There is so much misinformation out there on western water issues, it’s nice to see some decent coverage. KQED did a nice job giving an overview of the current water issues.

A couple of quibbles. They did not do enough, in my opinion, to show just how much environmental destruction has been caused by water development. California has had more species go extinct than any other state, and these are mostly a result of how we have altered the waterscape.

Second, while I have sympathy for family farmers that have been hurt by water cutbacks, many of the farms on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are owned by large corporations. The real problem is that the amount of water we’ve allocated exceeds the amount of water that’s available in many years. Since these farms hold “junior” water rights, they are the first ones to lose their water during a dry year, or when a judge finally decides that the Endangered Species Act is worth enforcing.

And, lastly, despite the ominous-sounding prognostication of one farmer, allowing a few fields to go un-watered will not lead to the end of the world or $50 lettuce. There are plenty of other places in the state, and in the US, which are perfectly capable of growing lettuce.

Via an email from a friend who is trying to figure out how to eat well with a toddler in the house: Health vs. Pork: Congress Debates the Farm Bill from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

This is old news; the article discusses the re-authorization of the Farm Bill in 2007. I like this graphic from the article, because I think it makes a lot of complicated information very clear. Ever wonder why that 2 liter bottle of soda only costs 79¢? Government nutritionists are telling us to limit our consumption of meat and sugar, yet another branch of our government does everything it can to make sure they remain dirt cheap.

Much has been written in the last few years about how the food industry, marketers, and corporate agri-business has colluded to sell us more and more empty calories, and the devastating impact it’s had on our health and our waistlines. Witness such titles as:

• The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite by David Kessler
• Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto and other titles
• Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back by Michele Simon

We know now that the Farm Bill is bad for our waistlines because it encourages the production of a lot of cheap food without much nutritional value. Well, it turns out it’s bad for the environment too.

Subsidies for certain crops encourage environmentally damaging practices — growing cotton in California’s San Joaquin valley would not be profitable without for price supports from the federal government. In a free market, without government intervention, farmers would not be growing cotton, which requires large amounts of water and chemical inputs.

The result is un-economic water use that kills fish by taking water out of rivers and estuaries where it belongs, and pollutes the environment with pesticides, fertilizers, and selenium.

So, we collectively, through our tax dollars, are helping finance environmental damage that would not occur under a free market. We should be angry, and demand that Congress pass laws that cease to encourage the excess production of commodities that are ruining our health and the environment.

Interesting article in the January 2010 issue of Ocean & Coastal Management: Vanishing Island States and Sovereignty. Full text here. The abstract:

Sea level rise could bring about an event that has not previously been seen in modern history, that of the physical disappearance of some low-lying Island States. The objective of this paper is to examine what are the likely scenarios for some of these islands in the course of the next century, and analyse for each scenario if these Island States could continue to claim an Exclusive Economic Zone or not. Also, it will analyse the possibility that Island States could continue having some sort of status analogous to statehood even if it was to lose all territory. Finally, the idea of a “government-in-exile” will be discussed, where the State could retain its identity waiting for a future re-emergence of the island.

The result seems to be: the law doesn’t say, and it’s not really clear. Still, the authors examine a number of plausible scenarios, including one where islands build their way out of trouble, by constructing what the authors term “Dutch-style flood defenses”. The only problem: for a country like the Maldives, it would cost 90% of their GDP to construct them.

The National Academies Press is offering free PDF downloads of some of their recent publications, including one which should be of interest to those who are concerned about air quality and their community’s health: Global Sources of Local Pollution: An Assessment of Long-Range Transport of Key Air Pollutants to and from the United States.

The book looks at four pollutants in detail: ozone, mercury, particulate matter, and persistent organic pollutants, which includes a whole range of pesticides and industrial chemicals like DDT which have been banned in the US but are still in use around the world.

Pollutants from traffic, cooking stoves, and factories emitted half a world away can make the air we inhale today more hazardous for our health. The relative importance of this “imported” pollution is likely to increase, as emissions in developing countries grow, and air quality standards in industrial countries are tightened.

Among the things I learned: only about 10-20% of the mercury deposition in my area is from North American emissions. The rest, presumably, are from Asia and Europe.

The authors recommend helping poor countries out of self-interest: “the United States should work with the international community to develop an integrated system for determining pollution sources and impacts and to design effective response strategies.”

Ultimately, these recommendations are weak. Doing more monitoring and modeling studies may help us to better understand the problem, but they are not likely to improve air quality or human health. The authors stop short of recommending foreign assistance to help developing countries wean themselves from these toxic chemicals.

There is also no mention of international treaties for their controls, like the one that phased out CFCs in the 1990s. I suppose this isn’t surprising coming from a group of scientists; they recommend more monitoring and modeling because it’s what they do best, and avoid the quagmires of policies and regulations. I think there is a compelling argument for us to help developing countries develop alternative energy sources, and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels like coal. Acting in enlightened self-interest, we would enjoy substantial co-benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions and better health.

In conclusion, this book is a an excellent summary of the science behind global air pollutants, but I wish that the authors had been more daring in crafting their recommendations.