Entries tagged as ‘conservation’
From Marti:
News coverage of the court hearing on the University’s plans for Mauna Kea characterized our opposition to the plan as anti-development. It said:
“(opponents) want to block new development on the mountain by stopping approval of the management plan.”
As one of our kupuna pointed out, actually the motivation is all the University’s part. She said
“advocates for more telescopes on the summit want the UH CMP rushed to completion in order to move forward with several new development plans.”
While it is true that as long as there is no plan there is no TMT, that is not the desired outcome for the plan. We’re not trying to block the plan to stop TMT.
What we do want is the opportunity to have a real plan–one that arises out of a transparent process and allows communities to articulate a public vision for the future of these extremely important public trust lands. That is what a public planning process is supposed to do. The point is that we have been denied the kind of critical, public and open discussion that would lead to such a plan. In its place, we are being told to shut up and accept a plan that was written by the university and driven by its interest in telescope development and telescope dollars.
We have long said that we want a fair opportunity to talk through and determine together how astronomy and cultural practice and natural conservation coexist–in what form, by what rules, and with what limits–on the summit. This is not an unreasonable ask. The University is wasting precious public education dollars on motion after motion in this case, because they are unwilling to compromise in any way on their development plans. For the University, this case is all about TMT. For advocates of the mountain, this case is not about TMT at all. It is about our standing, and the right of the people of Hawai’i to determine the future of a unique, irreplaceable summit that is part of Hawai’i’s public trust.
Click here to read the article from the Hawaii Tribune Herald.
Categories: conservation · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · mauna kea · telescopes
Tagged: CMP, conservation, hawaii island, mauna kea, maunakea, telescopes, TMT, University of Hawaii
December 10, 2009 · 1 Comment
From Marti:
Yesterday morning, the Third Circuit Court heard oral arguments on the University of Hawaii’s motion to dismiss our appeal for a contested case hearing on the University’s new management plan for Mauna Kea.
Though we are still waiting for the judge’s ruling, the hearing made one thing clear: supporters of this “CMP” also support more telescopes (and more desecration and destruction) on the sacred summit. Less than a dozen people sign-waved outside the Hilo courthouse during the hearing with pre-printed signs that said “Mauna Kea TMT Yes!” If you ever doubted the connection between more telescopes and the University’s CMP, then yesterday’s demonstration of support for the “Thirty Meter Telescope” at a hearing on the CMP should make it clear that the University wrote this CMP to facilitate telescope construction on Mauna Kea. Indeed, the CMP does not speak to any limitations on telescopes or a carrying capacity for the summit.
…unless, of course, if by “TMT” they meant “Too Many Telescopes.”
And, Mahalo Nunui!! This is just a little shout out to all of those who took time out of their workday to sit in solidarity with us before the judge. Mahalo for your unwavering support.
Want to help? Click here to sign up for action alerts and receive regular court updates. And click over here to donate directly to the Mauna Kea Legal Defense Fund.
Categories: conservation · land and cultural rights · mauna kea · telescopes
Tagged: CMP, conservation, court, mauna kea, maunakea, telescopes, TMT
From Alana:
As a result of many letters being sent to state representatives, Rep. Mazie Hirono has decided to co-sponsor the “Offshore Aquaculture is not Fishing Act of 2009″. The bill asserts that under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and regional fishery management councils do not have the authority to permit or regulate the commercial ocean fish farming industry, because it is not fishing.
The federal law that gives the Gulf Council and NOAA authority to regulate fish and fishing region-by-region was not intended to govern risky industrial enterprises like ocean fish farms.
This is a step in the right direction for the regulation of offshore aquaculture, which might soon happen in the Gulf of Mexico, and expand in places like Hawaii.
Categories: Aquaculture · activism · conservation · fisheries · legislature · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, conservation, cultural rights, fisheries, legislature, ocean protection
From Alana:
From “Hawai’i has a lot to gain from open ocean aquaculture” in today’s Honolulu Advertiser:
Just as we need to be off imported oil, we need to be off imported seafood. This opportunity can be an economic engine for Hawai’i, and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.Let’s not stand in our own way. There’s a lot to gain for everyone.
Absolutely.
The amount of seafood that we import is really astounding. It is upsetting, though, that in the wake of a very large aquaculture operation, which would export up to 90% of its ahi products, statements like the above, are used to defend it.
The article, by Jay Fidell of ThinkTech Hawaii, goes on to say that:
There are anti-aquaculture groups who don’t want “greedy” corportations to make a profit and export aquaculture products to outside markets. Those groups don’t acknowledge andvancements in the technology, and regularly diseminate disinformation about the industry. They’ve been pulling out all the stops, apparently bent on wiping out open ocean aquaculture in Hawai’i. Theyre’re completely wrong. Without open ocean aquaculture, Hawai’i would have to depend on foreign unregulated producers and overfished wild stocks. Those options are not nearly as secure or sustainable as the development of homegrown open ocean aquaculture.
I do not think of myself as entirely “anti-aquaculture”, I just think it should be done right. My cause is not to “diseminate disinformation”, it is to let people know that there are serious implications that multiple aquaculture ventures could have on Hawaii’s marine ecosystems. It is also to open peoples eyes to aquaculture in other parts of the world, and to how it has affected those places. This article makes it seem like there is some hidden agenda beneath fighting these giant open ocean aquaculture projects. But really, I have nothing to gain from this. I have neither read nor heard anything pro-open ocean aquaculture, aside from the people who would benefit direcly from it.
Categories: Aquaculture · activism · conservation · fisheries · food sovereignty · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, conservation, cultural rights, endangered species, fisheries, hawaii, island sustainability, sustainability
From Alana:
For the past few weeks there have been numerous articles, editorials, and letters to editors in several local newspapers regarding open ocean aquaculture. A recent editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser states that
the large size and experimental nature of the [Hawaii Oceanic Tech] project demands that state regulators, and the public, keep a critical eye on the project as it moves forward.
The article goes on to say that the objective of this project is an organic, ecologically sustainable fish.
PROBLEM #1: Organic. The problem with this is that there are no organic standards for fish farming. It would also be especially hard to develop one for open ocean aquaculture, because the cages are not closed systems. Anything that is in the water will wind up in the bodies of the fish.
Hawaii Oceanic Tech also hopes to use “organic feed” for their fish. The main ingredient in HOTIs feed will be “sardines from sustainable fish stocks”. But, this goes back to what I said above: there are no organic standards for fish, so any claims of their feed being so are false.
PROBLEM #2: Ecologically Sustainable. This is a tricky one, just because it is so undefined. What is ecologically sustainable? Everything humanity does will impact the environment in some way. Perhaps ecologically sustainable means there is a balance of pros and cons for the environment. But what are the pros in this situation? Proponents of aquaculture say that farming fish gives wild populations a chance to repopulate, but this is easily proven wrong by the environmental havoc that fish farming has caused in British Columbia and other places where fish farms are popular. Many Canadians are embarrassed that their government has let the caged farming industry expand because of its serious impacts.
More information about ocean fish farming’s impact on wild stocks can be found here: Science Daily: Ocean Fish Farming Harms Wild Fish, Study Says (Neil Frazer-UH)
Keep your eyes open for more aquaculture in the news in the coming weeks.
Categories: Aquaculture · activism · conservation · fisheries · food sovereignty · gmo · island sustainability · ocean protection
Tagged: conservation, fisheries, gmo, ocean, ocean protection, sustainability
From Kealoha Pisciotta, President of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou and one of KAHEA’s Board of Directors:
As a former telescope system specialist on Mauna Kea, I value both Polynesian and modern astronomy. Unfortunately, the West Hawaii Today editorial endorsing the Thirty Meter Telescope Board’s selection of Mauna Kea over Chile contained several inaccuracies—and one insult to Hawaiians.
Portraying modern astronomy as an extension of traditional Native Hawaiian star and navigational knowledge is inaccurate and obscures the fact that modern astronomy now threatens to displace traditional astronomy on Mauna Kea and the people who practice it there. Hawaiians use Mauna Kea’s high elevation landscape for ceremonies that contain star and other knowledge essential to modern Hawaiian voyaging, knowledge our ancestors used to discover thousands of tiny islands spread over ten million square miles of the vast Pacific Ocean, before the time of Christ and millennia before modern astronomy.
But the constant building of new telescopes has destroyed critical landmarks and obstructed essential view planes that reveal star paths and astronomical alignments. Too much of Mauna Kea’s landscape has already been leveled, and TMT plans to bulldoze more. Eventually, thousands of years of traditional knowledge codified in the landscape will be lost, and practitioners will no longer be able to keep the knowledge alive. With TMT may also come nighttime access restrictions to areas we now use for traditional astronomy. These are among the reasons Hawaiians urged the TMT Board to build in Chile, which their own analysis suggests will inflict less environmental and cultural damage.
Categories: conservation · land and cultural rights
Tagged: conservation, cultural practice, cultural rights, mauna kea
From: Andrea
Just last month, Act 155 was passed in the Hawaii Legislature, amending Hawaii’s renewable energy law.
One of the highlights of this amendment was the strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards (often abbreviated as RPS). These standards are binding for electric utility companies, which must satisfy the specified percentage of their net electricity sales with electricity generated from renewable energy sources by the specified date.
Now, Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards are as follows: 10% by 2010; 15% by 2015; 25% by 2020; and 40% by 2030. The two standards that Act 155 changed are the two later dates: the 2020 standard was increased by 5%, and the 2030 standard was a new addition.
This strengthening of Hawaii’s Renewable Portfolio Standards was a wise move by the Hawaii Legislature. Hawaii should be a predominant leader in the renewable energy realm, considering that it is the most oil dependent state with over 90% of its energy needs met by imported fossil fuels– a doubly detrimental impact with carbon footprints from long-distance importation and burning. The context of climate change and sea-level rise heighten Hawaii’s energy vulnerability.
Yet, Hawaii is also ideally situated to move the ball forward with renewable energy due to the high availability of solar, wind, wave, and tidal energy. Thus, the Legislature’s addition of the long-term standard, 40% renewable-created electricity by 2030, is in line with Hawaii’s position of great need, vulnerability, and opportunism.
However, the short-term standard could be a bit more aggressive. Although a five-percent increase to 25% by 2020 is an improvement, a few other states have more stringent short-term standards. For example, California is requiring 20% renewable-created electricity by 2010– double Hawaii’s 2010 standard. And, Maine has a 2017 standard of 40%, Hawaii’s standard for 13 years later, while New York has a 2013 standard of 24%– 9% greater than Hawaii’s 2015 standard.
Regardless of the precise standards, the definition of “renewable energy” sources must be amended. While creating more stringent standards in the short-term is ideal, amending the definition of “renewable energy” to only encompass those sources that are truly clean is a must.
As it stands now, the definition of “renewable energy” does not contain any qualifications. For example, it includes “biofuels.” Such an unqualified authorization allows utility companies to meet the standard with, say, palm oil, which fits the broad definition of “biofuels.”
What’s the problem with palm oil qualifying as a renewable energy source? This “biofuel” implicates a significant carbon footprint due to carbon-emitting land change. After the deforestation, heavy fertilization, and peatland burning required to produce the palm oil, the production of this “biofuel” actually contributes more to global warming, opposed to ameliorating the crisis.
Renewable energy sources and, thus, renewable portfolio standards for utility companies should authorize only clean renewable sources in life-cycle terms. Renewability should be just one requisite for clean energy sources; the holistic footprint, including emissions, land change, and other environmental impacts, also must be taken into account.
Otherwise, we may simply displace the impact to another medium. Without amending the law to reflect this crucial qualification, the renewable portfolio standards may end up perpetuating the very problem that they are intended to improve.
Want Hawaii to lead a meaningful renewable energy transition?
Contact your representatives in the State Legislature and voice your opinion!
Here’s contact information for our House representatives:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.asp
And, here’s contact information for Senate members:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.asp
Categories: 1 · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · climate change · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, biofuels, cap and trade, climate change, climate justice, conservation, energy, energy independence, energy law, environmental justice, fossil fuels, global warming, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, legislature, management, northwestern hawaiian islands, ocean, oceans, renewable energy, renewable portfolio standards, sustainability
From Alana:
On Thursday night, a film entitled A Sea Change, was shown at the Bishop Museum. It addressed the much ignored by-product of climate change, ocean acidification. Ocean acidification is, arguably, the most dire consequence of adding ridiculous amounts of carbon dioxide to the air.
For years, the ocean has been absorbing extra CO2 from the air, a total of 118 billion metric tons of it. Adding 22 billion pounds of CO2 to the ocean each day is severely changing the chemistry of the water. But what is wrong with the pH of the ocean lowering by .1, or .01, or even .001? It may not seem like much to us, but any change affects what all life depends on most: the creatures at the bottom of the ocean food chain, namely pteropods. Pteropods are moth-like, transparent creatures, that seem to fly in the deep ocean. They are the food for a myriad of creatures, which in turn are the food source for hundreds of other creatures, that humans then feed on. Increased amounts of CO2, though, are causing the pteropods’ calciferous shells to disintegrate. This threatens the entire food chain.
Scientists have underestimated the magnitude and haste of climate change. They assert that we are past the point where we can stop the extinctions that will come with the disappearance of pteropods and coral. This situation is so extreme that within a few centuries humans could be all but extinct as well. As one scientist simply exclaims, “we’re screwed”.
The thing that disgusts me most about all of this, though, is that we could have solved it by now. It would only cost TWO PERCENT of our GDP to solve the energy crisis. It can be argued that 2% of GDP is a lot of money, but I think it might be a good asking price for ensuring the continuation of our survival as a species, and the survival of the animals we depend on. To put this in perspective, enough photovoltaic cells could have been built to power the entire United States with only $420 billion–HALF of the Iraq war budget.
A big hurdle that the public has to face is simply realizing how much we rely on the ocean, and that it is in fact possible for us to change something that big. Most people accept the fact that the ice is melting, but continually deny that life is endangered because of human activity. One woman in the film says,
“We are a very visual species. What is below water is invisible to us. What we can’t see, we pollute… because it doesn’t exist to us.”
So what can we do about this? The main thing to do is just analyze your lifestyle and make sure that what you do doesn’t add to this serious problem. Venture capitalists have the choice of going down the alley of exploitation as easily as the alley of sustainability. The government owes it to everyone to do something about this. This type of problem will threaten national security, the world food supply, etc, so when is anyone going to do something about this in terms of strong legislation– or creating an actual plan of action?? Depending on your age, you may not see the effects, but it is real. It is not going away. I know that there will not only be a sea change in my lifetime, but a world of change.
Categories: climate change · conservation · island sustainability · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: conservation, coral, endangered species, island sustainability, ocean protection, sustainability
HONOLULU ADVERTISER, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS WIRE REPORT ON CONTROVERSY
by Stewart:
KAHEA’s complaint asking a Hawaii court to require the state Department of Land and Natural Resources to follow state law concerning permits for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument has made news, as Hawaii’s largest newspaper and a national environmental wire service both published pieces on the matter today.
The news reports come two days after KAHEA filed its suit and a day after KAHEA presented its case to the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources. KAHEA has requested the board refrain from issuing new permits until the agency complies with the law; KAHEA has requested an administrative hearing on the issue.
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · fisheries · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: activism, beaches, conservation, cultural rights, culture, fisheries, land and cultural rights, marine protected area, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection
From: Andrea
Last night at the public hearing on the Draft Science Plan for Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, held at the monument office in Hawaii Kai, a troubling consequence of the lack of environmental review was elucidated.
One of the Science Plan authors stated that research activities that have already been permitted are assumed to have gone through a “rigorous” review by management. The problem?
Actually, there could be quite a few from this muddy statement. For one, this statement suggests that research activities that have already been permitted will not be scrutinized- nor, certainly, environmentally assessed- in the future. It sounds like grandfathering-in existing and previous permits, meaning some activities that have been permitted in the past will be continuously assumed to pass muster, despite never actually being environmentally reviewed.
Clearly, grandfathering-in research activities so that they never undergo environmental review creates informational ravines that make cumulative impact analysis impossible. Cumulative impacts, the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future action, must be assessed. The managers need to understand the big picture, especially when making seemingly small decisions like permitting.
Secondly, what is this “rigorous” review that the manager mentioned? There has been no environmental assessment on any permits nor the entire permitting system nor the Science Plan, so it clearly was not environmental review. If this rigorous review were undertaken via the prioritization system of the Science Plan, that, too, is problematic.
As I have blogged before, the Science Plan has two tragic flaws: (1) the prioritization scheme that doesn’t actually prioritize permit activities (To prioritize permit activities, it asks, pros and…pros?, leading to 97% of potential research activities to be ranked as “critical” or “high” in importance.) and (2) the lack of environmental review.
But, the environmental assessment did not come with the Science Plan. The managers argue that this is the draft plan, so environmental assessment is not appropriate now. However, they also proclaim the plan to be an evolving document- not problematic necessarily. The evolving nature of the plan is problematic, however, for lack of environmental review because, if it is meant to evolve, when would the managers consider environmental review appropriate? There could always be an argument that it is not truly finalized yet if it’s an “evolving” document.
On the other side, if the monument managers, in fact, conduct an environmental assessment for the Final Science Plan, which is the next step after last night’s public hearing, the decision on permitting prioritization will have been made. And, environmental assessment is legally required to take place prior to decision-making. The whole point of environmental review is for decision-makers to be informed of environmental impacts before they make final decisions.
So, either the Science Plan truly is an evolving document, in which case an environmental review is likely to be put off forever. Or, the Science Plan will be finalized in the next step, the Final Science Plan, which frustrates the point of environmental review taking place before decisions are made.
Confusing? Yes. But it need not be.
KAHEA urges the monument managers to take the straightforward approach by conducting environmental review of the Science Plan, which guides the entire permitting process, prior to finalization of the plan. KAHEA also urges environmental review of all permits- no grandfathering-in. Each proposed permit should be looked at with a fresh eye, through the lens of cumulative impacts, which inherently change over time.
Let’s hope that public comments are indeed incorporated into the Final Science Plan, whenever that may be. Otherwise, the one-sided prioritization system will continue to rank most activities high, leading to excessive access and impact in a fragile, irreplaceable ecosystem.
What can you do? Speak up!
Last public hearing on the Science Plan is in Hilo tomorrow:
Hawai‘i, July 23th, 6-8 p.m.
Mokupapapa Discovery Center,
308 Kamehameha Ave, Suite 203, Hilo, HI, 96720.
All written public comments must be received by the monument managers by or before August 10.
• U.S. Mail:
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, Attn: Science Plan Comments, 6600 Kalaniana‘ole Hwy, Suite 300, Honolulu HI, 96825
• E-mail: nwhicomments@noaa.gov.
To read the plan:
http://papahanaumokuakea.gov/research/plans/draft_natressciplan.pdf
(It takes a few minutes to download, but once you’re there, skip to page 10 for the prioritization chart.)
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, beaches, conservation, coral, cultural rights, endangered species, environmental justice, hawaii, hearing, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, malama, management, marine protected area, monk seals, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline, superferry, sustainability, whales
From: Andrea
Most people are familiar with our inalienable natural rights, as John Locke summed up as life, liberty, and property. But what about nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve?
These are the inalienable legal rights that the town of Shapleigh, Maine, voted to grant to nature last February. Now, in the town of Shapleigh, population 2,326, natural communities and ecosystems are endowed with these inalienable, fundamental rights, and any town resident has “standing” to bring a lawsuit on behalf of natural communities and ecoystems.
Read the Boston Globe article here:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/19/should_nature_be_able_to_take_you_to_court/?page=1
Shapleigh is on the right track. While critics may argue there are too many potential litigants, ranging from the Kukui tree to the Waimea River, there exists an entire planet of species and ecosystems deserving of the right to exist. And, sadly, counts of these potential litigants are diminishing. See:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01296862.htm
The above article, published July 2, reports that more than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the last five-hundred years, with almost 17,000 threatened with extinction now, according to a recent International Union for Conservation of Nature report. The track record shows that we are failing at conservation. Endowing nature with the right to exist may bolster our efforts at conserving biodiversity.
Apparent in many facets of our social structure, we have consistently valued profit above nature. After all, corporations have long had the legal status of a “person” and the corresponding rights, including ability to sue. If corporations are “persons” in the sense of legal status and rights, then what is the problem with nature possessing rights to exist? Nature is fundamental to our own existence, quite unlike corporations.
We are behind the time in recognizing nature’s rights. Notwithstanding the dire situation of lost biodiversity, concepts of an ethical relationship with nature have been around for at least 100 years. Aldo Leopold, an early environmentalist, wrote about his “land ethic” in A Sand County Almanac. Based on the idea that ethics should be expanded to encompass nonhuman members of the biotic community, Leopold summed up his land ethic as follows: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” If we humans were on board with this profoundly simple land ethic- and had been during our last couple hundred years of pillaging-, then perhaps we would not be in the situation of having to pass town ordinances to grant nature the right to exist.
But, alas, so is human nature. Our attempts at control have led us to a precarious precipice: here, at the edge of continuing to diminish biodiversity, we have a choice. The town of Shapleigh recognized this watershed moment and stepped in the direction of preservation.
If my town votes for a similar ordinance, you bet I’ll holler aye. And, when critics question, “how do we know what nature wants?” and argue that the interest is actually ours, I’ll have my response.
Sure, we humans may be the ones instituting this groundbreaking regime of granting legal rights to biota. But in reality, the idea of humans bringing these suits on behalf of nature is not so far-fetched. After all, people serve as trustees to bring suits on behalf of incompetent people and trust beneficiaries. Human implementation of nature’s rights is requisite: the law is our system, and our impacts and attempts to control ecosystems thus far have led to the gross loss in biodiversity.
Humans- but not corporations- are a part of the planetary ecosystem. We are not the operators behind an enormous control panel, like we have long been masquerading. As a single species, we should make room in our legal and socioeconomic structures for the other species to survive, lest we deprive them all of their right to exist.
We should be celebrating and wholeheartedly codifying nature’s right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve. Without nature, without Earth, homo sapiens would not exist.
Ho’okahi No Ka ‘Aina A Me Na Kanaka.
Categories: Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · climate change · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · ocean protection · other
Tagged: activism, conservation, corporations as persons, cultural rights, endangered species, environmental justice, ethics, extinction, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, legal rights, legislature, monk seals, natural rights, nature, ocean protection, sustainability
From: Andrea
U.S. Army Garrison-Hawaii is soliciting community interest in creating a Restoration Advisory Board as part of the Military Munitions Response Program for two sites near the U.S. Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area. The motivation for the Restoration Advisory Board is to enable community participation in environmental issues on previously used military training sites.
Currently, the focus of the Restoration Advisory Board would be the remedial investigation of two response sites: the closed Humuula Sheep Station and the Kulani Boys’ Home.
The Board will be formed if enough community interest is expressed. The Board would be composed of community members, government representatives, and other stakeholders. The Board members would attend meetings and review and comment on plans and reports related to the investigation.
For more information or to request an application, contact:
Environmental Divison
MMRP Program Manager
Director of Public Works, USAG-HI
948 Santos Dumont Ave.
Building 105, 3rd Floor, WAAF
Schofield Barracks, HI 96857
Phone: 808-656-3109
Fax: 808-656-1039
*Applications must be postmarked or emailed by August 14!
Categories: activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · military toxics · other
Tagged: activism, conservation, cultural rights, development, environmental justice, island sustainability, malama, militarization, military, military toxics, sustainability
From: Andrea
The U.S. Coast Guard removed 32 tons of debris from the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands over the Fourth of July weekend. Much thanks to the Coast Guard for ameliorating the health of our oceans! See the Honolulu Advertiser article:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090713/BREAKING01/307130004/U.S.%20Coast%20Guard%20removes%2032%20tons%20of%20debris%20from%20Northwestern%20Hawaiian%20Islands?GID=e/Si+j1sOYkNlMXAMxQScaqw1wgB5/Nurtn+5iNvNh8%3D
While I am glad that efforts to clean up marine litter are taking place, especially in such an irreplaceable, nationally protected locale, 32 tons is only the tip of the iceberg. The scale of this problem is vast. Marine litter filling our oceans is a global problem affecting all people and nations. Marine litter, of which 80% are plastics, harms marine life, degrades human health, and results in tremendous social, economic, and cultural costs.
The United Nations Environment Programme recognizes this immense ocean dilemma that affects everyone. In April 2009, the UN Environment Programme released a report titled “Marine Litter: A Global Challenge.” Find the report at:
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_Marine_Litter-A_Global_Challenge.pdf
“There is an increasingly urgent need to approach the issue of marine litter through better enforcement of laws and regulations, expanded outreach and educational campaigns, and the employment of strong economic instruments and incentives,” the report says.
The report also notes that the “overall situation is not improving.” Thank you, Coast Guard, for your part. But, we must do our part, too.
What can you do to help reduce marine litter?
- Keep streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and storm drains free of trash to prevent washing trash into the ocean and waterways.
- Take reusable items- and less trash and throw-away containers- to the beach.
- At the beach, be sure to recycle what you can and throw the rest of your trash into trash cans. Do not leave trash or anything else, like plastic toys or containers, at the beach when you leave.
- Pick up debris that other people have left; recycle what you can, and throw the rest away in a trash can.
- When fishing, take all of your nets, gear, and other materials back onshore to recycle or dispose of in a trash can.
- If you smoke, take your butts with you, disposing of them in a trash can.
- When boating, stow and secure all trash on the vessel.
- Participate in local clean-ups. Here’s one resource: http://www.adoptabeachhawaii.com/
- Reduce, reuse, recycle.
- Serve as an example to others.
Categories: Hawaiian Monk Seal · Northwest Hawaiian Islands · activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · ocean protection
Tagged: access, activism, beach access, beaches, conservation, cultural rights, development, environmental justice, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, marine protected area, marine reserve, monk seals, northwestern hawaiian islands, NWHI, ocean, ocean protection, oceans, shoreline, sustainability
From: Andrea
Kahana residents have not ceased their tireless fight to stay in their homes. Since their homeland was condemned as a state park in the ’60s, the people of Kahana have had to battle the State of Hawaii to stay in their homes.
And, now, after the State found illegal the law passed in ‘93 to allow long-term leases for pre-existing residents in Kahana State Park, legislation has been proposed to ameliorate this unsettling situation for now.
House Bill 1552 presented Kahana residents an interim solution from being forced to leave their homes. Public process gave them a way to voice their interests within the decision-making arena. Reflecting Kahana residents’ input, the bill would help Kahana residents in the following ways:
- Authorize Department of Land and Natural Resources to issue long-term residential leases to Kahana residents;
- Establish planning councils to develop a park Master Plan; and
- Establish a 2-year moritorium on evictions of Kahana valley residents.
But, now, Governor Lingle has voiced her intent to veto the bill, apparently under the guise of prohibiting illegal activities in Kahana. If that’s the case, go after the illegal activities as the government would do so anywhere else! The State should not perpetuate the suffering of long-time Kahana residents who are not participating in illegal activities because some residents are breaking the law there.
Want to support Kahana residents in their fight to protect their homes?
Oppose Governor Lingle’s intent to veto HB 1522:
Wednesday, July 8, 11 a.m.
Demonstration at the State Capitol
Categories: activism · conservation · environmental justice · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · other
Tagged: activism, conservation, environmental justice, hawaii, island sustainability, land and cultural rights, legislature, sustainability
Plans for major construction in the sensitive ecosystems of our most sacred summits continue to push forward, despite significant opposition from the community. The University of Hawaii has filed two environmental impact statements — one for the world’s largest telescope in the world’s only tropical alpine desert, and another for a duplicative solar telescope in one of the most threatened national parks in the U.S. Both of these projects can be built in less sensitive areas.
Though both summits are protected as conservation districts, where the law expressly discourages construction, the University refuses to compromise, insisting that these giant, intrusive structures be built where they will cause the most harm.
Don’t let good science be used to justify unnecessary ecological destruction and cultural disrespect. Take action now to defend our sacred, fragile summits.
1)
Protect Haleakala — the House of the Sun — from another, unnecessary solar telescope
2) Defend the Sacred Summit of Mauna Kea from the World’s Largest Telescope
Public hearings on the proposal to build the world’s largest telescope on Mauna Kea are being held now. All meetings are 5 to 8 p.m., with an open house in the beginning, followed by formal presentations, and then comments from the public.
Public Hearings on the New Mauna Kea Telescope Proposal
June 16 (Tuesday) Waimea – Waimea Elementary School Cafeteria
June 17 (Wednesday) Hilo – Hilo High School Cafeteria
June 18 (Thursday) Puna – Pahoa High School Cafeteria
June 22 (Monday) Ka’u – Ka’u High/Pahala Elementary School Cafeteria
June 23 (Tuesday) Hawi – Kohala Cultural Center
June 24 (Wednesday) Kona – Kealakehe Elementary School Cafeteria
June 25 (Thursday) Honolulu – Farrington High School Cafeteria
The Draft EIS is available on the Project website – www.TMT-HawaiiEIS.org – and hard copies can be found at public libraries throughout Hawaii.
Get action alerts like these sent directly to your inbox by signing up with KAHEA’s action alert network at www.kahea.org.
Categories: activism · conservation · environmental justice · land and cultural rights · mauna kea
Tagged: conservation, culture, Haleakala, mauna kea, sacred summit, science, telescope
From Marti:
The Hawaii Legislature is seriously considering a raid on our most important conservation funds in order to balance the state budget. This is insane given all that these few millions do to protect the quality of our drinking water, the health of our native ecosystems, and truly local jobs. But, the insanity goes a step further once you realize they are considering these massive cuts when the state is owed millions upon millions for the use of public land on Mauna Kea.
For 40 years foreign-owned telescopes have used (and destroyed) acres of public land on the summit of Mauna Kea without paying any rent. Rent, that is required by state law! It’s estimated that the state could earn at least $50 million a year just by charging market-based rent for the use of our public lands, instead of giving it away to foreign corporations and countries… and cutting important programs and jobs to make ends meet.
On Sunday, the Honolulu Advertiser published the editorial below from some of the entities that directly benefit from these important programs. If you would like to express your support for these programs to the Hawaii Legislature, click here.
By Herbert “Monty” Richards, Gary and Kukui Maunakea-Forth and Rick Barboza
Honolulu Advertiser, April 12, 2009
We thank The Advertiser for its editorial (April 2) on the necessity of natural resource stewardship even during fiscal crises. Generations of ranchers, farmers and land managers have always understood the close connection between a healthy natural environment, land protection, stewardship, water supply, agricultural self-sufficiency and the economy.
Business and government often measure our economy by the number of tourism and construction jobs in operation. That’s understandable, but doesn’t account for vast natural assets (water, forests, beaches, coral reefs, agricultural land) that support every person in Hawai’i — residents and visitors — who depend on services from the environment for their livelihoods, health and welfare.
The programs that are funded by the DLNR’s Natural Area Reserve Fund and the Land Conservation Fund are essential to the protection of our Hawaiian resources. They support watershed management, invasive species control, agricultural production, forestry, coastal protection and cultural preservation. Hundreds are employed and more than 1 million acres are managed, protected and cultivated for public benefit. These healthy, managed natural resources and the services they provide allow us the lifestyle we all enjoy and permit our survival in the middle of the vast Pacific.
Due to difficult times, conveyance tax revenue that supports these funds is down 50 percent. These programs will be cut by half or more even without House Bill 1741. Further reduction in the NAR Fund and Land Conservation Fund as proposed in HB 1741 would either eliminate many of these essential programs or cripple them to the point of leaving them inoperable and nonfunctioning. These programs leverage funding by at least 1:1, and in some cases as much as 1:3, with federal, county and private dollars (i.e., for every state dollar spent, three additional matching non-state dollars can be leveraged).
The NAR Fund and the Land Conservation Fund are our state’s way of supporting large-scale conservation that protects our incredible natural resources, supports sustainable land and water management, ensures high-quality jobs, and guarantees the perpetuation of essential ecosystem services worth billions of dollars. Without watershed management, critical drinking water resources will dry up or become contaminated.
Without personnel in the field controlling invasive species, pests like bee mites will infiltrate our shores — wiping out industries like our local honey/beekeeping industry, or requiring tens of millions to control and eradicate (e.g., miconia, coqui frogs). Without land protection, more agricultural, watershed, forest, coastal and culturally important lands will be converted; reducing our ability to feed ourselves and attract visitors who appreciate Hawai’i’s natural beauty.
Without these programs, successes like MA’O Organic Farms might not be possible. MA’O recently purchased agricultural land using Land Conservation Funds, allowing it to expand its organic farm, and employ over two dozen high school graduates from Wai’anae and Nanakuli and pay their college tuition and stipends. As fifth-generation ranchers in North Kohala, Kahua Ranch and its neighbors in the Kohala Watershed Partnership are using their resources and support from the NAR Fund to control invasive species and protect 65,000 acres of native forests and watersheds.
With help from the NAR Fund’s Forest Stewardship Program, Hui Ku Maoli Ola will restore over 30 acres of land in Ha’iku valley. Keeping the NAR Fund percentage at 25 percent and the Land Conservation Fund percentage at 10 percent is a small investment for such large, sustainable and long-term benefits for our island communities.
Herbert “Monty” Richards of Kahua Ranch, Gary and Kukui Maunakea-Forth of MA’O Organic Farms and Rick Barboza of Hui Ku Maoli Ola wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
Categories: conservation · island sustainability · land and cultural rights · legislature · mauna kea
Tagged: conservation, deficit, editorial, funding, hui ku maoli ola, kahua ranch, ma'o, mauna kea, native ecosystem, Natural Area Reserve, telescopes
From today’s HTH, on UH’s proposed management plan for Mauna Kea: http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2009/03/19/local_news/local02.txt
“We don’t have anything now, and anything is better than nothing, I think,” he said.
Could UH’s Barry Taniguchi have given a weaker endorsement of the UH Mauna Kea “management” plan he himself has been lobbying in favoring of?
Forgive us if we continue to believe that Mauna Kea deserves better than a “anything is better than nothing” plan for its future.
The Land Board will hold a two day hearing on April 8 and 9 in Hilo to consider UH’s latest management plan for the summit. The plan is UH’s attempt to circumvent, er… comply with requirements from two losses in court and two state audits which found that the telescope developers violated the state and federal laws meant to protect Mauna Kea. You can ask the Land Board and other decision-makers to reject this false UH plan, and give this sacred summit the future it deserves: a plan which protects and conserves the summit, provides for independent oversight, fair representation for communities, and fair compensation to the people of Hawaii.
The UH plan fails to put any enforceable or numeric limits on telescope development and instead limits public access, dictates religious ceremony, and makes it easier for UH and telescope developers to pocket public money made from the lease of Mauna Kea’s public trust lands. A`ole.
But, it seems, “better than nothing.” Right.
Categories: conservation · land and cultural rights · mauna kea
Tagged: conservation, mauna kea, summit
3 down, 1 to go! Thanks to the public’s vigilant support and participation SB 502 is officially dead!! Yay!
SB 502 was one of four bills proposing to transfer management of one of the Pacific’s most unique and sacred summits, Mauna Kea, over to its primary developer–the University of Hawaii. The University has facilitated forty years of bulldozing for unlimited telescope development on the summit, which has destroyed ecologically unique habitat and desecrated sacred cultural sites.
Just one more bill remains: HB 1741. With your help, we can stop it. Express your opposition to this and the whole suite of bad Mauna Kea bills for which UH is lobbyingby submitting your online testimony. Support Hawaii’s legislators in seeking accountable, transparent, fair and representative management of Mauna Kea’s sacred summit by submitting your testimony: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2699/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26592
Categories: activism · land and cultural rights · mauna kea
Tagged: alpine, conservation, cultural rights, mauna kea, sacred, summit
