From Campus Progress:

Fracking: Coming Soon to a Campus Near You

(and another: Gas Drillers’ Cozy Relationship with Universities)

Fracking rigs reared their ugly heads at schools across the country, making the student-led push for universities and colleges to divest their endowments from the top 200 oil-and-gas companies tougher at some campuses.

The Pennsylvania legislature passed a bill in September allowing hydraulic fracturing for natural gas on public universities under the authority of the university president. More recently, a student group organized their campus community at Slippery Rock University to educate them about how threats to their health and safety, and teach them tactics in fighting for a sustainable campus environment.

Many universities see fracking as an opportunity to give endowments a boost after budget cuts to higher education have left many schools strapped for cash. Following on the heels of the Pennsylvania legislation, shale gas drilling has opened up at campuses across Texas, New York, Colorado, Ohio and West Virginia.

“This is not the kind of risk we should be willing to take with universities that are sacred places of education and smart decision making. Allowing this land to be leased begs the questions, what are our values in Pennsylvania?” Sierra Student Coalition organizer Kathryn Hilton said at WeArePowerShift.org.

For this reporter, the fracking gets personal. At my local university in Denton, Texas, a fracking rig is currently located just yards away from an athletic dormitory on our campus. That rig was operating illegally for a time while Denton was still coming up with a new ordinance on drilling in the city.

But the trend isn’t exclusive to institutions of higher learning. Fracking rigs are increasingly encroaching on K-12 schools as well, and my town yet again exemplifies the problem—with three rigs behind a local school, right next to a playground.

The fight for divestment is about more than just an endowment. It’s also the fight for the right to a frack-free campus at some colleges where drilling rigs are already in place.

E. Fudd

E. Fudd

Revival in the Mist: Mountain Gorilla Population Booms in Africa

E. Fudd

Susan Rice’s holdings of Canadian oil stocks raises conflict of interest

E. Fudd

EU takes major step to protect sharks

woo hoo!

E. Fudd

From Care2:

Save the Tesla Wilderness From Becoming a Motorcycle Park!

Sign Petition Here.

The California state parks system is planning to turn 3,400 acres of ecologically sensitive and historically significant wilderness into a motorcycle park.

So much for the parks systems working to protect and preserve the environment and wildlife!

The site is the Tesla wilderness southeast of Livermore and is adjacent to the 1,300-acre Carnegie State Vehicular Recreational Area, one of eight designated recreational areas where people can ride motorcycles, ATVs and other vehicles. Not surprisingly, off-road enthusiasts are, well, enthusiastic about the plan, which state officials are already at a midway point in devising. As Jerry Fouts of the American Motorcycle Association says to SFGate.com, “There’s fewer and fewer places to ride. Environmentalists have the upper hand, and we know that. No one likes to recreate on screwed-up land.”

Far from being “screwed-up,” the Tesla site — steep and rugged territory in the southeast hills between Livermore and Tracy — is the habitat for several endangered species, as well as mountain lions, snakes, hawks and tule elk. The area also contains forests of native oaks and seasonal creeks. John Icanberry, a retired biologist for the U.S. Field and Wildlife Service who lives in the area, says off-road vehicles break up landscapes and destroy habitats. The damage could take centuries to undo as the vehicles ”crush underground animal burrows, flatten vegetation and disrupt wildlife” and, because they destroy soil, cause erosion and reduce the quality of the air and water.

More People Visit Parks to Hike Than to Ride Off-Road Vehicles

SFGate.com cites a 2007 study by the U.S. Geological Survey that found “diverse and potentially profound” harm done to soil, watersheds and habitats and refers to the Carnegie area — parts of which now lack vegetation and are “barren” — as an example. Randy Caldera, Carnegie’s acting superintendent, contends that the it will not be a “free-for-all” in a new park including Tesla. Other off-road advocates contend that, by having a larger off-road vehicle area, motorcyclists and others will be spread over a larger area and have less of an impact on the environment (maybe, but they will certainly have some). They also say the area is necessary due to growing popularity in extreme sports and the lack of such a place in the Bay Area.

However, as SFGate.com notes, usage of Carnegie is actually in decline: 144,000 people visited it in 2003 and 92,000 in 2008. About 900 to 1,000 people currently visit per weekend — but about twice as many people visit the Diamond Mines Regional Preserve near Antioch to hike and picnic.

Historical Significance of the Tesla Wilderness

In addition, the Tesla site (named after the electrical engineer who played a key role in developing alternating current) is of historical significance. For the Ohlone and other Native American tribes, the area provided an efficient route between the Bay Area and the Central Valley. The Anza trail, through which about 200 Spanish soldiers and their families made their way to the Bay Area, runs through the Tesla site. In the late 1800s through the early 1900s, Tesla and Carnegie were the names of thriving mining towns in the hills.

What is the California State Parks System Really Up To?

The California State Parks system actually purchased the Tesla property in 1998 when it had reverted back to its natural state and primarily served as an area for cattle to graze in.

The reason for expanding the Carnegie area to include the Tesla seems to be based on how the system’s finances are controlled, says SFGate.com:

State parks officials’ rationale for expanding Carnegie is that the California Public Resource Code mandates the expansion of the state’s off-road recreational facilities. Money for the expansion is coming from the off-road division’s own special fund, which draws its revenue from off-road park entrance fees, surcharges paid by off-road vehicle owners and other sources. In 2012-13, that fund contained about $67 million.

Those funds can legally be used only for off-road parks and recreation, such as the expansion of Carnegie, even though the parks department’s budget problems have threatened other parks with closure.

The East Bay Regional Park District actually sought to buy Tesla or manage it for the state in 2008. But in October, California’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission accused the park district of interfering with the state system.

A report about the environmental impact of turning Tesla into a motorcycle park is to be completed by the end of 2013.

“I Know How Special and Unique This Area Is,” Says Long-Time Resident

Celeste Garamendi’s husband’s family has run a cattle ranch near Tesla for more than a century. As she says to SFGate.com, “I can’t imagine how we as a state can allow this area to be destroyed, just as the Carnegie area has been destroyed. I live in this area. I work in this area. I know how special and unique this area is.”

I can’t agree with Garamendi more. I still remember the landscape around Livermore as one of burnt yellow hills and cattle seeking shade under whatever tree they could find; as an area with a certain rugged beauty. After some three decades, I was in Livermore last summer and was shocked at how suburbanized it has become, with a golf course, rows of chain stores, hotels and plots of tract homes and condos. That is, the area looked like so many other parts of suburban, strip mall California (and Missouri, and New Jersey, and other places I’ve lived). Turning Tesla into a motorcycle park can only further destroy a place that is emblematic of California’s nature.

E. Fudd

from Care2:

The Bottom Line: Big Opportunity for Pacific Fish

Note: This is a guest post from Lee Crockett, Director of U.S. Fisheries Campaigns at the Pew Environment Group.

Our nation’s West Coast is known worldwide for the rich and iconic marine life that can be found off its shores. In fact, countless tourists travel there every year just for a glimpse of a pod of migrating gray whales or the chance to catch a coho or king salmon in the wild.

These species and a host of other Pacific marine predators need to eat plenty of small fish to survive and thrive. In fact, to understand the well-being of an ocean ecosystem, one of the first steps is to measure the food supply upon which other, larger species depend.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) has a chance to do just that when it meets this November to guide the completion of its Fishery Ecosystem Plan. Nobody, however, wants a document that just gathers dust on a shelf. Embracing a new policy to measure the amount of prey in the water would be a huge step forward with benefits for numerous Pacific marine predators — from whales breeding off the sunny shores of San Diego to salmon foraging in the chilly waters of the Seattle area’s Puget Sound.

Small oil-rich fish such as sardines, anchovies and smelt—commonly known as forage fish—are the linchpin of the marine ecosystem along the West Coast. They eat tiny plants and animals drifting near the surface and, in turn, become prey for everything higher on the food web.

In June, the PFMC recognized the ecological importance of these fish when it set a goal of prohibiting new commercial fishing that targets forage species until there is proof that it won’t degrade the ecosystem. However, the council has delayed enacting actual protections for vulnerable forage species such as saury, sand lance and lanternfish. Instead, the PFMC is now pursuing a slower path that requires it to complete a Fishery Ecosystem Plan by March 2013 before moving on to protect currently unmanaged forage fish. So the council needs to make sure it finishes the plan on time.

We cannot afford to delay protections for these important prey species. Our oceans are under increasing environmental stress because of chronic problems such as water pollution and degradation of coastal habitat. Unlike these and other large-scale factors affecting ocean health, the PFMC has a say about fishing that impacts the prey base along the West Coast, and its members can take proactive measures to protect these little fish.

Worldwide, forage species account for more than a third of total marine fish landings by weight, with 90 percent turned into products such as animal feeds and nutritional supplements. Commercial interest in these small, oily fish is growing more intense.

In fact, an analysis done for the PFMC noted that the market for currently unfished forage species along the West Coast is likely to become even more attractive because of the “spectacular growth” of the global aquaculture industry. In other words, the need to feed carnivorous species such as farmed salmon and pen-fattened tuna could take the food supply away from fish swimming in the wild. That means the abundance of fish that supports both commercial and sports fishing, as well as a number of other sectors of the West Coast economy, is at risk.

The Pacific Fishery Management Council can’t control global market trends, but it can make forage fish a priority as the key link in a productive Pacific Ocean. The council should start by putting in place a system to measure and track the amount of prey in the water.

E. Fudd

E. Fudd

Isn’t Kennecott Copper and Geneva Steel pollution ENOUGH for you….?!?

From Care2:

First Tar Sands Mine On U.S. Soil Approved in Utah

Tar sand oil has been called the dirtiest energy source on Earth. Unfortunately for our neighbors to the North, Canada is home to some of the largest deposits of tar sand oil in the world. According to recent research, crude from Alberta’s oil sands is heavier, more viscous and contains more impurities than other types of oil. That’s why millions of Americans are horrified by the Keystone XL, a massive oil pipeline that would carry toxic tar sands oil over, under and across the entire length of the United States.

Until recently tar sands oil was a Canadian debacle, and U.S. activists have been fighting to keep it in Canada. But now the fight has come to American soil. On Oct. 24, the Utah Water Quality Board (UWQB) approved the first tar sands mine on U.S. soil, handing a permit to U.S. Oil Sands, a company whose headquarters are based in Alberta, despite it’s name.

With everything we know about leaky pipelines and the destructive power of oil spills, whether on land or out at sea, one would expect the state of Utah put U.S. Oil Sands through its paces before giving the green light. Surely they required a comprehensive environmental impact statement and review of potential risks to groundwater before turning the company loose in beautiful, wild Utah, right? Wrong.

According to the UWQB, there’s no risk of groundwater pollution from the tar sands project, so officials gave the Canadian company permission to begin mining on a remote plateau in Eastern Utah without first obtaining a pollution permit or monitoring groundwater quality, an action that sets the stage for a possible court battle over the fragile region, according to Bloomberg.

So basically, Utah just proved that it could care less about keeping its groundwater clean. Might be time to invest in a state of the art water filter.

Although it’s hard to imagine something more harmful than drinking water polluted with filthy tar sands oil waste, it’s not the only thing put at risk by this decision. In an Oct. 9 interview on Democracy Now!, John Weisheit, conservation director of Living Rivers points out that the risks of tar sands extraction in the Uinta Basin aren’t limited to groundwater contamination. Rather, the entire surrounding ecosystem would be endangered.

Well, we’re concerned because this particular locality is in a high-elevation place called the Tavaputs Plateau, and it’s one of the last wild places in Utah. It’s a huge refuge for elk and deer. It’s also a beautiful watershed. It not only would affect the Colorado River, but it also—at this particular site, it’s at the top of the drainage, so it would also affect the White River and the Green River.

To put that in perspective: The entire Southwest United States – the states of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming and California – use the depend on the Colorado River’s water for farming, drinking and irrigation. That’s 30 million people who could be drinking contaminated water if U.S. Oil Sands is permitted to proceed.

E. Fudd