NEPA

I got this great new job. I'm working at a consulting firm and we do contract work for the government. Not a bad thing, maybe I'll even get to make a difference somewhere along the way. Small difference I'm sure :) So I'm working on NEPA stuff. That would be National Environmental Policy Act, for those non-governmental individuals. Something that I've wanted to point out is about the "categorical exclusion (cx)." Or even the idiots that try to use it to get around doing an Env. Assessment (EA) or an Env. Impact Statement (EIS). So, what is a CX? It's an "action that has been determined to have no significant effect on the human environment and for which there therefore, neither and EA nor and EIS is required." You can find that quote right in the NEPA document. So what the heck does that mean? Well, it means that there are things that federal agencies can do without having to fill out an EA or EIS. BUT, they have to report what they are doing, in the form of a CX. The stuff that falls into the CX category are things like routine maintenance, painting buildings, repairing roads, data gathering, etc. Ya get the drift? If there is any construction involved, generally an EA or and EIS is required. Now here's the fun part. There are several things that determine if and EA or EIS are needed, and believe it or not, human impact and historical impact are considered. Seriously!! If some federal agency or company paid by the federal gov't, wanted to put a new steam heating system down the middle of downtown Colonial Williamsburg, they'd have to fill out an EA or and EIS. Understand? If those same people wanted to put a wind farm in the middle of Central Park, NY they'd have to fill out an EA or EIS. And guess what? After that, the PEOPLE/PUBLIC get to comment on the proposed project. Yes, people, YOU have an impact on the crazy crap that the government does!! Okay, so I got a little off topic there. I was going to point out that some people try to get around the EA & EIS process cause they are lazy, or cheap, or both. An EA or EIS takes at least a year and can cost thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars, depending on the project size. So there are companies that try to sneak things past the government checkpoints to get projects approved without appropriate study. And of course, I'm sure there are government jerks that pass things through as a CX cause they are getting a little something on the side. Which makes me sad. Cause really, what's more important? A little extra money now, or the fact that your kids generation will go extinct cause you pushed something through that you shouldn't have? hmmm, now there's a thought. But then, I guess, some people are just big jerks and care for nothing but themselves, so there isn't anything we can do.....

This place is SCREWED UP!!!

I'm taking one more class before I'm done with my degree. As I'm sure I've whined about! The class is about Environmental Impact Statements, and Assessments. Pretty much everything covered by the National Environmental Policy Act, aka NEPA. Anyway. I have to write a paper on wetland mitigation and what a joke it is. Well, actually I'm supposed to present both sides, and I will, cause I'm a geek and I like to get A's, so I'll give all the information I can find. HOWEVER!!!! All i've found up to this point is that it's more than a bad idea, it's a terrible one. jeez. I'm working on the paper and I come across a decision by the Supreme Court that was given in 2001. I can't believe I didn't look this up and get the entire scoop when I first heard about it. Too busy with other stuff I guess. Anyway, there is an area in Illinois that is habitat to a LARGE number of migratory birds. And some jackoff wants to, well it's probably already done, fill it..... with GARBAGE!!@!!!!!! Oh, yeah, like that is just a wonderful freaking idea. WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS!!!!! Yes, lets put our CRAP in something that is actually beneficial to the environment. Granted, the only reason the area is there is becuase it was abandoned by some other idiot that dug it up for another purpose, which was a sand and gravel pit. BUTTTTTTTT. Since we have put everything in the animals way that we can think of, isn't it time we let them be and quit putting trash in their home. The reason it got taken to the supreme court was becuase the development company was denied permission to fill by the Army Corp of Engineers, the company said the engineers didn't have jurisdiction. The Supreme court agreed with the company. Thereby weakening Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Now 30%-60% of the nations wetlands are exposed to the threat of development. Cause people don't seem to think they are important and the place would look so much better with a dumbass development with cookie cutter ugly houses there. They don't realize that the reason the flooding that occurs on a yearly basis is so bad now is, um DUH, cause we've destroyed over 50% of the wetlands that used to cover the US. Probably more. And the reason our water quality sucks. yeah, same reason. Wetlands are a filters that clean our water. Remove the filter, GUESS WHAT HAPPENS?!!! I'm so sick about this, I can't believe the stupidity of some people. And it's not a minority, it's probably the majority of people that don't have a flippin clue and don't want to have a damn clue, cause that would mean they would have to change the way they do thing. Quit wasting energy, buying all kinds of worthless crap, and actually conserve. People just don't want to get it. They don't want to believe that we are slowly, BUT SURELY, killing our planet! They just want to go about their happy existance, living in their suburban hell and filling waterfowl habitat with garbage. what a bunch of morons. I'm still not done raving about this, I just can't seem to find anymore ways to call people idiots. so I'm done! for today.

The power of water

At the park in the area the sediment that has run off the land has settled in the lake. The Army Corps of Engineers has drained it and will be dredging it over the next year and a half.

Even though they have drained it there is still water flowing through the area. While the amount of water flowing through is small it's still pretty powerful. The lake was officially drained in September, this is the cutdown of the sediment since then. The pictures don't do it justice, the water has carried away over 2 feet of the sediment in the "river" area. The best part about this process is that it is going to cost the county over $3 million to dig out the lake. And on top of that, they haven't made any plans so that they won't have to dig it out again. "They" (city planners) do not seem to be concerned about controlling the problem, allowing for development to continue at an unabated rate. I'm still not sure why in the heck I'm getting into Environmental Engineering, I feel so inadequate, and that I will never be able to make a difference.

Hmmm, this keeps coming up? I WONDER WHY?!!

So, all I've heard today is how crappy this new health bill and how Obama doesn't know what the hell he is doing. And frankly it kinda pisses me off!! Look what the poor guy was handed!! Seriously, do you think he's going to be able to fix the horrendous mess that was left behind by idiot-boy in only 2 years?!! really, people, COME ON, use your heads for something besides a hat rack and read, investigate, quit believing the propaganda bullcrap that someone is feeding you. jeez!!! okay, i'm better now, enough of that tirade. So, like I've said, I was reading a great book, Hot Flat and Crowded, and something was mentioned in there about Bush Jr's idea that deficit's don't matter. Read the book, as well as The Pittsburgh Post Gazzette, they mentioned it in there, too. Anyway, it's the reason our country is in the trouble it is in today. Every other time we have gone to war, the American people have been taxed to pay for it. NOT THIS TIME, we've been in Iraq (for no reason) and Afghanastan for over 5 years, and our taxes have never gone up. Whos' paying for this? um, no one it seems, cause we are going further and further into debt to pay for it. Which would indicate to me, maybe we should leave. hmmm. (Now don't get me wrong, i love my service men & women and pray daily that they return safely. I just don't think they should have been sent over there in the frist place.) anyway. So, I found another place where the same thing is being said. "It's our OWN DAMN FAULT"!!!! (emphasis added by me, of course) Read this article and be enlightened. The great thing is, it's written by a financial guy, not an environmental freak, like me :) So, it's not just us environmentalists who think there is a serious problem. check it out.
www.dailyfinance.com The article is "OPEC's Business Model: Sit Back and Let the Money Flow In" by John Lazzaro. I tried to link it, but blogger won't let me today for some reason. I'll see what I can do later.

Packaging

One of the things I hate about ordering something on-line is the packaging. That actually goes with anything you get in the mail. They seem to have no rhyme nor reason as to why they package things the way they do. The UNITED STATES has one of the worst policies about recylcing packaging. Germany has one of the strictest. most of the European Union has some form of law that prevents wasteful packaging. Most of the packaging as well as the product in the box must be able to be returned or recylced. At least when it comes to major appliances, like TV's, refridgeratros, stoves, you get my drift. So from nike, I ordered the following, 2 shirts and 4 pairs of socks.

These are the items, rather thin little things, I think. Here are the two boxes that they came in. The picture doesn't do it justice. Just to see what would happen, I put EVERYTHING in the little box, including all the plastic that it was wrapped in, and the paperwork. It all fit rather well. There was even an inch or two on the top. So WHY did they have to back the blue shirt in the bigger box? That is my question! What a waste of resources! That huge box killed a couple hundred trees and for what?! ONE BLASTED shirt?!!! Give me a friggin' break people! This would be yet one more strike against Nike, in there already tarnished reputation. At least with me. Can't really stand anything they make. Anyway, I personally was able to reuse the box to pack away soem stuff that I needed to put in the attic, so the box didn't get wasted. But our town is famous for not recycling corrigated board (cardboard to all you non-recyclers). so that huge, UNNECESSARY box would have ended up in a landfill somewhere, if I hadn't reused it. Does anyone get this? jeez. maybe I should put this on my facebook page. who knows if a friend of a friend might see it, and be able to do something about it. hmm.

Interesting quotes

As I mentioned in the last post, I've been reading Thomas Friedman;s book "Hot, Flat & Crowded." I still maintain that this is an awesome book. As well as, a book that makes you actually think and go, "really? seriously? this is not good!" At least I would hope that someone reading it would actually think about what they are reading and maybe try to do something about it. Anyway, so the point of this post is that I have found several really great quotes in the book. These are quotes by big time people, that know what they are talking about when it comes to climate change. 1: By Ted Turner, founder of CNN; "We're too many people- that's why we have global warming. Too many people using TOO MUCH STUFF!" (emphasis is all mine, but he said that exact sentence) 2: From Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, in Oakland, CA; "There are degrees of screwed. And no matter how bad it is, it could be worse or less worse. There is a huge difference between a two-foot sea level rise and a ten-foot. There is a big difference between a two-degree temperature rise and a five-degree temperature rise - and that is why thinking about manageable and unmanageable comes into play, becuase one scenario might kill ten million and one might kill a hundred million." love it, there are degrees of screwed, bet you didn't know that didja? And the best part it, there are people that don't believe ANY of this is going. Boy are they going to be surprised. Sometimes I wonder why I bother? Does anyone even care that we are slowly killing the only planet we have to live on? Oh, and that brings me to quote 3: from Bill Collins, one of the top climate modelers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California; "We're running an uncontrolled experiment on the only home we have." When I find more, I'll be sure to post them. I'm only a 1/4 of the way through the book. I do have a thesis to work on, ya know.

Great Book

I've been reading this awesome book lately. I saw it at work and got it out from the library. It totally contects the government mess, the economy and the environment. I've read enough other material to totally agree with this guy. Well, I guess totally is a little exteme. But a LARGE amount of what he says makes me want to yell, "Hell ya!!!" The book is "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" by Thomas L Friedman. Awesome book, I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in what's REALLY going on. The first chapter is kinda hard to follow in parts, but totally worth the struggle through . Love it!

Global warming, misnomer

I'm always listening to the people at work and shaking my head. As I've mentioned before, I read... A LOT. and I also can't seem to stop taking classes that I think are interesting, and in these classes we read.... A LOT. So, I like to consider myself kinda well read. Anyway. The other day at work the old guys were griping about global warming and how it ISN'T happening. I mean the east coast just got record breaking snowfall. Okay, so the idiot that starting shouting "Global warming!! we are all going to die," really did the scientists a HUGE, HUGE disservice. Although global warming IS happening, yes, I hate to tell you that the earth is warming, there are other issues that are more dire. I heard someone spouting, or read, some propaganda about how global warming occurs in cycles and it has been happening for the millions of years that the earth has been in existence. Uh, yeah. HOWEVER..... We, as humans, have sped it up, the earth is warming WAAAYYYYYY faster than it has in any other time period in earths history. but that isn't what I really wanted to talk about. With warming other problems are created. So, the idiots that screamed global warming SHOULD have screamed climate change. Things that are ACTUALLY going to happen, are things that are already happening. Record breaking snowfall, record breaking floods, record breaking droughts. That's what is going to happen. Places that don't have water are going to be getting less, places that get large amounts of rain, are going to be getting more. There will be less snow pack in the mountains, so areas that depend on the snowfall for the water that they get in the summer, will have huge problems. Events such as hurricanes, monsoons and tornadoes will become more severe with stronger winds and more destruction. So, when you hear someone touting global warming, think more along the lines of climate change. Cause that IS happening, and it WILLLLL be a problem, probably sooner than we realize.

Urban sprawl, yay or nay?

I feel like I should be writing on this more. But eh, it mostly for myself, so if I get to it, I get to it. So much for my goal to write at least once a week. I've got plenty to vent about, but don't have to time to rant, what with the thesis, class and work that I need to do. sigh. One of these days I'll have a job I love and won't have to go to school anymore and work at some crappy place just to pay the bills. So anyway. On to today's rant.
As a self proclaimed environmental freak there are things that I agree with and others that I don't. And my opinion is bound to change the more I read and the more information I gather. Although, my opinion is also just as likely to stay and become more grounded the stuff I read. And from someone that reads Scientific American for fun, well, you can see where I get my info. I'm not sure I've mentioned, but I'm doing my thesis on the ACTUAL cost of development. I mean including the cost when environmental services are destroyed, you know, stuff like flood mitigation, water filtration, soil maintenance, just the general things that we DEPEND on to keep up from being buried under a mudslide, or killed by poisoned water. But I digress. So, because of this development research I have certain ideas of how things can be done. Currently development is occurring unchecked all over the world, and 60% of environmental services are being degraded or used unsustainably. Not a pretty picture, when you realize how much we depend on those services. but again, I digress. Currently I'm taking a class for NEPA, which is the National Env. Policy Act, which outlines the regulations that federal agencies have to abide by when building something that will impact the environment. We were thinking of different alternatives for a problem most larger and even smaller cities face, traffic. We were throwing out ideas on ways to decrease the number of cars on the road at any one time, and the prof threw out the idea that we should decentralize the city. hmmmmm. now, if you've read anything like what I've read, this idea would seem a little....um, wrong. Although when he explained what he meant, the idea actually has merit. But, if you look at the data and do all the number crunching and look at all the articles people have written, you might come to the same conclusion I have. Maybe. We need to go back to the villages and towns of the 1910's and 1920's. Now before YOU blow a gasket at my logic, let me explain why I think this would work. (but it won't cause of zoning and the societal mentality of today) In the early 1900's the villages and towns were very centralized, the school was next to the court house which was next to the grocery store and everyone lived within 5 miles of the town. Those that didn't live that close were the farmers that provided the meat and veggies for the town. nice little set up, no cars necessary, everyone could walk to their destination and their environmental footprint was minuscule to that of today's society. Then came the industrial revolution, and the manufacturing of cars. There is much debate about what came first, the road or the car, either way, people realized they could move out of the city, where, by the way, the factories also were established. You might also remember that after WWI there was a huge outbreak of Spanish flu when lots of people in the US died. Many equated that with city living and being close together. Because of disease and factories, many people feel that cities are dirty nasty places to live. Me, I just don't like all those people, I like my solitude and my space. I freely admit that I'll be living on a farm once I get out of school. But I also plan on being self sufficient and not dependent on stores for most of my food. But again, digression. So, if we want to decrease the amount of time traveled by cars, which would decrease the amount of roads and emissions created by cars, we need to centralize our suburban jungles. We need to look at multi-use developments, that include apartments, houses, townhomes, retail stores, doctors offices, and governmental buildings, like the post office. I understand that people like there nice little yard or maybe large yard and they don't like being close to neighbors, but if you want to live in a suburban development, I think some ideal is kinda of askew. But people can have their own personal yards with space while conserving large open green areas, the individuals would just have to give up about half of their own personal property to contribute to the green space. One of the problems with these types of developments is that townships don't like to zone for them. They township trustees or whoever is in charge of that kind of thing is stuck in the antiquated ideal of the 40's and 50's when the soldiers had returned from WWII and the American Ideal was the little cookie cutter houses in the suburbs that said "you have arrived." Yeah, time to get rid of that. We need to recognize that our population is growing. We should probably stop having kids, but who's going to deny anyone that privilege? Since I want lots (yes, that's kids), I can't complain about others having lots of their own. So with that knowledge in mind, we need to build developments that are more environmentally friendly, and actually more people friendly as well. I'm sure you've seen the headlines that today's suburbia is actually a cause of obesity since we drive everywhere and walk nowhere . I can see that. Suburbia also increases the release of greenhouse gases, decreases environmental services and increases our ecological footprint. Okay, I will stop now, cause I've already thought about continuing on about the over sized ostentatious homes that people seem to think they need today. But that is another rant for another day.

You really have to wonder

I saw this link while I was on facebook, and went over to read it. I was amazed. This area does NOT need anymore destruction of streams and other areas. This is not a good idea. I wonder who's palms were greased well enough to let this one get through. Unbelievable.
www.ilovemountains.org/news

I just don't get it

Where I live is a suburban area. People have moved out of the city to get away from the clogged streets and bad air, and all the other crappy things associated with city living. Some people thrive on that stuff. me.... well, not so much. I live here only for the moment, and cause I have to. Given a choice, I'd be out in the middle of the country, living off the farm, growing all my own food. Including my meat and milk, and all that other good stuff. But I don't live there and I have to deal with this crappy place. Lots of my friends love it here, everything is close, not too expensive compared to other places in the US. But!!!! And it's a big BUT, you HAVE to drive EVERYWHERE!! The stupid city planners have no clue what the heck they are doing! It's all about building, building, building, go, go, go, go, have to put crap up as fast as you can, kill all the trees. Sorry, went off on a tangent there. I just get so blasted mad at the idiocy. I mean, really, is it so bad to have green space around? i just saw a sign for 14 acres zoned MHD, I'm guessing that is multi housing development. The 14 acres are currently covered in trees and grasses. The thing is, all the little townships all have different zoning laws and regulations, and no one has a comprehensive plan as to go about the development. It's cheaper here, and in most other places to develop raw land than it is to redevelop or renovate. WHY??!!!!! What a waste, the infrastructure is already there, but the townships or counties make it impossible to recycle old buildings. If I was a developer I would pick the cheaper place to build too, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Part of my ranting about this is that this year there is a lake in the area that is being drained and dredged. It USED to be 75 acres and 12 feet deep. It isn't anymore. The lake has lost over 15 acres in size and the average depth is less than 6feet. The lake has shrunk because of all the sediment that has been washed into it. Uh, do we see a problem here? Yes, they are going to dredge is and it will look all nice and pretty and people can go out canoeing or fishing or whatever on the lake, BUT, since they haven't fixed the stupid cause/problem in the first place, in another 15 years they are going to have to do it again. UH, DUH!!!!! Hellllllllloooooooooooo, is anyone getting this? The project is costing the county and the federal government, cause the Army Corps of Engineers is doing it and paying half or something, millions of dollars. Millions!!! And yet, if they would have thought about it before they probably could have saved a few bucks by planning a little better. I understand that the area needs businesses and that's the only way you get money, from taxes. But come on, there has got to be a better way that building on every last stinking piece of green space that we have left. Leave the 14 acres, leave the 15 acres, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!! jeez. There are empty houses all over this town, I'm sure someone will find a house they like from the ones that are all empty. Ya really don't need to build new ones that few people can afford anyway. The EPA has enacted the MS4 for smaller areas. It's the municipal separate storm sewer system. Phase I was started in 1990 and large cities had to treat there storm water before it was released into a receiving body. In 1999 Phase II was started. Want to know why? Because Phase I wasn't enough. The amount of crap that was going into lakes and rivers wasn't going down. Phase II is for smaller municipalities and areas outside a city center. So part of this MS4 Phase II thing is to reduce the amount of runoff from storms, and to treat what does run off. Uh, okay, so if we want to REDUCE runoff, don't you think we should, um, NOT put anymore pavement in the area? As I mentioned before you have to drive everywhere in this town, there are no sidewalks, so if someone where to build a new development or store the amount of pavement would increase. Which increases runoff, and a whole host of other issues. I've had enough of this topic for now. I'll let you in on another rant in a while :) Have a great New Year!