It All Depends On Who You Ask

Las Vegas Water Offical Warns Radioactive Levels Rising

Sunday’s news was a bit disconcerting, when I read a small story at Tri-State Online.  Pat Mulroy, head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority was quoted as saying measurable quantities of uranium are showing up in Colorado River water, something difficult and expensive to remove before passing it on to consumers in Las Vegas.

She blames upstream uranium mining, especially in the Moab, Utah area, so I decided to take a look and see what’s happening up there.

To the best of my knowledge, there are no operating uranium mines in or near Moab, UT, or anywhere in the state of Utah.  So, I felt Ms. Mulroy was referring to the uranium mill tailings just outside Moab, where they’ve been for decades after the failure of the Atlas Minerals Corporation mill.

Well, the 16 million tons of radioactive dirt is still there, but according to Moab Mayor David Sakrison, they are no danger to the community or the river.

In a phone interview, the mayor said the federal government has done an exemplary job of mitigating dust and water runoff that would contaminate the Colorado.  Sakrison did say, however, this has been the case for the past eight years, and before that, Colorado River water was indeed being polluted.

Had the tailings pile presented a health risk to his community, especially through it’s drinking water?  “No”, said the mayor, “our aquifer is on the other side of the Colorado and our water supply is not contaminated.”

It was in 2000 that then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promised to relocate the tailings pile, and Congress had given the Department of Energy authority to begin cleanup.  President Bush, however, included NO money in his 2000 budget for the removal project.

Cleanup About To Begin at Moab

Donald Metzler, Federal Project Director for the Moab cleanup, told me everything is in place to begin transporting the contaminated soil to a storage area at Crescent Junction, Utah.  The site is about 30 miles north of Moab, and is in a formation called Mancos Shale bedrock, a hard, almost impenetrable formation that will isolate the site from any aquifer.  After all the tailings have been removed from the Moab site and placed in storage, it will be capped and should be safe for at least 1000 years.

I asked Mr. Metzler about the possibility that the tailings were still polluting the river, and he assured me there is absolutely no contamination.  He said tests from a few hundred feet south of the Ajax site showed no increase in radiation other than background, caused by nature.

Taking my query a bit further, some 500 miles, I spoke with Mitch Basefsky, PIO for the Tucson Water District, and he assured me they are monitoring the level of radiation in water coming into the area from the Colorado River via the Central Arizona Project.  Basefsky said they have not seen a change in water radioactivity over the years, but remain concerned that eventually, if nothing is done to stem the release of radioactive materials into the river, it will become a problem here.

So, Where’s The Radiation Coming From?

Southern Nevada’s Mulroy has supposedly written federal Interior Secretary Dick Kempthorne, asking him to “carefully evaluate” further uranium mining along the Colorado to determine the risk of further contamination of the river.

I’ve tried for days to get someone in her office to talk with me about her statement and what they’re finding in the water near Las Vegas, but no one has been forthcoming, and I can find nothing on the SNWA website concerning the issue.

There are no operating uranium mines in Utah, and according to Mayor Sakrison, most of the abandoned sites have been cleaned up, and clean water is leaving the Moab area.  What’s the problem?

Grand Canyon Exploration and Possible Uranium Mining

While writing this story, word came to me from the Sierra Club, stating the House Natural Resources Committee has ordered the Bush administration to immediately stop mining claims on public lands surrounding the Grand Canyon.  Good news, because of fears that pollution from uranium mines could threaten the drinking water for more than 25 million people living in the southwest, and just the idea that mining operations are going on within three miles of the canyon is unthinkable.

Until I hear something concrete from the folks in Nevada, there appears little or no danger at this time from uranium-polluted Colorado River water.

Stay tuned.

Links to Related Articles:

Uranium Mining Claims in Grand Canyon Area Ordered Withdrawn

Does Sen. John McCain Approve of Proposed Uranium Mines Near the Grand Canyon?

Federal Judge Blocks Uranium Mining Near Grand Canyon

Our Discussion Forum:
Nuclear Energy, Good or Bad?

Image Source: http://flickr.com/photos/53074617@N00/2242825510

]]> http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/06/25/is-colorado-river-becoming-radioactive-from-upstream-uranium-mines/feed/ http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/05/30/boulder-co-becomes-the-first-us-transition-town/ http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/05/30/boulder-co-becomes-the-first-us-transition-town/#comments Fri, 30 May 2008 05:26:47 +0000 Ariel Schwartz http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/05/30/boulder-co-becomes-the-first-us-transition-town/

The Transition Town initiative has been a fast-growing movement in the United Kingdom for over a year, with more than 50 towns currently signed up. Now the United States is catching up as Boulder, CO becomes the first official transition town in the country.

The Transition Town movement started in Kinsale, Ireland when permaculture teacher Rob Hopkins started thinking about the possibilities of applying permaculture theories to entire towns, instead of just to individual plots of land. Hopkins’ Energy Descent Action Plan provides a blueprint for towns hoping to transition to a more sustainable way of life.

Boulder County Going Local is an ambitious effort to prepare the area for the ramifications of climate change and peak oil.

BCGL was only named an official transition initiative earlier this month, but it’s getting started with a bang. The organization has already launched a series of talks and workshops to teach residents how to survive with local resources entitled “The Great Reskilling”. Planned events include “High Altitude Gardening”, “Garden Design and Planting A La Permaculture”, “The Bountiful Pantry”, and “Solar Greenhouse Design”.

It is sobering to think about how few survival skills most of us have. Perhaps if more transition initiatives like Boulder’s take off, we can relearn the skills that fossil fuel-based industrialization has rendered useless.

With gasoline prices in the U.S. breaking new records weekly, for example, law enforcement officials are seeing more cases of cooking grease thefts from fast-food establishments and other restaurants. Why used grease? Because cooking oil can be converted into biodiesel fuel that can be sold at a cool profit.
Grease thieves have recently struck a Burger King in suburban San Jose, California; a Wilby’s Gas and Goodies in Warsaw, Indiana; a Cathay Hut and a Chick-a-Dee in Lewiston, Maine; a fast-food joint in Lavonia, Georgia; and various eateries in Colorado Springs, among other places. The trend has grown to the point where police departments and legitimate grease collecting companies are stepping up enforcement and attorneys are even developing a reputation as “grease lawyers,” the Christian Science Monitor recently reported.

As the cost of various metals — from common copper and bronze to the rarer platinum — go up, thieves are also taking advantage, pilfering everything from historic plaques to catalytic converters (which contain platinum). In New Haven, Connecticut, bronze landmark plaques and fixtures on a war memorial fountain have gone missing. Monterey County, California, has seen criminals take freeway guardrails, road signs, brass fittings from chemical tanks and copper wire from industrial sites. In Saginaw, Michigan, crooks working in the open have ripped aluminum from numerous houses. And around the country, homes left empty because of foreclosure are being stripped of copper pipes and other precious metals.

The metal-theft trend is also being blamed for a variety of accidents and mishaps, as industrial sites and homes stripped of critical parts spring leaks of gases or chemicals. A plant in California, for instance, experienced a toxic spill after parts were stolen, and an abandoned warehouse in Pueblo, Colorado, recently collapsed, thanks apparently to the theft of some critical metal structures. A food pantry serving Roanoke-Salem, Virginia, even lost about $1,500 worth of food to spoilage after thieves took copper tubing from its refrigeration system.

Finally, skyrocketing grocery prices are leading thieves to steal even from food pantry donations, as happened recently from the doorsteps of needy residents in Aloha, Oregon. Fortunately, the U.S. isn’t experiencing nearly as desperate a situation as developing parts of the globe. As wheat and rice stocks hit new lows and prices shoot upward, parts of the world — Haiti, Egypt, Yemen, Somalia and Mexico, to name a few countries — are seeing not only food-related riots, but a rising level of crop thefts, in which people are stealing food directly from farmers’ fields.

The rising incidence of various types of thefts around the country is spurring law-makers to consider a slew of new legislation to discourage the trend. Proposals are now in the works in states including California, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York and Ohio. In fact, the New York Post-Star reports that 35 states now have or are considering new identification requirements for the copper market alone.

Image credit: Hawyih at Wikimedia Commons, released into public domain. 

Although they have yet to disclose the location of the new tower manufacturing facility, it would be situated to complement the company’s fist North American blade manufacturing plant, which recently opened its doors in Windsor, Colorado.

For the tower plant, the company will need a large parcel of land served by freight rail, a combination that Northern Colorado can provide at several locations, including the Windsor location, where construction proceeds on phase two of the blade plant. According to the Northern Colorado Business Review, more than 1,000 new jobs could result from further expansion of Vestas’ manufacturing presence.

Healthy Profit Margins Hide Industry Bottlenecks

In the second piece of big news for the Vestas, the company reported very strong earnings on Thursday - the kind of earnings that emphasize the wind energy industry’s resilience to the slumping economy. Net income for Vestas rose 94 percent to 33 million euros ($56 million) from 17 million euros a year earlier. The company was expected to earn 35.5 million euros, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of five analysts.

Despite the strong growth in the wind energy business worldwide, the overall demand pressure on the industry persists. According to Bloomberg, there are still long lead times for a number of key components that can last as long as 15 months. Of particular concern to turbine manufacturers is a global increase in demand for carbon-fiber, the graphite composite material that moderns turbines blade use because of their light weight, and high tensile strength.

With that said, it seems that it will be a few years before supply will match demand. Even as new manufacturers pop up around the globe, they are being outpaced by the increases in global demand for clean, renewable energy.

Sources:

• Northern Colorado Business Review
• Bloomberg

Other posts about the cleantech industry:

• “Can ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’ be Sexy: Two Energy Efficiency Stocks
• “Solar System Leases Taking Industry by Storm“
• “The Unlimited Potential of American Wind Energy: AWEA“

Photo: Vestas Wind Systems

Based in Oakland, TRP is a nonprofit organization that works to reduce the amount of useable construction materials that go into landfills. Since its founding in 1993, TRP has salvaged over 200,000 tons of reusable building materials. The resulting resources are sold to the public, or are donated to a variety of worthy causes, including Habitat for Humanity and Goodwill Industries.

Though the materials can come from a variety of sources, over 90% come from TRP’s own demolition services. In demolition projects, TRP acts like any other contractor, except that they sell or donate the resulting “waste”. Homowners who use TRP for demolition get a bonus - tax deductions, based on the value of the materials salvaged. These deductions can be large, in some cases covering the cost of the demolition itself.

For those looking to build or renovate their own home, TRP is also a great place to look for materials and appliances on the cheap. Regional warehouses in California, Colorado, Illinois, and Washington are open to the public. They even have inventories online, so you can see if specific items are available before you go.

This weekend, the new Pacoima, CA store is hosting a dedication and open house on Friday (10am - noon) and Saturday (10am - 3pm). Friday’s speakers include Founder and President Ted Reiff, UCLA Professor of Operations and Environmental Management Charles Corbett, and representatives from  the EPA, among others. Saturday, May 10th, features a workshop conducted by Reiff at 11am called, “Tax Deductible Donations for Used Building Materials.”

To give you an idea of the kinds of deals available through TRP, the Pacoima site will have doors on sale for $5 on Saturday. Five bucks  for a door, and you keep it out of a landfill. That’s really cool.

Texas wind turbines generated 4,446 megawatts of energy in 2007 — enough to power nearly 1.2 million homes. The state added 1,618 megawatts of new wind power capacity last year, more than double the amount of second-place Colorado.

In terms of total wind power, the top five states last year were Texas, California, Minnesota, Iowa and Washington. States adding the most new wind-energy installations last year were, after Texas, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon and Minnesota.

“The numbers in this year’s rankings … underscore the wind energy industry’s strong growth and the fact that wind is a bright spot in the U.S. economy,” said Randall Swisher, executive director of the AWEA. “Hopefully, federal policymakers will take note and move quickly to extend the wind production tax credit (PTC) incentive, providing the foundation for further investment and job creation going forward.”

True to its reputation for doing everything big, Texas also takes the lead in the largest wind-energy installations operating in the U.S. The country’s biggest wind farms are in Horse Hollow, Texas (736 megawatts); Sweetwater, Texas (585 megawatts); Peetz Table, Colorado (401 megawatts); Capricorn Ridge, Texas (364 megawatts); and Buffalo Gap, Texas (353 megawatts).

Denmark-based Vestas Wind Systems, one of the largest wind turbine manufacturers in the world, recently opened a turbine-blade manufacturing plant there. Renewable Energy Systems America, a wind farm developer, just moved its headquarters from Austin, Texas to Broomfield, Colorado. It plans to expand and double the number of employees at HQ in the next year. ConocoPhillips will open a renewable energy research hub and corporate learning center in the state too.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter (D) explained why companies are flocking to the Centennial State:

Colorado’s robust renewable energy industry, skilled workforce, and rich natural resources have recently attracted several companies to Colorado, bringing good jobs and revenue to our urban and rural communities. They are helping us to be more energy, environmentally, and economically secure.

Congrats, Colorado!

Associated Press, via Forbes
Wind Energy Weekly

On a different note, this is my last post for the Green Options blog network. I’ve been a writer since its inception and it’s been an immensely fun, challenging and educational ride. I’m very proud of what my fellow writers have put together and very thankful for the thoughtful and dedicated readers! I’m continuing with my personal blog at Maria Energia and extend a hearty THANK YOU to everyone at Green Options (especially Jeff McIntire-Strasburg at sustainablog, who recruited me) for this fabulous life experience.

The same thing will happen if the renewable energy tax credits expire (referring broadly to the investment tax credit and production tax credit). The boom-and-bust cycle of clean energy development is a direct result of the waxing and waning of the federal production tax credit (PTC). Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 236 to 182 in favor of extending the tax credit package which is set to expire at the end of this year. 17 Republicans joined the Democrats in supporting HR 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008 and all but 8 Democrats supported the bill.

Of course it is no surprise to see renewable energy trade associations like the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Institute of America in favor of the PTC and the ITC respectively, but it is not only the cleantech companies that are pushing for the tax package. A broad coalition of 120 corporations, environmental groups, investors, labor groups, nongovernmental organizations, public health organizations, and utilities have urged Congress to pass H.R. 5351. The far-ranging group includes corporate giants Wal-Mart Stores, Best Buy Co., The Home Depot, and Dow Chemical, and utilities including Florida Power and Light and Pacific Gas & Electric. Civil society supporters include the Sierra Club, National Association of Home Builders, National Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, and the United Steelworkers (I guess no AFL-CIO on this one). The coalition sent a letter to the House last week that read,

“America is on the cusp of a new, clean energy economy. The clean energy tax incentives in H.R. 5351 would help our country make the transition to this economy — an economy powered by low-carbon technologies that help solve global warming, reduce energy prices for consumers and create new high-wage jobs.”

I have argued elsewhere that the bill has a good chance of passing, mostly because of the souring economy detectable in many indicators. But, I am about to do what Republicans call a ‘flip-flop’, and amend my position. It now appears that unless Congress takes away the ‘Robin Hood-esque’ mechanism for financing the credit, the bill does not stand a very good chance of passing. But, is this necessarily a bad thing? No, not necessarily.

Let me be clear, the production tax credit is not the perfect vehicle to grow our clean energy sources, it is just the one we have adopted because of its ‘market-friendly’ orientation. For those of you that don’t already know, I am a huge advocate of developing renewable energy in this country, but I think we should follow the lead of the Germans and others who have adopted feed-in tariffs (FIT). The FIT policy mechanism has largely been ignored in the US, although it is being experimented with in California, and it has been recently been introduced as proposed legislation in Michigan, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Illinois.

Why won’t the PTC pass as it is currently written? First off, the bill still needs to get by a sticky Senate, and a President who recently reaffirmed his commitment to veto the bill unless congress changed the existing financing mechanism for the tax credits. You see, as opposed to the “fiscally conservative” Democrats (sounds weird, huh?), Republicans have shown that they prefer to borrow money from foreign investors and have it paid off by future generations of Americans. It strikes me that this strategy is a bit risky - almost like relying on those payday loans places that lure you in with the promise of instant money, but also lock you into a pattern of borrowing.

The current bill is not substantively different from the one that did not pass on three separate occasions last year, including once in December when the package of tax credits for renewable energy fell just one vote short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and move on to the President’s desk. In a statement, the White House said that industries need a level playing field and this “targeted tax increase” would unfairly overburden American oil companies who need to be able to reinvest in new exploration (isn’t the whole idea, though, that we move away from fossil-fuels?).

So, as the future of clean energy development in the US hangs in the balance, individual states are not waiting around to take action. I propose that it is at the state level where cleantech investors should be looking for incentives and investment security. The feds are simply dropping the ball on energy policy. Fortunately, however, the states are picking it up and running with it.

Photo Credit: Morten Mitchell Larod

Reuters
CQ Politics
Washington Post

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.

Call it “In Coal Blood,” if you will (sorry…if you hear a churning noise under your feet it’s probably just Mr. Capote spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken).

Back in October, Rod Bremby, secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, with the support of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, rejected the air permits for the company’s proposed pair of 700-megawatt coal-burning electric plants, citing the devastating impact emissions from carbon dioxide—and other greenhouse gases—would have on the environment.

In other words, it was the first time a proposed power plant had been rejected by using a “global warming” defense. This defense certainly wasn’t far-fetched. After all, the proposed plants would spew some 11 million tons of CO2 annually, making them the largest new source of such emissions in the nation.

But, of course, the battle didn’t end there.

Sunflower Electric and its supporters in the state legislature continue to try and ram this project down our throats. They insist it is needed to meet rising energy demands in western Kansas; they also argue that it will lead to much-needed economic development in one of the poorest regions of the state.

Or as Greg Brady look-alike Sen. Sam Brownback recently put it:

“Expansion of the Sunflower facility would have created 2,000 jobs during construction and an additional 400 permanent jobs and billions of dollars in economic development.”

Two thousand temporary jobs and 400 permanent ones—is that all we get for destroying the planet? Well, heck, throw in 30 pieces of silver and you got yourself a deal!

Then again, I’m sure Brownback’s job estimates are low. After all, several other jobs might be created as a result of this expansion, namely hospital receptionists, pulmonary specialists, insurance claims adjusters…

Moreover, proponents also fail to emphasize that Kansans will only receive about 10 percent of the energy generated from the plants; the remaining 90 percent will be shipped off to Colorado and Texas. They conveniently overlook the fact that all of the waste—namely mercury dumped in the water—will remain right here in Kansas.

Perhaps that, too, will create more jobs: water inspectors, Hazmat workers, not to mention the voluntary citizen soldiers needed to fight off the giant mutant fish that will threaten to take over Kansas by 2011.

Still, even Sammy B. realizes that coal alone is not the answer:

“The new coal plants would be part of an integrated bioenergy center that would have significant benefits for the environment. For example, much of the carbon produced by the coal plants would be captured and used to grow algae, which would be crushed to make biodiesel. Ethanol, another renewable fuel, would be produced onsite by using methane gas from livestock facilities.”

So let me get this straight: we only need 10 percent of the energy a plant like this would generate, and we know that alternative methods (proposed only as supplemental energy) are available, and yet we want to go ahead and produce far more than we need simply so a corporation can cut a deal with two other states, all while destroying our own water. Sounds like a plan to me!

Let’s be honest here, the plant is not about meeting surging energy demands; it’s about making money. We could meet the energy demands with a combination of alternative methods that, while not perfect, would leave a far smaller carbon footprint—I mean, Brownback didn’t even mention wind energy, which capitalizes on one of our state’s greatest natural resources.

But all of that is a hard sell to the folks of western Kansas. Times are hard in rural America.

We can—and should—argue that the coal plants are not in the best interest of the folks out west, but we need to do more than simply shoot down the proposal. We need to offer them something concrete in its place. What that entails exactly is beyond my tiny brain, but I imagine it would require bringing politicians, environmentalists, alternative energy experts, and western Kansans together to show that alternative energy and jobs can be had through far less damaging means—and that the two concepts are anything but mutually exclusive.

I hope that Holcomb eventually shakes off its reputation as the setting for one of the most brutal crimes depicted in American literature. Here’s to hoping it comes to represent the small town of the future—one that simultaneously respects the environment and the needs of its residents.

There. I think I finally made Mr. Capote stop spinning.

Residents of Colorado are witnessing a rapid destabilization of the forest around them, and they can do very little to stop it. The spread of the mountain pine beetle epidemic is now considered of ‘catastrophic’ proportion. Most foresters agree that the beetle will essentially run its course by eliminating its favorite food - the lodgepole pine. The most one can hope for is to mitigate fire risk by pursuing aggressive thinning programs. However, thinning forests does not come cheap: it is labor intensive, resource intensive, geo-politically awkward, and the end product is not held in very high regard by the market. But the economic viability of large-scale thinning projects is changing, and it is doing so almost as quickly as the trees themselves are changing from green to red.

This week, several stories hit the newswire that, taken collectively, hint at the growing conditions for a perfect storm for cellulosic ethanol. The ‘virgin’ biofuel industry got a kick in the seat yesterday when a study published in Science confirmed many environmentalists belief that ethanol from corn and switchgrass could actually worsen climate change. The studies paid significantly more attention to the environmental impacts of land-use change, transportation, and fuel-refining (for details on the paper, listen to this very good Science podcast). The take home point? As we pump billions of dollars into agri-fuels we are doing more harm in the short run; a time period where we need to be doing the most good.

Policymakers need to open their eyes and ears to the dangers of investing so heavily in crops for fuel that used to be for food. Thankfully, innovative companies are way ahead of policymakers in the area of clean fuels. CleanTechnica reported yesterday on the unveiling of Coskata’s new biofuel refining technology that turns waste into biofuel, and how the economic climate is shifting towards ethanol.

The cheapest, most logical, and most environmentally friendly way to make ethanol is to do so with waste, not by growing lots of corn. And thanks to the pine beetle epidemic, there is a wealth of small-diameter waste-wood in the Rocky Mountain West looking for a home.

Taking a lesson from our neighbors to the North, the Department of Energy announced Tuesday that it would pay $30 million towards the construction of Colorado’s first cellulosic ethanol plant. The plant will use a technology that will convert beetle kill into ethanol. A technology that has been developed and tested in British Columbia, which has its own problems with pine beetles.

In addition to ethanol fuel, the Colorado plant will produce lignin as a byproduct, which is a useful ingredient in lubricants and other goods. This, combined with the sellable fuel, will pump money into the system to help pay for the forest-thinning programs that help control the beetle problem.

Not Just Liquid Fuels
Community Energy Systems LLC (CES) specializes in small scale biomass energy projects in the Western US. The company’s business models create layers of opportunity for local ownership, investment and management of biomass projects. CES’ newest project is the first of many with a rural electric association in northern Colorado. The project was the benefactor of a USDA Woody Biomass Grant for the design and development of a combined heat/power plant on a site adjacent to a sawmill in Walden, CO. With 11 of Colorado’s 22 REA’s located in areas hard hit by the recent pine bark beetle epidemics, the development of biomass projects has enormous implications for the health of the forests and rural communities.

Is all of this too good to be true? Some would argue yes. Not everyone agrees that the ecological impacts of large-thinning of forests is not the answer, and some groups will argue that we should do nothing. For most of those who live in an amongst the pinebeetle scourge, doing nothing is a very scary option, if an option at all. In part III I will address these and other political implications of Colorado’s pine beetle epidemic.

International Herald Tribune

USDA 2008 Woody Biomass Grants

The Denver Post

Rocky Mountain News

Photo Credit: Canadian Forest Service

Map Credit: Colorado Cooperative Extension

Enjoy this very short video of Presidential hopeful, John Edwards stumping about two weeks ago. In my view, John Edwards has the strongest ecopolitical platform of any of the candidates. He is the only one gutsy enough to call for a moratorium on any new coal-fired power plants. The question that raises, however, is will that matter in the end? And if so, how? I am considering caucusing for Edwards in Colorado on the Feb. 5th. If he doesn’t get the required 15% in the first preference poll, I’ll have to realign with another candidate (but not without letting my fellow precinct members why I chose Edwards). A piece of advice to the candidates’ strategists and advisors: Pay attention to the Western vote (not just CA).

If any Democrat wants to do well in the purple states of the mountain west, they must start talking about issues that westerners care about (i.e. energy and enviro issues). If, come election time, the Democratic nominee is not talking about these issues, they will not catch the swing voters, indies, and Republicans who are considering casting a vote for a Democrat. How do you think Gov. Bill Ritter (D) got elected in CO? Three words: New Energy Economy.

Colorado has 1.7 million acres of lodgepole pine forests. Though, if you have any desire to see any of those trees alive, I’d suggest you move rather quickly. State and federal officials recently announced that the mountain pine beetle epidemic grew by a half a million acres in 2007, bringing the total infestation in the state to about 1.5 million acres. Foresters indicated that the epidemic would virtually eliminate every acre of lodgepole pines in the next three to five years.

Up until quite recently, the pine beetle epidemic in Colorado was limited to a five county area along the Continental Divide. However, recent forest surveys indicate that the beetle has crossed the Divide and is moving eastward. The Forest Service’s annual surveys that are produced by ’stitching’ together aerial photographs have enabled the forest service to illuminate the rapid acceleration of the beetles’ northeasterly march. Once restricted to high country hamlets like Breckenridge, Fraser and Steamboat Springs, the hungry beetles are quickly moving into the foothills and front range near Denver, Boulder and Fort Collins. According to Kyle Patterson at Rocky Mountain National Park, the pine beetles have reached “epic proportions.”

Although the beetle is a full-time resident of the temperate coniferous forests of the Rocky Mountains, their numbers have grown exponentially in the last ten years, fed by a ‘perfect storm’ of contributing factors, including a steady pattern of rising temperatures.

Extreme cold temperatures can reduce beetle populations. But, ever since the most recent outbreak began in the mid-1990s, the extremes have not been extreme enough. For freezing temperatures to affect a large number of larvae during the middle of winter, temperatures of at least 30 degrees below zero must be sustained for at least five days.

Locals have come to accept that, for the most part, the beetle cannot be stopped, only adapted to. The good news is that folks in the mountain towns of Colorado are not willing to simply let the beetles win. Facing daily changes to their familiar green landscapes, and dealing with the potential of catastrophic wildfire, large-scale erosion leading to watershed quality problems, and loss of tourism dollars, communities in Colorado are forming innovative, multilevel collaborative partnerships to come up with new ideas and plans of action for an epidemic that knows no political boundaries.

The biggest obstacle for community organizations is not political will, it is the significant resources required for the large-scale thinning of at-risk areas. Currently, the average price of thinning one acre of forests in Summit County, CO is about $2000. Limited funding obviously means that not every acre can be treated. The reason for the high cost of forest thinning is that there is no market for the beetle-kill wood. According to Gary Severson of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments:

“There’s simply not enough public money to thin the forests. The only way to do this is to find some way to add value to this material. With small-diameter lodgepole pine, there aren’t a lot of options.”

But, at least there are some options, and some pretty good ones at that. I will address some of the very innovative solutions to this sticky problem in part two.

Colorado State Univ. Cooperative Extension

The Denver Post

The Fort Collins Coloradoan

Photo Credits: Canadian Forest Service.