| Dear
EarthTalk: What are the major threats to the
Great Lakes in the United States and what’s being
done to address them?
-- Saul G., Racine, WI
| |
Havoc
wreaked by invasive species is one of the biggest
problems facing the Great Lakes. Zebra mussels, pictured
here and originally native to southeast Russia, have
colonized the lakes, absorbing toxic PCBs dumped years
earlier and transferring the chemicals up the food
chain into the tissues of walleyes, a popular sport
fish.
© Andres Musta, courtesy Flickr |
The
Great Lakes watershed is a unique and important ecosystem
that contains some 95 percent of America’s fresh water
surface area, and is a continental hub for birds, fish and
other wildlife. According to the National Audubon Society,
the Great Lakes provide habitat for some 400 bird species.
But it is the region’s exploding human population—now
at 42 million—that is causing many environmental problems.
Major
threats include toxic and nutrient pollution, the growing
presence of non-native invasive species, and the destruction
of critical wildlife habitat. In addition, the region’s
residents worry that other parts of the country and world
facing water shortages will find ways to divert Great Lakes
water to quench their far-off thirsts. Also, it remains
to be seen what kind of impact global warming will have
on the region.
Perhaps
the issue that gets the most attention in the region is
the menace of invasive species. They arrive via heel, tire,
railway and ship, and are profoundly altering the region’s
ecology. The most notorious case is that of the zebra mussel
which, originally native to southeast Russia first arrived
in the late 1980s on ocean-going ships via the St. Lawrence
Seaway.
Aside
from outcompeting native species for food, they have absorbed
toxic PCBs dumped years earlier and transferred them up
the food chain in being eaten by round gobies (also a non-native
species), which in turn are preyed upon by walleyes, a popular
sport fish.
Another
major problem is pollution itself. Tons of pesticides, herbicides
and fertilizers run off of farms and into the water every
month. Coal-fired power plants spew mercury into the air
and factories of all kinds emit other pollutants that all
eventually end up in the water. Converting farmers to organic
agriculture and cleaning up smokestacks are top priorities
for regulators and green groups in the region.
Federal,
state and local authorities and nonprofit and community
groups are working diligently to help restore compromised
areas in the region. The Obama administration’s 2010
budget allocates $475 million to the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative. Led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Initiative is assessing the threats to the region
and laying out a roadmap for remediation through the Great
Lakes Interagency Task Force, which includes representatives
from the EPA as well as the departments of State, Interior,
Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development.
Some
of the beneficiaries of this funding will also be some of
the 100+ nonprofit and community groups that have formed
the Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition. These groups
hope to leverage each others’ expertise and work together
on on-the-ground restoration projects throughout the region.
Meanwhile
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, New York, Quebec and Ontario have come together
as the Great Lakes Basin Compact to ward off drought-stricken
far-off places from taking fresh water out of their region.
Member states and provinces have delineated a border around
the region beyond which water cannot be shipped. The agreement
came about in 2005 when a Canadian company announced that
it wanted to ship water in tankers from Lake Ontario to
Asia.
CONTACTS:
Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative; Healing
Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition; Great
Lakes Basin Compact.
Dear
EarthTalk: What is “smart growth”
and how does it benefit the environment? And what are the
downsides, if any?
-- Frank Quinn, Missoula, MT
| |
The
smart growth approach attempts to minimize automobile
traffic and its pollution in urban centers by including
stores, residences and schools in neighborhoods, resulting
in more walking, bicycle riding and mass transit usage
than in a typical suburban environment. Pictured:
Retail and housing in San Diego, California on the
site of a former Sears store.
© Faceless B, courtesy Flickr |
Originating in
the early 1970s when city planners began renovating crumbling
inner cities in the face of widespread suburbanization and
sprawl, smart growth is now a top buzzword in both municipal
policy and environmental circles. Some form of smart growth
has likely been implemented where you live or somewhere
nearby.
Urban planners
subscribing to a smart growth philosophy work to concentrate
growth in the center of existing cities and towns to avoid
sprawling development in areas otherwise prized for open
space. Part of a smart growth effort attempts to minimize
automobile traffic and its pollution in urban centers by
including stores, residences and schools in neighborhoods,
resulting in more walking, bicycle riding and mass transit
usage than in a typical suburban environment. Advocates
maintain that smart growth initiatives create a unique sense
of community and place, give people more transportation,
employment and housing choices, and equitably distribute
the costs and benefits of development while preserving and
enhancing natural beauty, cultural resources and public
health.
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has been a big smart growth booster
since it formed the Smart Growth Network in 1996. Partners
include environmental and historic preservation groups,
professional organizations, developers, real estate interests,
and local and state government entities. The network serves
as a forum for educating the public and policymakers about
the benefits of smart growth and fostering idea sharing
and community among practitioners and advocates of smart
growth planning.
Partly thanks
to the Smart Growth Network, smart growth initiatives are
numerous across the U.S. today. Denver, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh,
Chicago and dozens of other metropolitan areas have experienced
urban renewal in the last two decades thanks to planning
that has taken into account livability, sustainability and
preservation of open space. Communications channels facilitated
via the Smart Growth Network enable the successes and failures
of previous smart growth initiatives to be learning tools
for planning new ones.
Smart growth
is not without its detractors. According to Todd Litman
of the Canadian-based Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
“small government” conservatives and libertarians
criticize smart growth for infringing on freedom by instituting
complicated layers of regulation over development plans,
increasing traffic congestion and air pollution, reducing
the affordability of urban housing while forcing locals
out and creating undesirable levels of density, and requiring
wasteful transit subsidies, among other beefs.
Even the environmental
community is somewhat divided. The majority view some development
and expansion as inevitable (especially with human population
always on the upswing)—and in that light embrace smart
growth as a realistic lesser of possible evils. But a smaller
segment of greens questions whether any development—smart
or otherwise—is good for a given region’s natural
systems. But while such debates may rage on at universities
and think tanks, smart growth is already becoming the standard
lens through which development projects are judged in the
majority of our metropolitan areas.
CONTACTS:
EPA;
Smart
Growth Network; Todd
Litman’s "Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth". |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
