Saving the Columbia and Snake river salmon
Throughout this stalemate, fish counts have continued to fall, and the underlying science is clear: In river after river where dams have been removed, native fish populations have rebounded and thrived. As the government’s former chief aquatic biologist, Don Chapman, concluded, dam removal is the most effective strategy for saving endangered native fish stocks from extinction.
….Dozens of reports by natural resources economists have agreed. Among other things, they describe the dams as economic sinkholes, which produce less than 3% of the region’s power, do nothing for flood control, irrigate only a handful of big farms and subsidize transportation costs (at the expense of taxpayers and salmon) for wheat farmers in Idaho and eastern Washington.
The Columbia-Snake corridor is the salmon’s only option for survival, and Redden is probably their last hope. He is the one person in this entire drama who is legally obligated to use science and the law to protect the fish from extinction and from the whims of politicians.
It borders on heresy to even suggest dam removal. Once built they tend to stay for generations. So long that people forget the land that had to be bought to build it, the easements that required compensation, the land that was there is no longer usable, the incredible expense to build them and the citizens displaced. Then once built they do produce relatively cheap electricity(though in generations past we were awful at doing cost-benefits analysis of such big water diversion projects) and benefit a few people (sometimes in other states). Despite the protests of one person cited in the report, the EPA in conjunction with other federal and state agencies can began the process to remove a dam. Though it is considerably more difficult to remove a dam in terms of bureaucratic processes, then to build one.
Sandstorm In Middle East May Be Largest In Modern History
Dust plumes hovered over most of Iraq on July 3, 2009, as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite passed overhead. This true-color image shows thick dust between Syria and the Iraq-Iran border. Over northwestern Iraq, the dust takes on a strangely textured appearance: a combination of small bumps and curving waves. Air currents likely sculpted the upper layer of the massive dust cloud.
Sandstorm In Middle East July 2009 NASA photo
One of those natural phenomenon that has the wow that’s so cool effect, combined with feeling bad for the folks that have to live through it.The sand cloud is covering the entire country of Iraq and a good chunk of Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The Great Barbecue Debate – Is charcoal bad for the planet?
* There is going to be more carbon emissions from charcoal then natural gas
* Charcoal emissions might be offset if you buy charcoal that is made from sawdust that comes from tree stands that are replanted. Its often difficult to tell from the package labeling. Slate mentions Wicked Good Charcoal.
* If you use natural gas, once used its a resource that is gone for good. If you use charcoal, besides the particulate matter from the coals emitted into the air, most people use a lighter fluid which also adds to the pollution side of the equation. They mention using a chimney starter rather then fluid. That stills leaves you with the issue of ash disposal. Ash can be a good addition to your compost, but that ash will contain some contaminants.
