Comments Range41 has made

  • new direction??

    I sincerely hope they get someone who both read and understood the point of the "Death of Environmentalism" essay.  On Carl Pope stepping down from helm of the Sierra Club posted 10 months, 1 week ago 24 Responses

  • Clean Coal

    What bugged my during this part of the debate was that "clean coal" got mixed in the discussion during a climate change section and got seemingly touted by both candidates as a greenhouse gas reducing technology.  Carbon scrubbing technology and "Clean Coal" technology are two very separate things with one (clean coal) being much closer to a reality than the other.  The best an engineer of a clean coal plant can hope for is emissions made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide and water with fewer nasty standard pollutants like NOX and SOX and particulates.  Drastic improvements in coal plants in this direction have been achieved and should be exported to countries like China - BUT it worries me that politicians seem to think (or want the public to believe) that this technology will improve greenhouse gas emissions.   Carbon capture and storage technologies that would reduce the carbon emissions from using coal are a long ways away.  On Vice presidential candidates spar on energy and climate issues posted 1 year, 1 month ago 10 Responses

  • Answers I hope

    The project I am working on may temporarily disturb individual arroyo toads burrowed in the sand (perhaps even crush one).  So we have to consult with the USFWS, which takes up to 180 days to recieve a reply saying basically, "we agree with your assessment that this will may impact individuals but will have a net benefit to the species".  Then we can proceed.  Thats if we get an experienced person at USFWS - otherwise the reply might include mitigations (toad exclusion fencing etc) that makes the project undoable.  The reforms, as I understand them, allows us (another federal agency with biologists on staff) to make that determination ourselves and proceed with the project.  If our biologists (or a consulting firm biologist hired by the developer makes the determination that the project will adversely affect the species then its business as usual with consultation and the like).

    Your question shows the general misunderstanding of the ESA - that it only affects big development projects and the like.  IN FACT, ESA does not stop any development unless the USFWS can justify a "jeopardy" opinion - basically meaning the development (or action) will make a species go extinct.  When you are that point the species is already in serious trouble.  The ESA has no mechanism for looking at the cumulative effects of developments (except the Habitat Conservation Plan admendment that Wolverine wants to throw out).  Each project/development is eventually allowed to proceed with some mitigations until habitat is knicked away to the point of jeopardy.  

    My main point of the ESA is that it focuses attention on the really small potatoes of species protection.  It is not proactive and it does little to plan for active management and recovery of the species.  

    The ESA is all sticks and no carrots, the incentives it creates are completely backward.  In fact, the only incentive to preserve species is to avoid their listing and the black hole of spurious bureaucracy that ensues.  Look at the case of the sage grouse.  Lots of good work and habitat planning is currently occurring to avoid listing of that species.  Once it is listed, I think the outlook for it will be considerably grimmer.   The incentives for private landowners then turns to eliminating all sage grouse habitat on their lands.   Another example, if you are a timber company with private forest land in the northwest - under the ESA the last thing you would want to do is allow your forest to development into something that could support spotted owls.  On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • In fact...

    I do not work for a developer, company etc.  I work in natural resource management and I work on projects undergoing consultation all the time.  Currently in fact I am prevented from starting a project to benefit arroyo toad habitat by manually removing invasive species because of the ESA and the delays it causes.   The ESA does not build strategies for recovering endangered species, it instead mandates dubious mitigations that are costly and dont provide any benefit.  Look at the list of listed species that have recovered and 9times out of 10 it is not because of ESA protections that the animal recovered.  I really think that groups trying to defend the current state of the ESA would be shocked if they actually went through the process.  IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to the best we can do to protect endangered species.  And by the way - Environmental Impact Statements stem from a different (and even worse law) not the ESA.  

    Seriously no agenda here other than to try to figure out how to do all this better than we are doing it.  It would be really helpful if the environmental community stopped knee-jerk defense reactions to any attempt to reform ESA and NEPA and instead came to the table with an open mind.  Both of these laws consume an enormous amount of resources and talent with little enviromental benefit.  Working with these laws I am constantly thinking there has got to be a better way.  Again, I am sure the majority of people (wildlife biologists, planners, enviromental consultants) who struggle with these laws would agree.On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • Enviro's need to stop treating the ESA as sacred

    To be honest, all I have seen is the rather simplistic media coverage of these rule changes and I reserve ultimate judgement until I can see what changes are proposed.  BUT, I can say that you will be hard pressed to find anyone who actually works with the ESA on a daily basis (I do) who thinks the law does not need some streamlining and reform.  Basically the reforms that are needed are along the lines of what Kempthorne describes along with a shift in focus away from nitpicking projects with mitigations that have little positive benefit towards a focus on active recovery programs that address the specific limiting factors on individual species.

    Also, I think some big enviro groups are REALLY on the wrong track in trying to use ESA to backdoor in greenhouse gas regulations.  The USFWS is simply not equipped to deal with an issue like that and the end result will be a complete elimination of ESA not an improvement in greenhouse gas emissions.

    All that said, as much as reform is needed I am a little dubious of any reform with W and his lackeys at the helm.  On Sen. Boxer none too happy about feds' attack on ESA posted 1 year, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • Who makes the money....

    Amazingdrx keeps hitting one of the main points in all of this, that most people miss.  One of the big reasons rooftop solar power is not more widespread is that no one company/energy giant makes a bunch of money.  Its inherently decentralized.  The Sunrise Powerlink allows SDGE to build a centralized solar power plant in the imperial valley on cheap land... BUT that power could be generated on the San Diego side just as easy and with less negative effects - only SDGE would get a much smaller share of the money (they would have to buy the power from all the rooftop owners).  

    Also, the focus of the the powerlink fight seems to be Anza Borrego because its a "park".  But the real scenic tradegy is the effects to the ranchlands around Santa Ysabel and Lake Henshaw. On Huge Calif. solar plant would run transmission lines through state park posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

  • RE: Cattle Industry Lies

    Ferguson and Wuerthner are great sources to learn how  urban "appeal and sue" environmentalism has greatly oversimplified natural resource issues and ecology.  For a good source that maybe leans a little too far on the other side check out works by Dan Dagget.  Or for a more academic, balanced perspective read some Nathan Sayres or the work of Dr. Richard Knight.

    As a professional land manager in Southern California I can say with some practical experience that the removal of livestock from these types of grasslands does not yield any environmental benefits. Instead it will lead to a loss of native plant diversity and an abundance of non-native annual grasses.

    My other point is that these type of landscapes could be preserved in their entirety if environmental groups fought to preserve sustainable uses like extensive livestock grazing instead of fighting for "wilderness".On Greens and developer come to agreement in SoCal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses

  • Wilderness??

    Of course, I wish it could all stay as it is, but it seems like this is a good an outcome as possible.

    My comment though has to do with the word "wilderness".  This is a working cattle ranch and very much shows the marks of a well tended, sustainable ranching operation.  It is funny to me that the groups who knee-jerk demonize livestock grazing on public lands sell this working ranch as "wilderness".  They apparently can't handle that this ranch has all these environmental benefits and habitats intact and has also supported centuries of livestock grazing.  The truth is that as the "wilderness" parks go in and the cattle come off you can pretty much count on an increase in noxious weed cover and a loss if habitat diversity.  So often, environmentalist come in an area like this and think the plants and wildlife are there "in spite" of the grazing use - they kick the cattle off and expect some fabled return to some imagined pristine state.  Instead they lose the native perennial grasses and get nothing but weeds, lose the wildflowers and lose a lot of the benefits of the water sources around the ranch.

    Its ironic that if the NRDC, Sierra Club and especially the Center for Biological Diversity did not spend so much energy in an ill informed fight against livestock grazing in the west in there effort to preserve "wilderness" and instead supported agricultural as a way of preserving these places - there may have been no need for compromise.  Maybe Tejon Ranch would have been happy staying Tejon Ranch, an intact working livestock operation.On Greens and developer come to agreement in SoCal posted 1 year, 6 months ago 9 Responses