Comments mckittre has made

water and energy sources

The impact of toxics is probably fairly universal, as far as the detergent goes.  But the impacts of energy and water use depend on your personal sources of energy and water.  How environmentally friendly or unfriendly are they coming into your house?

I haul water from my own shallow well and heat it on a woodstove to handwash dishes, so I'm not terribly concerned about either the water or the energy.  I imagine someone in a dry area might be most concerned about water use, and want to turn their heater up accordingly, to avoid having to wash dishes twice.  Someone in a very wet area might be better off using colder water and more of it.   On Umbra on eco-friendly detergents posted 11 months ago 13 Responses

Alaska's wonderful energy policy

Of course, here in Alaska, we've got the energy thing all figured out.  

We're running countless villages, as well as some larger towns and a city on diesel generators - making for some of the most expensive electricity in the nation.  This is in a state where renewable sources (wind, geothermal, etc...) are there for the using, and where the state government has a massive surplus to put into new projects if it wished to...

One of the biggest reasons given for the $1200 "energy rebate" Palin pushed for this year was that energy costs are so high here that some towns in the bush are in danger of shutting down because of it.  The village of Adak on the Aleutian Islands recently told everyone to leave because the city had no more money to buy fuel.

Won't it be great when the nation's energy situation mirrors ours?

-Erin
www.GroundTruthTrekking.org
On GOP VP candidate says she'd be in charge of McCain's energy policy posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

Alaskan fraud?

Good job helping me convince Alaskans that environmentalists are people worth listening to.  :)

Folks here are, on average, no more or less heroic, no more or less smart, and no more or less responsible than people anywhere else.

Settlement by exploitative Europeans is a sad part of the history of Alaska as well as the history of the rest of the US, much of North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and many other parts of the world.  It's unfortunate, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion.

Neither is Alaska's pork-barrel politics.  We don't need the subsidies, we just have greedy and powerful politicians who grab whatever they can for Alaska.  I don't support it either, but it's irrelevant to the question of eating salmon.

As for sustainability?

 Do we know for sure that eating wild Alaskan salmon is completely sustainable as currently managed?
 No.  
Do we know that anything we might eat, animal or vegetable, is completely sustainable as currently managed?  
No.  
And if we wish to put a value on wild ecosystems, a lot of farming is already a notch or two down by virtue of having destroyed whatever ecosystem was there before the farmland.  

People have always needed to eat something.  Salmon have been harvested here for probably 10,000 years, and I don't see it as impossible to regulate the fishery such that they can be harvested for 10,000 more.  But you seem to think it's not worth even trying?

Perhaps it is irresponsibly optimistic for us to eat at all.  

-Erin
www.GroundTruthTrekking.orgOn Amid collapsing fisheries and factory-farmed salmon, how to choose sustainable seafood posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Alaskan Environmentalists

Using the views of the big industries to represent all Alaskans is about as accurate as using the views of our president to represent all Americans.  :)

Overall, the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game does quite a good job managing the salmon runs sustainably.  Alaska still has, on average, about 100% of its historic runs of salmon, compared to 36% in BC, and 2% in Washington.  This is probably because when we shifted to more sensible management strategies, there were still a lot of fish here and not too many people, so it was a more tractable problem.  

Your question about environmentalism is a little more complicated.  Few Alaskans would be caught dead calling themselves environmentalists.  However if you talk to them about specific issues (I just  walked about 3000 miles through the state and talked to a lot of folks) - nearly all Alaskans have strong environmental values.

More so than other places I've lived, Alaskans have a strong connection to the natural world around them.  The proportion of outdoorspeople, hunters, fishermen, gatherers, gardeners... is very high.  And they really do care about maintaining these resources.  Salmon, particularly, are a bit of a sacred cow.  Given that people have more of a personal connection to the issues, their views tend to be a bit more complicated (e.g. someone who  is worried about oil drilling, but all for predator control, someone who is trying to start a local organic farm in their village but thinks more oil drilling is a great idea, someone who is pushing for local wind power, but supports mining development, etc...)

As far as living expenses go, Alaska actually has a lot of people (myself among them) who manage to live very cheaply here.  You can build your own small house, salvage materials, heat with wood, grow/fish/hunt/gather a good chunk of food...  

And the intra-Alaska environmental debate is quite lively.  Currently, there's a huge battle over a Clean Water Initiative targeted at the mining industry on the upcoming primary ballot.  The Pebble Mine I mentioned in the previous post is on state land, and it's up in the air what will happen, despite the huge amount of money the mining industry's throwing at it.

I would say that Alaskans, on average, resent people from 'Outside' telling them what to do with their land, more than being anti-environmental per se.  Alaskans also are more convinced by global warming than the population of other 'red state', given that its effects are more obvious here.

I see the future of environmental issues here as pretty hopeful, actually.  And don't the rest of you give up on us!  Alaska is an important battle ground for all sorts of things (we might have 10% of the world's coal, for one), and I think things can be solved better by working with Alaskans, rather than just at the federal level.

Long answer.  Hope it helps.  

-Erin
www.GroundTruthTrekking.orgOn Amid collapsing fisheries and factory-farmed salmon, how to choose sustainable seafood posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Don't say NO - We need the fishermen!

I live in Alaska, so for me, wild Alaskan salmon is clearly a much better choice than shipping tofu thousands of miles...

However, it's really important for everyone to actually pay attention to those sustainability guides, rather than to avoid fish as a blanket rule.  

For instance, in the wild Alaskan salmon fishery:
Wild salmon depend on both healthy oceans and healthy watersheds.  Fishermen have a lot of clout to try and keep them that way - if and only if people recognize that their product is better and friendlier than farmed salmon and will pay the price for it.  
Alaska is also stuffed full of metals, coal, gas, and oil underneath some of these currently pristine watersheds.  There is a huge push to explore these, and the more a mining company can make the point that the economic future of fishing is crap, the more they convince locals that open pit gold/copper mining is the way to go.
One of the largest open pit mines in North America might go in at the headwaters of Bristol Bay (one of the world's largest salmon runs and pristine ecosystems).  See Pebble Mine.  The fishermen are the only hope of stopping it.  Bristol Bay had record salmon runs this year - the competition with farmed salmon is the main thing driving their prices and livelihoods down.

This is just one example I happen to know well.  I'm sure if you look into other sustainable fisheries, you'll find similar stories.  

We don't need to just avoid bad industries, we need to support the good ones.  More than just fish populations are at stake.

-Erin
www.GroundTruthTrekking.orgOn Amid collapsing fisheries and factory-farmed salmon, how to choose sustainable seafood posted 1 year, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Or choose wild fish

I certainly agree with all the above criticisms of farmed salmon.  But it's hardly fair to use that as a blanket condemnation of eating fish!  

Just as we can responsibly choose how our veggies are grown (organic or conventional, local or long-distance), we can make the same choices for our fish.

Unlike the farmed stuff, wild Alaskan salmon is a great choice (and tastier).  And unlike any other food source I can think of, the wild salmon fishery is an industry that relies on an intact ecosystem and healthy streams to survive.  An alliance between the salmon fishermen and environmentalists could do a lot to preserve habitat for all kinds of plants and animals, both on land and in the sea.  In some cases, this is already happening.  But it won't continue if fishermen see environmentalists as a blanket opposition to them.

-Erin
www.groundtruthtrekking.orgOn Umbra on water conservation posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

how far to the fish?

caniscandida - You certainly have a point about the energy cost of transporting fish.  

However, I think it's worth pointing out that we're balancing two different environmental values here.  One is energy use and C02 emissions - the costs of transporting fish.  The other is land use and the preservation of wild ecosystems - the benefits of supporting the salmon fishery.  It's not necessarily obvious how exactly we should choose between them.

>>If ideally Alaskan fishers had all the power they might need to regulate the purity of >>both ocean waters and river waters, and could thoroughly manage the environment of >>their salmon, then I would say you have a point.

The power of the fishermen is economic.  The more of their fish we buy, the more power they have.  For instance, there's a huge debate going on right now about whether to build a giant open pit mine at the headwaters of some of the world's most important salmon spawning rivers in Bristol Bay.  (Pebble Mine).  Who is the major opposition?  The fishermen.  Fishermen have some power in Alaska.  Without them, the mine would be a foregone conclusion.  With them, there's a chance of stopping it.

Currently, the Alaska salmon fishery is well managed, and not over fished.  The better the fishermen do economically, the more power they have to ensure the continued purity of the waters and health of the runs.

-Erin
On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

fish transit

Good questions, J.S.  
In answer...

Thousands of years before refrigeration, salmon was smoked or dried for preservation.  I suspect, with the removal of water and the fact that it doesn't need to be refrigerated, that the transport cost per calorie isn't higher than any other dried food (perhaps better).  And smoked salmon is very tasty.

As for fresh fish - it suffers from the same problem as fresh produce.  Eating anything fresh that's not local and in season (whether fish or bananas) is environmentally costly.  I try to eat local food when  I can, but do choose a few shipped things.  And I do spend a lot of time in Alaska in the summer - where I can eat as much fresh fish as I please.

As for fish labeled incorrectly - that's certainly a problem, but not really an argument against eating fish.  No more than if someone was labeling organic produce incorrectly.  The long term solution to this is to lobby for stronger regulation/enforcement of labeling.  My short term solution is to buy from sources I trust, or pre-packaged from places where there is no salmon farming (like Alaska).  And in my experience, there's a huge taste differentce between farmed and wild salmon.

-Erin
www.aktrekking.com/pebble/On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

vegan is not necessarily better than fish

Is not eating any fish always a better environmental choice?

Consider location.  
Say you live in a small town near Bristol Bay, Alaska.  You could choose to eat vegan food, grown thousands of miles away in California, and shipped and flown to your town using an extraordinary amount of fossil fuel.  Alternately, you could walk outside, put a net in the river, and catch a wild salmon from a healthy and well-managed stock.  Which is the more environmentally friendly choice?  

There's a good reason that native communities closer to the poles have always eaten more animal foods than those in the tropics.  

Consider land use.
Even the most environmentally friendly farm is taking a section of land out of the wild and devoting it to human use - driving out whatever wilderness once existed there.  In many places, there's so little wild land left that we don't think of this.  But it's not true everywhere.  

Back to the salmon example:
Wild salmon (and all anadramous fish) depend on a healthy wild watershed to exist.  If you buy them (from healthy well-managed stocks), you're supporting the continued health of that ecosystem.
Using my Bristol Bay, Alaskan resident again...  If environmentalists refuse to buy his fish, his other option isn't to start a sustainable organic farm (not feasible in that area).  His other option is open pit gold and copper mining, one of the most toxic industries in the country.  Which would you rather support?

This isn't just a theoretical example.  Right now in Bristol Bay, Alaska, fishermen who depend on salmon are holding up the fight against a proposal to build the largest open pit mine in North America in the middle of the wilderness there (Pebble Mine).
Fishermen in the Tongass are a driving force against logging there, due to the damage it causes to fish streams.

Some fish we shouldn't eat.  But there are some fisheries environmentalists would do much better to support than denigrate.  On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses