Tag Archives: pollution

Mining’s Legacy – You SURE we want to frack?

Picher, Oklahoma

Mining waste from 20th century lead mining towers over the town of Picher Oklahoma. Or should I say, the FORMER town of Picher, one of an EVER growing list of ghost towns in the U.S., brought about by the short-term greed of humanity.

I had a meeting in Alaska a couple of weeks ago.  I flew from Sioux Falls, to Minneapolis, to Anchorage.  For work, I study land-use and land-cover change, and try to predict what will happen in the future.  So when I fly, I always (try to) get a window seat, and ponder the landscape below.  And, inevitably…it’s depressing. 

What I REALLY find laughable are those climate-change skeptics who seem to use their religious belief as a reason why climate change can’t be real.   A line of thinking for these folks seems to be that man is INCAPABLE of affecting the earth at that scale, that only “god” can do so.  All I have to say to these people…have you ever flown?  Have you ever LOOKED at the landscape below as you fly over?  On my trip, I flew over what some would think is some of the most “wild” landscapes in North America, in Alaska and western Canada.  But this “wild” landscape is anything but.  Clear-cutting of forest means that the once unbroken forests of the West are now a maze of cuts and logging roads.  Flying from Minneapolis over the northern part of the U.S., and you see the vast expanses of grassland that are now solid farm fields.  Fly over a major metropolitan area, and you see endless miles of homes, industry, and roads.

But yet some climate change deniers say humans are incapable of altering the earth’s ecosystem at that scale?  We’ve already forever changed a majority of the earth’s land surface.  That alone would cause climate change, even without the burning of fossil fuels. 

One sight you see ever more frequently when you fly are the effects of mining and energy extraction.  When you’re driving in the West, you see it, but the scale isn’t as readily apparent as it is when you’re flying over.  IN areas with natural gas extraction, when you drive, you may see an individual, small patch of land with a well. When you fly over, you see hundreds upon hundreds of wells, interconnected by a maze of pipes, electrical wires, and roads. 

There’s VERY little that has a more devastating, long-term effect on the landscape than mining.  The New York Times today had a story this week about the area around Picher Oklahoma, and Treece, Kansas, an area where suitability for human habitation has FOREVER been changed.   For the sake of a few decades of short-term financial gain, the lead mining waste in the region has forever altered the landscape, where just TOUCHING the water gives you chemical burns, where every breath of air draws in a dose of lead, where sinkholes from the mining activity may open up and swallow you at any time.

Fracking proponents say the practice is “safe”…despite the practice being VERY new, despite there being VERY little analysis of long-term effects.  Just in the last decade, when technological advances have made fracking economically feasible, people living near fracking activity have ALREADY been impacted by water that is no longer drinkable, and by ruined landscapes.  Once your underground water source has been contaminated by something like this, there’s no going back.  That water source is unlikely to be suitable for human use for many, many centuries to come.

People and their greed.  People and their complete and utter selfishness.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a poacher of wildlife at the small scale or an oil company at the larger scale…ALL people care about are themselves, and their short-term financial well-being. 

The people of Picher, Oklahoma and Treece, Kansas may have a word or two on the effects of such short-term greed.  Two once-thriving urban areas…now ghost towns.

Farmers “True Environmentalists”? Please…

Deformed Frog

As an article in New Scientist reports, farm pollution has been linked to the explosion of frog and amphibian declines, and deformities, worldwide. THIS is "True Environmentalism"??

We had a family visit to our old stomping grounds in Nebraska last week.  As we were driving back Sunday on the interstate, at least twice we passed billboards about South Dakota’s “True Environmentalists”.  There has been a relatively widespread campaign in the state, as the same type of ads have appeared on TV.  And who supposedly are South Dakota’s “True Environmentalists”?  Farmers.  At least that’s the point of the ad campaign.

I do a lot of driving around the state when I bird.  I’ve seen most of the state, especially the eastern half of the state where cultivated cropland dominates the landscape.  The LAST thing I ever equate farmers with is environmentalism.  In fact, it’s damned depressing driving around and seeing what’s being done with the little “habitat” that’s left in the eastern part of the state.  Crop prices are high, and farmers are trying to squeeze every bit of production out of their land.  Hey, that’s what farmers do…it’s their living.  I understand that.  BUT…I want to laugh out loud (or cry) every time I see these stupid ads about South Dakota’s “True Environmentalists”.

The amount of drain tile being put in around the southeast part of the state is amazing.  It’s an area that has a long history of use for cultivated crops, yet farmers are putting in drain tile in record levels as they expand their fields into areas that were often too wet to cultivate.  I take gravel roads for most of my 15-mile drive to work, just for the chance of potentially running across some interesting birds.  The “hotspots” for birding on my drive to work are few and far between, and are disappearing fast.  Tiny little wetland areas that I used to drive by are now gone, with drain tile funneling water away as fast as it can percolate into the soil.  Former small patches of grassland, even heavily grazed grassland, have been plowed under and planted in corn or soybeans.  As a co-worker pointed out to me this week, farmers are even starting to utilize ditches next to gravel roads, either plowing right up to the edge of the road, or installing electric fence so livestock can graze in the ditches.

There’s one organic farm on my way to work.  Other than that, farmers are using fertilizer and pesticides and record levels.  Ground water in many areas contain very high levels of nitrates, and increasing amounts of pesticides.  Water bodies in the eastern part of the state are often green yucky messes in the summer, due to excess fertilization from adjacent farm fields.

“True Environmentalists”?  Give me a freakin’ break.   As I said, I understand that farmers are in it to make a living.  But South Dakota farmers are about as interested in being ”True Environmentalists” as Republicans are in making the rich pay their fair share of taxes.  The “True Environmentalist” ad campaign is just one big white-wash.

Fracking Polluting Groundwater

Fracking Protest

Short-term economic gain for energy companies? Or ensuring you have water you can actually drink? In the U.S., it's the $$$ that seem to be the highest priority.

If you’ve ever driven through the parts of Wyoming where oil and natural gas extraction is going on, you can see the visible portion of the landscape that has been destroyed and fragmented.   For my money, parts of Wyoming are just about the ugliest, anthropogenically altered landscapes you can find.   It turns out that environmental damage isn’t limited to the above-ground landscape.  Residents of Pavillion, Wyoming complained about the taste, smell, and color of their water, and blamed it on the massive number of natural gas wells in the area.  Recent tests of the water show very high concentrations of carcinogenic compounds, including a chemical that is commonly used in “fracking”.  Residents can’t drink the water, can’t use it for cooking, and even have been told to have adequate ventilation when they do something as simple as showering.

Hydraulic fracking uses high-pressure injections of water and chemicals to release oil and gas in underground rock formations. The energy industry is on the defensive regarding the environmental consequences of fracking.  However, as a new technology, there’s very little understanding of the short- and long-term consequences of fracking.  Individual states in the U.S. are proposing fracking bans, while overseas, France and other countries have outlawed the practice.  Even the love-child of the conservative right, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, issued a one-year moratorium on fracking in the state…although it was in response to his veto of a bill that would have permanently banned the practice. 

However, despite the increasing evidence of the environmental effects of the new technology, there are few legal limits on the practice.  It seems that in the U.S., short-term economic gain, driven by the powerful energy industry lobby, trumps long-term environmental consequences.  Why is that it can take years to get a new drug approved in this country, but for something like fracking, the practice can continue unabated despite our limited understanding of the consequences?   Once an aquifer has been polluted, such as in the case of Pavillion, it may be centuries before that aquifer may cleanse itself of the chemicals…if it EVER does.   Is the short-term economic benefit of fracking worth destroying our water supplies? 

Sadly, the answer seems to be “yes”.

Deep Thoughts – Humanity as a Virus

The MatrixI work at a USGS facility that is “out in the country”, about 10 miles outside of Sioux Falls and surrounded by…well, by a lot of nothing.  But today as I was driving home, with a lonely gravel road all to myself, I still found myself thinking about just how different the landscape looks now compared to what it probably was like 150 years ago.  What once was tallgrass prairie is now corn and soybean fields as far as you can see, with the occasional “acreage” thrown in, where someone working in Sioux Falls wants a few acres “out in the country” to get away from humanity.

Even with the relatively sparse population in South Dakota, it’s not easy to get away from humanity’s footprint.  Today as I passed yet another acreage under construction, what struck me was the utter ridiculousness of the paradigm humanity has regarding “growth”.   Cities base future planning on “growth”.  The entire economic structure is built on continued “growth”.  More people, more demand for resources…is it any wonder scientists worry about the sustainability of this paradigm?  What came to mind as I was driving home was Agent Smith from the Matrix movies, saying human beings are “a virus”, in that every other organism reaches some equilibrium with the environment, but humanity just

Chesapeake Bay Growth

Urban growth in the Baltimore/Washington Area over 200 years. Does this look sustainable to you for another 200 years?

continually expands and destroys the very  environment on which it depends.

Will humanity ever get to the point where consideration for long-term sustainability outweighs short-term economic gain?   Look at all the Republican efforts right now to gut the EPA and relax environmental regulation.  Does it make sense to undo the environmental gains we’ve made since the EPA was founded, just to ensure a little more corporate profit?   Do you want your children to breathe dirtier air, drink more contaminated water, and eat more contaminated food than you have?  Will we ever value the long-term future as much as we selfishly value our own short-term pleasure and gain?

A new paradigm is obviously needed, one that’s not based on constant growth, and one that’s not based on the selfishness of the “now”.  In my part of the world here on the Great Plains of the U.S., we’ve plowed under over 60% of the prairie, have drained 80% of the wetlands, and use most of the remaining land for either urban/developed uses, or for livestock grazing.   And all of this has happened in the blink of an eye, in 150 years.    Unless the paradigm changes, what do you think even the relatively sparsely populated Great Plains will look like in another 150 years?   What will the water quality be like, if we continue to apply pesticides and fertilizers at the rate we’re doing now?  How much habitat will be available to native plant and animal species?  

Hey, what can I say, it’s Wednesday, “hump day”.  I’m tired, I’m thinking of my son, and I’m thinking of his future.  And I don’t like where things are going.  Maybe it’s because my job right now is focused on forecasting future land-use change in the U.S.  It’s fun, it’s cool to do, but it can also get a little depressing if you’re a nature lover like me, and you see the continued conversion of the natural environment to man-made land uses.