and the crabs can't stand it," Kellam explains.
He now spends hours hauling up the same number of crabs he could catch in a few pots a decade ago. And what he catches isn't as healthy- looking as the crabs he caught as a boy. Wholesalers are buying them anyway.
"They're buying a lot of stuff that 10 years ago they would've turned away," Kellam says.
Maryland and Virginia officials have responded to the watermen's plight by asking the federal government for a disaster declaration that would free up about $20 million to subsidize crabbers and seafood processors until blue crabs rebound.
Maryland is also working on sweeping revisions to state planning laws with an eye toward protecting its 3,000 or so miles of shoreline. Already this year, the state toughened zoning laws dealing with development closest to the water, a law that aims to reduce sediment and pollution running into the Chesapeake and its tributaries.
"It's certainly getting more difficult to make a living on the water," conceded Lynn Fegley, a biologist in charge of crabs for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. But Fegley says the cynicism along the Chesapeake is unfounded. There will always be Chesapeake blue crabs, she says -- as long as watermen lay off them when the stock dips.
"As the watershed gets more crowded, the face of the fishery may change. But people are always going to want seafood, right? It's healthy and it's delicious. What we have to do is find a way to harvest seafood that's sustainable for the future," Fegley says.
But Thomas Courtney, who sells Kellam the alewife fish he uses for bait, laughs when asked whether state efforts to revive blue crabs will bring them back.
"It ain't what we're pulling out of the water. It's what we're putting in the water," says Courtney, 62. "You've got a cornfield, 20 acres, you put 80 or 90 houses on it, hook 'em up to sewer pipes, put roads and ditches down. That's what's destroyed the bay. It ain't us. They let development take over and then, that's it, we're done."
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Guardian (Manchester, U.K.)
July 8, 2008
TRAWLERMEN CLING ON AS OCEANS EMPTY OF FISH...
[Rachel's introduction: "Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems."]
By George Monbiot
All over the world, protesters are engaged in a heroic battle with reality. They block roads, picket fuel depots, throw missiles and turn over cars in an effort to hold it at bay. The oil is running out and governments, they insist, must do something about it. When they've sorted it out, what about the fact that the days are getting shorter? What do we pay our taxes for?
The latest people to join these surreal protests are the world's fishermen. They are on strike in Italy, Spain, Portugal, France and Japan, and demonstrating in scores of maritime countries. Last month in Brussels they threw rocks and flares at the police, who have been conspiring with the world's sedimentary basins to keep the price of oil high. The fishermen warn that if something isn't done to help them, thousands could be forced to scrap their boats and hang up their nets. It's an appalling prospect, which we should greet with heartfelt indifference.
Just as the oil price now seems to be all that stands between us and runaway climate change, it is also the only factor which offers a glimmer of hope to the world's marine ecosystems. No east Asian government was prepared to conserve the stocks of tuna; now one-third of the tuna boats in Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea will stay in dock for the next few months because they can't afford to sail. The unsustainable quotas set on the US Pacific seaboard won't be met this year, because the price of oil is rising faster than the price of fish. The indefinite strike called by Spanish fishermen is the best news European fisheries have had for years. Beam trawlermen -- who trash the seafloor and scoop up a massive bycatch of unwanted species - warn that their industry could collapse within a year. Hurray to that too.
It would, of course, be better for everyone if these unsustainable practices could be shut down gently without the need for a crisis or the loss of jobs, but this seems to be more than human nature can bear. The EU has a programme for taking fishing boats out of service - the tonnage of the European fleet has fallen by 5% since 1999 -- but the decline in boats is too slow to overtake the decline in stocks. Every year the EU, like every other fishery authority, tries to accommodate its surplus boats by setting quotas higher than those proposed by its scientific advisers, and every year the population of several species is pressed a little closer to extinction.
The fishermen make two demands, which are taken up by politicians in coastal regions all over the world: they must be allowed to destroy their own livelihoods, and the rest of us should pay for it. Over seven years, European taxpayers will be giving this industry €3.8bn. Some of this money is used to take boats out of service and to find other jobs for fishermen; but the rest is used to equip boats with new engines and new gear, to keep them on the water, to modernise ports and landing sites; and to promote and market the catch. Except for the funds used to re-train fishermen or help them into early retirement, there is no justification for this spending. At least farmers can argue -- often falsely -- that they are the "stewards of the countryside". But what possible argument is there for keeping more fishermen afloat than the fish population can bear?
The EU says its spending will reduce fishing pressure and help fishermen adopt greener methods. In reality, it is delaying the decline of the industry and allowing it to defy ecological limits for as long as possible. If the member states want to protect the ecosystem, it's a good deal cheaper to legislate than to pay. Our fishing policies, like those of almost all maritime nations, are a perfect parable of commercial stupidity and short-termism, helping an industry to destroy its long-term prospects for the sake of immediate profit.
But the fishermen only demand more. The headline on this week's Fishing News is "Thanks for Nothing!", bemoaning the British government's refusal to follow France, Spain and Italy in handing out fuel subsidies. But why the heck should it? The Scottish fishing secretary, Richard Lochhead, demands that the government in Westminster "open the purse strings". He also insists that new money is "not tied to decommissioning": in other words no more boats should be taken off the water. Is this really a service to the industry, or only to its most short-sighted members?
I have a leaked copy of the draft proposal that European states will discuss on Thursday. It's a disaster. Some of the boats which, under existing agreements, will be scrapped and turned into artificial reefs, permanently reducing the size of the fleet, can now be replaced with smaller vessels. The EU will pay costs and salaries for crews stranded by the fuel crisis, so that they stay in business and can start fishing again when the price falls. Member states will be able to shell out more money (€100,000 instead of €30,000 per boat) without breaking state aid rules. They can hand out new grants for replacing old equipment with more fuel-efficient gear. The proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring that the industry collapses through lack of fish rather than lack of fuel. The fishermen won't go down without taking the ecosystem with them.
What makes the draft document so dumb is that in some regions, especially in British waters, the industry is just beginning to turn. While Spanish, French and Italian fishermen clamour for a resumption of bluefin tuna fishing -- knowing that if they are allowed to fish now this will be the last season ever -- around the UK it has begun to dawn on some fishermen that there might be an association between the survival of the fish and the survival of the fishing.
Prompted by Young's seafood and some of the supermarkets, who in turn have been harried by environmental groups, some of the biggest British fisheries have applied for eco-labels from the Marine Stewardship Council, which sets standards for how fish are caught. Fishermen around the UK also seem to be taking the law more seriously, and at last to be showing some interest in obscure issues such as spawning grounds and juvenile fish (which, believe it or not, turn out to have a connection to future fish stocks). By ensuring that far too many boats, and far too many desperate fishermen, stay on the water, and that the remaining quotas are stretched too thinly, the EU will slow down or even reverse the greening of the industry.
Why is this issue so hard to resolve? Why does every representative of a fishing region believe he must defend his constituents' right to ensure that their children have nothing to inherit? Why do the leaders of the fishermen's associations feel the need always to denounce the scientists who say that fish stocks decline if they are hit too hard? If this is a microcosm of how human beings engage with the environment, the prospect for humanity is not a happy one.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who gets to decide?" And, "How DO the few control the many, and what might be done about it?"
Rachel's Democracy and Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy & Health News send a blank Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net
In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
dhn@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::