"FUKUSHIMA: USA PREPARES FOR NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST"
2013-11-12 from Dr. Helen Caldicott [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_z9Pd4dNTY] [http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm]:
Dept. of Nuclear Engineering, University of California Berkeley tells us that according to Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary of Energy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and one of the nation's leading experts on spent fuel pools, "There is more than 37 million curies of long lived radioactivity stored up in the spent fuel just within this single pool. If another severe earthquake were to strike causing the pool to drain, or some other event such as an explosion, it could result in a catastrophic radiological fire releasing nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 [into the Earths atmosphere] as was released by the Chernobyl accident."
According to Gregory Jaczko, former Chairman of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at a press Conference, 9/24, at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan , "...the upcoming attempt to remove Fukushima Unit 4 spent fuel is unprecedented, the pool has significant structural damage and the overall effort is very risky."
According to Yale University Professor Emeritus Charles Perrow, a frequent author for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, during an interview with "news.com.au", "This has me scared." In the event of an explosion, "Tokyo would have to be evacuated because of cesium and other poisons that are there will spread very rapidly. Even if the wind is blowing the other way it's going to be monumental."
According to Mycle Schneider, an energy consultant and adviser to members of the European Parliament and the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency, in an article published at "globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com": "A massive spent fuel fire would likely dwarf the current dimensions of the catastrophe and could exceed the radioactivity releases of Chernobyl dozens of times."
The Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee chairman Anne McIntosh described the scale of the contamination in the food chain as "breathtaking" and warned that restoring consumer confidence would take time and money. The Government has a role to secure the correct balance between affordable food prices and effective regulations that require transparency and quality. The consumer cannot be left to face a Catch 22 where they can either pay for food that complies with the highest standards of traceability, labeling and testing or accept that they cannot trust the provenance and composition of the foods they eat.....so that's all right then!
Japan to be Nuked?
Unfortunately, the historical precedents are not great. It took a double atom-bombing and (by some accounts) two separate admonitions by Emperor Hirohito for Japan's "leaders" to finally accept the Potsdam Declaration and end World War II. Of course, being constitutionally "sacred and inviolable," the Emperor could not be held responsible for anything.
We can't expect similar Deus ex Machina resolutions to Fukushima or anything else. Japan is supposedly a democracy, so in theory a responsibility-shirking government is ultimately the people's problem --- and responsibility --- just as much as the nuclear disaster and all the nation's other problems are.
Of course, the people have a plentiful supply of other targets to blame until enough of them come to that realization.
Washington's Blog reports that "Mainstream Media Awakens to the fact that Fukushima Is Still a Total Mess", and "Continuous Leaking of Radioactive Water, Dangers of Spent Fuel Pools", but the truth is that the situation is far more Apocalyptic and dire than even these doom-laden headlines let on.
The event at Chernobyl was contained starting within a matter of days; and yet in Japan we see a situation where radioactive particles are allowed to spew onto the land, air, and ocean, and irreparable damage to the biosphere is taking place, yet still going uncapped.
The true villains of this event may be the same individuals allowing this continued contamination.
In the interest of delving into the whole sordid matter of Fukushima I have updated the permalink post "Fukushima False Flag ", and encourage readers to delve into the subject and realize that 3/11- Japans 9/11, is perhaps the worlds most heinous act of terrorism and genocide, and incalculably detrimental to future posterity. The perpetrators of this crime must be brought to justice, and the entire facility must be encased in cement forever, above and below ground. The New York Academy of Medicine's Fukushima Symposium makes crystal clear that there has been a deliberate effort by Japanese government, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the Obama administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to downplay the long term health consequences of nuclear fallout, especially to children. Instead of backtracking on the billions of dollars he approved to subsidize TEPCO to build more US nuclear power plants, Obama is participating in an international cover-up to conceal the serious long term dangers of this technology.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Petroleum transported by rail-car can derail and contaminate an entire ecosystem
"Train in Alabama oil spill was carrying 2.7 million gallons of crude;
Derailment fuels criticism of growing railroad use to move oil;
Railroads are carrying 25 times more crude oil than they were five years ago"
2013-11-09 by SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA from "LA Times" [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-train-crash-alabama-oil-20131109-story.html]:
A train that derailed and exploded in rural Alabama was hauling 2.7 million gallons of crude oil, according to officials.
The 90-car train was crossing a timber trestle above a wetland near Aliceville late Thursday night when approximately 25 rail cars and two locomotives derailed, spilling crude oil into the surrounding wetlands and igniting a fire that was still burning Saturday.Each of the 90 cars was carrying 30,000 gallons of oil, said Bill Jasper, president of the rail company Genesee & Wyoming at a press briefing Friday night. It’s unclear, though, how much oil was spilled because some of the cars have yet to be removed from the marsh.
“Most of the cars did not spill all of the product that was inside it,” Don Hartley, a regional coordinator for the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, told the Los Angeles Times.
Emergency responders have to wait until the fire has burned out, Hartley said.
Hartley said that the marsh where the oil spilled is stagnant, so the oil hasn’t spread to other water systems. Scott Hughes, spokesman for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, told The Times that responders had set up booms to absorb some of the oil.
“Typically wetlands are a sanctuary for a variety of different types of aquatic species, so once we’re able to get in and assess environmental impacts, we’ll certainly look at any impacts to aquatic organisms and other types of wildlife,” Hughes told The Times.
There are extensive wetlands near Aliceville, a town of about 2,400 in western Alabama, according to the state’s Forestry Commission website.
Hughes said Friday that a check of the water quality of the nearby drinking wells came up clean. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been at the scene since Friday monitoring air quality in the region.
There are more than 100 people from various local, state and federal agencies surveying the scene, Hartley said.
Hartley said 21 cars were still in the marsh, but that most of the other cars had been moved back onto the track. The most damaged cars in the water will be removed last. The 60-foot-long, 10-foot-high wooden trestle, which also caught on fire, will have to be rebuilt. That will take about a week, Hartley said.
The cause of the crash is under investigation, and will probably take weeks to determine. The train, which was en route from Amory, Miss., to Walnut Hill, Fla., was traveling below the posted track speed of 40 mph, according to Jasper.
“No issues have been found with the performance of the train’s two-man crew,” reads a statement from the train company.
The track was last inspected Monday, and the most recent train to traverse the section of track where the crash occurred passed the site approximately 2.5 hours before the derailment, according to the statement.
The explosion of an oil train in Lac-Megantic, Canada, in July has fueled criticism regarding the use of rail to move oil. Railroads are carrying 25 times more crude oil than they were five years ago. In that incident, a train with 72 tank cars carrying crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale fields ignited an inferno in the city, The Times reported in September.
Hartley said that the Alabama train probably originated from North Dakota.
Derailment fuels criticism of growing railroad use to move oil;
Railroads are carrying 25 times more crude oil than they were five years ago"
2013-11-09 by SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA from "LA Times" [http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-train-crash-alabama-oil-20131109-story.html]:
A train that derailed and exploded in rural Alabama was hauling 2.7 million gallons of crude oil, according to officials.
The 90-car train was crossing a timber trestle above a wetland near Aliceville late Thursday night when approximately 25 rail cars and two locomotives derailed, spilling crude oil into the surrounding wetlands and igniting a fire that was still burning Saturday.Each of the 90 cars was carrying 30,000 gallons of oil, said Bill Jasper, president of the rail company Genesee & Wyoming at a press briefing Friday night. It’s unclear, though, how much oil was spilled because some of the cars have yet to be removed from the marsh.
“Most of the cars did not spill all of the product that was inside it,” Don Hartley, a regional coordinator for the Alabama Emergency Management Agency, told the Los Angeles Times.
Emergency responders have to wait until the fire has burned out, Hartley said.
Hartley said that the marsh where the oil spilled is stagnant, so the oil hasn’t spread to other water systems. Scott Hughes, spokesman for the Alabama Department of Environmental Management, told The Times that responders had set up booms to absorb some of the oil.
“Typically wetlands are a sanctuary for a variety of different types of aquatic species, so once we’re able to get in and assess environmental impacts, we’ll certainly look at any impacts to aquatic organisms and other types of wildlife,” Hughes told The Times.
There are extensive wetlands near Aliceville, a town of about 2,400 in western Alabama, according to the state’s Forestry Commission website.
Hughes said Friday that a check of the water quality of the nearby drinking wells came up clean. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been at the scene since Friday monitoring air quality in the region.
There are more than 100 people from various local, state and federal agencies surveying the scene, Hartley said.
Hartley said 21 cars were still in the marsh, but that most of the other cars had been moved back onto the track. The most damaged cars in the water will be removed last. The 60-foot-long, 10-foot-high wooden trestle, which also caught on fire, will have to be rebuilt. That will take about a week, Hartley said.
The cause of the crash is under investigation, and will probably take weeks to determine. The train, which was en route from Amory, Miss., to Walnut Hill, Fla., was traveling below the posted track speed of 40 mph, according to Jasper.
“No issues have been found with the performance of the train’s two-man crew,” reads a statement from the train company.
The track was last inspected Monday, and the most recent train to traverse the section of track where the crash occurred passed the site approximately 2.5 hours before the derailment, according to the statement.
The explosion of an oil train in Lac-Megantic, Canada, in July has fueled criticism regarding the use of rail to move oil. Railroads are carrying 25 times more crude oil than they were five years ago. In that incident, a train with 72 tank cars carrying crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken Shale fields ignited an inferno in the city, The Times reported in September.
Hartley said that the Alabama train probably originated from North Dakota.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Friends of the Gualala River ask Artesa Vineyards & Winery: "Don’t destroy redwood forest for vineyards"
Friends of the Gualala River [gualalariver.org], Facebook [facebook.com/gualalariver], Twitter [twitter.com/gualalariver]
"Artesa Vineyards & Winery: Don’t destroy redwood forest for vineyards"
Petition by Friends of the Gualala River [https://www.change.org/petitions/artesa-vineyards-winery-don-t-destroy-redwood-forest-for-vineyards]:
Petition by Friends of the Gualala River
Artesa Winery’s planned vineyard development is the only project in California proposing deforestation of coastal redwoods. Allowing this would set a precedent for other vineyard developers to destroy redwood forests in California.
The project has already been granted permits from California state agencies. Only a lawsuit from the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Gualala River has temporarily stopped the chainsaws and bulldozers from permanently removing the forest, sterilizing all its soils, and desecrating its ancient Pomo Indian heritage.
Artesa’s plan to log over a million board-feet of coastal redwood and douglas fir is more than simply clear-cutting the forest. They will rip out redwood roots and stumps that would otherwise regenerate. They will completely scrape away ancient forest soils and organisms, and apply pesticides. In addition, they will construct roads that are potential sources of sediment pollution to rivers and streams – home to endangered Coho salmon and Steelhead trout – and build fencing that fragments wild life habitat. It won’t be a pretty sight.
If this project is not stopped or withdrawn voluntarily, it will attract other vineyard developers to exploit this project’s approval. It will unleash additional and sprawling piecemeal vineyard development in second-growth redwood forests in the region. Artesa is literally paving the way for innumerable copycat vineyard deforestation projects.
With the help of tens of thousands of Change.org petitioners, we were successful last year in convincing public investment funds to purchase “Preservation Ranch,” another vineyard deforestation project. The petition signers convinced CALPERS (California Pension and Employee Retirement System) to abandon their planned development and sell the 20,000 acres of coastal forestland to The Conservation Fund for sustainable yield forest management and conservation in perpetuity.
But Artesa is privately owned by a large Spanish corporation, Codorniu. They want only vineyards, not forests. We need your help to convince Artesa and its parent corporation Codorniu that it is unwise to embark on an obviously unsustainable project because redwood deforestation for red wine may permanently stain their reputation in the wine market.
Please sign this petition, and tell your friends – and tell Artesa too – that:
1. Artesa should withdraw the Artesa-Sonoma Annapolis vineyard deforestation project permanently.
2. You will not drink Artesa's wine made from deforestation of redwoods.
* Educated wine drinkers are outraged by wine made from deforestation of redwoods and desecrated Pomo Indian heritage lands.
* Even the finest red wine, if produced by redwood deforestation, is undrinkable.
* Artesa Winery is jeopardizing its reputation by insisting on developing new vineyards in redwood forestland. National and international awareness and disapproval of the Artesa redwood deforestation project continue to grow.
3. Artesa should develop only sustainable vineyards on agricultural lands, not forestland.
Artesa's vineyards do not belong in redwood forests. Artesa can develop new vineyards at alternative locations without redwood deforestation.
[text of petition]
Don’t destroy redwood forest for vineyards -
To:
- Keith LaVine, President, Artesa Vineyards & Winery
- Artesa Vineyards & Winery
- Artesa Wine Club
- Aveniu Brands, Artesa’s wholesaler
- Codorniu, Parent corporation, headquartered in Spain
I urge you to withdraw the project at this forested site, and develop your vineyard on an alternative agricultural site to restore the respect of Artesa as a producer of fine and sustainable wines.
I would not drink or recommend any wine produced by a company that logs and bulldozes redwood forests to develop its vineyards. I am appalled at the socially and environmentally irresponsible Artesa Sonoma vineyard development project in Annapolis, California, where you plan to clear-cut over a million board-feet of timber and bulldoze ancient soils in a culturally sensitive Pomo heritage district.
I am committed to spreading my opinion about Artesa Vineyards and Codorniu regarding this vineyard deforestation project. Please invest in honorable, socially and environmentally respectable vineyard development projects.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
2013-11-03 from "Care2 Action Alerts!":
Chopping Down Ancient Redwoods to Make A Bottle of Wine? A Spanish winemaker wants to level 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in the California’s Sonoma County. Tell him to get his priorities straight!
Save California's Forests from Expanding Wineries!
You know what California has plenty of? Wineries. You know what it's rapidly losing, and what it can never replace? Its ancient redwood forests, some of which have trees that are more than 2,000 years old.
A Spanish winemaker wants to chop down 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in California’s Sonoma County. But redwoods only grow in Northern California and parts of southern Oregon. If all of that land is cleared to make space for wineries, soon there will be no redwoods left at all.
To make matters even worse, the thousands of trees in danger of being mown down like an overgrown lawn are between 50 and 80 feet tall. Some are probably hundreds of years old. And to put that majestic habitat on the line so someone can turn a profit? No way!
California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seems ready to let these ancient wonders be leveled for the sake of a few fancy bottles of wine. Sign the petition to tell them to protect the forests!
"Protect California Redwood Forests From Winery Development"
Petition author: Michael Taylor
target: Artesa CEO Keith LaVine
Sign it here! [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/541/276/481/take-a-stand-to-protect-californian-forests-against-ever-expanding-wineries/].
Update #1 November 7, 2013 -
Thank you for your contribution to this cause. The momentum is still going and we have reached over 30 000 signatures! Make sure that this continues and we can make a real impact to our environment. Forward this petition to your friends and family, we are going to make a difference!
---
About the Petition:
A Spanish winemaker wants to level 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in the California’s Sonoma County.
The majestic Redwood only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon, and parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers. The wine farms are growing, and the forests are shrinking. Forests that provide wildlife habitats and protect streams from erosion. And all this with permission from California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (CalFire). Protection at the end of the name seems to be rather misleading. What or who, are the trying to protect? Not the forests it seems.
Redwoods are considered among the most spectacular of all trees. The biggest trees on Earth by height, redwoods can stand more than 350 feet tall. Some are more than 2,000 years old.
The thousands of trees slated for removal are between 50 and 80 feet tall. Trees as previously mentioned, provide wildlife habitat and stabilize the soil against erosion, which has been a major problem for streams in the area that once harbored runs of salmon and steelhead trout to boot.
It is not just Redwood and Fir trees; oak trees are also in the way of these wine farms. Oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
And it's not just redwoods that are at stake as vineyards expand their terrain. California's oaks aren't subject to the same environmental protections as more commercially valuable species like redwoods and Douglas fir. And Northern California's oak forest, near the coast as well as inland, is being lost at fast rates to vineyard expansions.
Oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests, she says, provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
Whilst we all complain about pollution, global warming, deforestation, and mans other pursuits to grow his wallet at the cost of the planet, we sit back and do nothing. How long before the entire region is only wine farms, and there is not one tree left.
Lets send a message to Artesa that we will not sit back this time. This natural habitat must remain protected. Live up to your name and protect these forests.
"A Fight Over Vineyards Pits Redwoods Against Red Wine"
2013-10-18 by Alastair Bland from "NPR" [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/18/237136077/a-fight-over-vineyards-pits-redwoods-against-red-wine]:
Environmental groups are fighting to stop the leveling of 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make way for grapevines (Photo Courtesy Friends of the Gualala River).
In the California wine mecca of Sonoma County, climate change is pitting redwood lovers against red wine lovers.
This Friday morning, a coalition of environmental groups are in a Santa Rosa, Calif., courtroom fighting to stop a Spanish-owned winery from leveling 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make way for grapevines.
Redwoods only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon. Parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers.
Chris Poehlmann, president of a small organization called Friends of the Gualala River, says the wine industry is creeping toward the coast as California's interior valleys heat up and consumers show preferences for cooler-weather grapes like pinot noir.
"Inexorably, the wine industry is looking for new places to plant vineyards," says Poehlmann, whose group is among the plaintiffs.
California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, approved the redwood-clearing project in May 2012.
"So we sued them," says Dave Jordan, the legal liaison for the Sierra Club's Redwood Chapter, another of the plaintiffs. The Center for Biological Diversity is the third plaintiff.
The groups filed suit in June 2012 on the grounds that state officials violated California's environmental protection laws by approving the plan.
Redwoods are considered among the most spectacular of all trees. The biggest trees on Earth by height, redwoods can stand more than 350 feet tall. Some are more than 2,000 years old.
However, the redwoods at the center of this conflict are not old-growth trees. The area was clear-cut more than 50 years ago, and most of the redwoods on the site are less than 100 feet tall. Which is why Sam Singer argues: "There are no forests [on this site]."
Singer is a spokesman for Artesa Vineyards and Winery, which is owned by the Spanish Codorniu Group and which first proposed the development project in 2001. Singer says that the two old-growth redwood trees on the property will be spared.
But the thousands of trees slated for removal are between 50 and 80 feet tall, according to Poehlmann. He says the trees provide wildlife habitat and stabilize the soil against erosion, which has been a major problem for streams in the area that once harbored runs of salmon and steelhead trout.
The project planners have even estimated this timber to represent 1.25 million board feet of "merchantable" lumber.
Dennis Hall, a higher official with CalFire, says his department's approval of Artesa's project in 2012 came only after a lengthy review process found that it would not significantly damage the environment.
"We did an [environmental impact report] for the project," Hall says. "It was an extreme and exhaustive analysis of potential impacts to the environment." The report deemed most of these potential impacts to be "less-than-significant."
Still, Poehlmann feels CalFire has been too lenient on proposals by developers to level trees. "They are acting as if they are actually the 'department of deforestation,' " he says.
The tensions go beyond this case: Friends of the Gualala River and the Sierra Club's Redwood Chapter have gone to court several times in the past decade to successfully stop timberland conversion projects proposed by winery groups and which had been approved by the state. Among these fights was the battle to save the so-called Preservation Ranch, a 19,000-acre parcel that developers planned to partially deforest and replant with vines. Earlier this year, the developer sold the property to The Conservation Fund.
But from 1979 to 2006, 25 conversions of forest to agriculture occurred in Sonoma County at an average rate of 21 acres per year, according to county officials.
At least a few tree-clearing projects have occurred without permission. High-profile winemaker Paul Hobbs didn't bother getting a permit before he leveled 8 acres of redwoods in 2011 with plans to plant wine grapes. He remains a superstar winemaker and was tagged earlier this year by Forbes as "The Steve Jobs of Wine."
And it's not just redwoods that are at stake as vineyards expand their terrain. California's oaks aren't subject to the same environmental protections as more commercially valuable species like redwoods and Douglas fir, according to CalFire's Hall. And Northern California's oak forest, near the coast as well as inland, is being lost at fast rates to vineyard expansions, says Adina Merenlender, an environmental biologist with the University of California, Berkeley.
Merenlender says oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests, she says, provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
Sara Cummings with the Sonoma Vintners, a wine industry trade group, says new vineyards are usually planted within what she calls the region's "agricultural footprint" — land that is already designated by county planners as "agricultural." Moreover, she says, more than half the county's wine growers are members of the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program.
But Merenlender is concerned about future expansion into land not previously farmed.
"We're already seeing a lot of acquisition of coastal lands," she says. "Investments are moving north and west, toward the coast."
The issue, it seems, is a global one. A 2013 study predicted that global warming will cause a dramatic shift in the world's wine regions. The report warns that wilderness areas in British Columbia and remote regions of China — one of the world's fastest-growing winemaking regions — may become increasingly coveted by the industry.
"But at least we'll have plenty of wine to drink, "Poehlmann quips, "while we bemoan the fact that our forests are all used up."
"Winery plans to chop down California redwoods to make room for vineyards"
by John Upton [http://grist.org/news/winery-plans-to-chop-down-california-redwoods-to-make-room-for-vineyards/]:
Global warming and the growing global appetite for wine have vineyards on the march.
As the climate in southern England warms to resemble that of France’s Champagne region, British growers are cultivating grapes that make bubbly. Viniculturists are also setting up operations in remote parts of British Columbia and China. And in California, the booming wine industry is crawling out of warming valleys and edging toward the coast — which is bad news for coastal ecosystems.
Areas suitable for vineyards in the world’s major wine-producing regions could shrink between 19 and 73 percent by 2050, according to a study published in April in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers say growers will look for new lands on which to plant their vines, razing wild areas in their wine-making quests.
“Climate change may cause establishment of vineyards at higher elevations,” the scientists wrote. That “may lead to conversion of natural vegetation.”
And so it is in California’s Sonoma County, where environmentalists are fighting in court to prevent a Spanish winemaker from leveling 154 acres with coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines. NPR reports [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/18/237136077/a-fight-over-vineyards-pits-redwoods-against-red-wine]: [begin excerpt]
Redwoods only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon. Parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers.
Chris Poehlmann, president of a small organization called Friends of the Gualala River, says the wine industry is creeping toward the coast as California’s interior valleys heat up and consumers show preferences for cooler-weather grapes like pinot noir.
“Inexorably, the wine industry is looking for new places to plant vineyards,” says Poehlmann, whose group is among the plaintiffs.
[end excerpt]
Artesa Vineyards and Winery has permission from California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to level thousands of trees. The environmentalists are suing the agency, arguing that its approval of the plan violated the state’s environmental laws.
Poehlmann says the trees that would be cleared are up to 80 feet tall, providing wildlife habitat and protecting streams from erosion. But the winery’s spin doctor would like you to know that these are not old-growth trees (most are 50 years old), so “there are no forests” on the site. Just an awful lot of majestic trees.
"Artesa Vineyards & Winery: Don’t destroy redwood forest for vineyards"
Petition by Friends of the Gualala River [https://www.change.org/petitions/artesa-vineyards-winery-don-t-destroy-redwood-forest-for-vineyards]:
Petition by Friends of the Gualala River
Artesa Winery’s planned vineyard development is the only project in California proposing deforestation of coastal redwoods. Allowing this would set a precedent for other vineyard developers to destroy redwood forests in California.
The project has already been granted permits from California state agencies. Only a lawsuit from the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and Friends of the Gualala River has temporarily stopped the chainsaws and bulldozers from permanently removing the forest, sterilizing all its soils, and desecrating its ancient Pomo Indian heritage.
Artesa’s plan to log over a million board-feet of coastal redwood and douglas fir is more than simply clear-cutting the forest. They will rip out redwood roots and stumps that would otherwise regenerate. They will completely scrape away ancient forest soils and organisms, and apply pesticides. In addition, they will construct roads that are potential sources of sediment pollution to rivers and streams – home to endangered Coho salmon and Steelhead trout – and build fencing that fragments wild life habitat. It won’t be a pretty sight.
If this project is not stopped or withdrawn voluntarily, it will attract other vineyard developers to exploit this project’s approval. It will unleash additional and sprawling piecemeal vineyard development in second-growth redwood forests in the region. Artesa is literally paving the way for innumerable copycat vineyard deforestation projects.
With the help of tens of thousands of Change.org petitioners, we were successful last year in convincing public investment funds to purchase “Preservation Ranch,” another vineyard deforestation project. The petition signers convinced CALPERS (California Pension and Employee Retirement System) to abandon their planned development and sell the 20,000 acres of coastal forestland to The Conservation Fund for sustainable yield forest management and conservation in perpetuity.
But Artesa is privately owned by a large Spanish corporation, Codorniu. They want only vineyards, not forests. We need your help to convince Artesa and its parent corporation Codorniu that it is unwise to embark on an obviously unsustainable project because redwood deforestation for red wine may permanently stain their reputation in the wine market.
Please sign this petition, and tell your friends – and tell Artesa too – that:
1. Artesa should withdraw the Artesa-Sonoma Annapolis vineyard deforestation project permanently.
2. You will not drink Artesa's wine made from deforestation of redwoods.
* Educated wine drinkers are outraged by wine made from deforestation of redwoods and desecrated Pomo Indian heritage lands.
* Even the finest red wine, if produced by redwood deforestation, is undrinkable.
* Artesa Winery is jeopardizing its reputation by insisting on developing new vineyards in redwood forestland. National and international awareness and disapproval of the Artesa redwood deforestation project continue to grow.
3. Artesa should develop only sustainable vineyards on agricultural lands, not forestland.
Artesa's vineyards do not belong in redwood forests. Artesa can develop new vineyards at alternative locations without redwood deforestation.
[text of petition]
Don’t destroy redwood forest for vineyards -
To:
- Keith LaVine, President, Artesa Vineyards & Winery
- Artesa Vineyards & Winery
- Artesa Wine Club
- Aveniu Brands, Artesa’s wholesaler
- Codorniu, Parent corporation, headquartered in Spain
I urge you to withdraw the project at this forested site, and develop your vineyard on an alternative agricultural site to restore the respect of Artesa as a producer of fine and sustainable wines.
I would not drink or recommend any wine produced by a company that logs and bulldozes redwood forests to develop its vineyards. I am appalled at the socially and environmentally irresponsible Artesa Sonoma vineyard development project in Annapolis, California, where you plan to clear-cut over a million board-feet of timber and bulldoze ancient soils in a culturally sensitive Pomo heritage district.
I am committed to spreading my opinion about Artesa Vineyards and Codorniu regarding this vineyard deforestation project. Please invest in honorable, socially and environmentally respectable vineyard development projects.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
2013-11-03 from "Care2 Action Alerts!":
Chopping Down Ancient Redwoods to Make A Bottle of Wine? A Spanish winemaker wants to level 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in the California’s Sonoma County. Tell him to get his priorities straight!
Save California's Forests from Expanding Wineries!
You know what California has plenty of? Wineries. You know what it's rapidly losing, and what it can never replace? Its ancient redwood forests, some of which have trees that are more than 2,000 years old.
A Spanish winemaker wants to chop down 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in California’s Sonoma County. But redwoods only grow in Northern California and parts of southern Oregon. If all of that land is cleared to make space for wineries, soon there will be no redwoods left at all.
To make matters even worse, the thousands of trees in danger of being mown down like an overgrown lawn are between 50 and 80 feet tall. Some are probably hundreds of years old. And to put that majestic habitat on the line so someone can turn a profit? No way!
California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection seems ready to let these ancient wonders be leveled for the sake of a few fancy bottles of wine. Sign the petition to tell them to protect the forests!
"Protect California Redwood Forests From Winery Development"
Petition author: Michael Taylor
target: Artesa CEO Keith LaVine
Sign it here! [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/541/276/481/take-a-stand-to-protect-californian-forests-against-ever-expanding-wineries/].
Update #1 November 7, 2013 -
Thank you for your contribution to this cause. The momentum is still going and we have reached over 30 000 signatures! Make sure that this continues and we can make a real impact to our environment. Forward this petition to your friends and family, we are going to make a difference!
---
About the Petition:
A Spanish winemaker wants to level 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines in the California’s Sonoma County.
The majestic Redwood only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon, and parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers. The wine farms are growing, and the forests are shrinking. Forests that provide wildlife habitats and protect streams from erosion. And all this with permission from California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (CalFire). Protection at the end of the name seems to be rather misleading. What or who, are the trying to protect? Not the forests it seems.
Redwoods are considered among the most spectacular of all trees. The biggest trees on Earth by height, redwoods can stand more than 350 feet tall. Some are more than 2,000 years old.
The thousands of trees slated for removal are between 50 and 80 feet tall. Trees as previously mentioned, provide wildlife habitat and stabilize the soil against erosion, which has been a major problem for streams in the area that once harbored runs of salmon and steelhead trout to boot.
It is not just Redwood and Fir trees; oak trees are also in the way of these wine farms. Oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
And it's not just redwoods that are at stake as vineyards expand their terrain. California's oaks aren't subject to the same environmental protections as more commercially valuable species like redwoods and Douglas fir. And Northern California's oak forest, near the coast as well as inland, is being lost at fast rates to vineyard expansions.
Oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests, she says, provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
Whilst we all complain about pollution, global warming, deforestation, and mans other pursuits to grow his wallet at the cost of the planet, we sit back and do nothing. How long before the entire region is only wine farms, and there is not one tree left.
Lets send a message to Artesa that we will not sit back this time. This natural habitat must remain protected. Live up to your name and protect these forests.
"A Fight Over Vineyards Pits Redwoods Against Red Wine"
2013-10-18 by Alastair Bland from "NPR" [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/18/237136077/a-fight-over-vineyards-pits-redwoods-against-red-wine]:
Environmental groups are fighting to stop the leveling of 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make way for grapevines (Photo Courtesy Friends of the Gualala River).
In the California wine mecca of Sonoma County, climate change is pitting redwood lovers against red wine lovers.
This Friday morning, a coalition of environmental groups are in a Santa Rosa, Calif., courtroom fighting to stop a Spanish-owned winery from leveling 154 acres of coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make way for grapevines.
Redwoods only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon. Parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers.
Chris Poehlmann, president of a small organization called Friends of the Gualala River, says the wine industry is creeping toward the coast as California's interior valleys heat up and consumers show preferences for cooler-weather grapes like pinot noir.
"Inexorably, the wine industry is looking for new places to plant vineyards," says Poehlmann, whose group is among the plaintiffs.
California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or CalFire, approved the redwood-clearing project in May 2012.
"So we sued them," says Dave Jordan, the legal liaison for the Sierra Club's Redwood Chapter, another of the plaintiffs. The Center for Biological Diversity is the third plaintiff.
The groups filed suit in June 2012 on the grounds that state officials violated California's environmental protection laws by approving the plan.
Redwoods are considered among the most spectacular of all trees. The biggest trees on Earth by height, redwoods can stand more than 350 feet tall. Some are more than 2,000 years old.
However, the redwoods at the center of this conflict are not old-growth trees. The area was clear-cut more than 50 years ago, and most of the redwoods on the site are less than 100 feet tall. Which is why Sam Singer argues: "There are no forests [on this site]."
Singer is a spokesman for Artesa Vineyards and Winery, which is owned by the Spanish Codorniu Group and which first proposed the development project in 2001. Singer says that the two old-growth redwood trees on the property will be spared.
But the thousands of trees slated for removal are between 50 and 80 feet tall, according to Poehlmann. He says the trees provide wildlife habitat and stabilize the soil against erosion, which has been a major problem for streams in the area that once harbored runs of salmon and steelhead trout.
The project planners have even estimated this timber to represent 1.25 million board feet of "merchantable" lumber.
Dennis Hall, a higher official with CalFire, says his department's approval of Artesa's project in 2012 came only after a lengthy review process found that it would not significantly damage the environment.
"We did an [environmental impact report] for the project," Hall says. "It was an extreme and exhaustive analysis of potential impacts to the environment." The report deemed most of these potential impacts to be "less-than-significant."
Still, Poehlmann feels CalFire has been too lenient on proposals by developers to level trees. "They are acting as if they are actually the 'department of deforestation,' " he says.
The tensions go beyond this case: Friends of the Gualala River and the Sierra Club's Redwood Chapter have gone to court several times in the past decade to successfully stop timberland conversion projects proposed by winery groups and which had been approved by the state. Among these fights was the battle to save the so-called Preservation Ranch, a 19,000-acre parcel that developers planned to partially deforest and replant with vines. Earlier this year, the developer sold the property to The Conservation Fund.
But from 1979 to 2006, 25 conversions of forest to agriculture occurred in Sonoma County at an average rate of 21 acres per year, according to county officials.
At least a few tree-clearing projects have occurred without permission. High-profile winemaker Paul Hobbs didn't bother getting a permit before he leveled 8 acres of redwoods in 2011 with plans to plant wine grapes. He remains a superstar winemaker and was tagged earlier this year by Forbes as "The Steve Jobs of Wine."
And it's not just redwoods that are at stake as vineyards expand their terrain. California's oaks aren't subject to the same environmental protections as more commercially valuable species like redwoods and Douglas fir, according to CalFire's Hall. And Northern California's oak forest, near the coast as well as inland, is being lost at fast rates to vineyard expansions, says Adina Merenlender, an environmental biologist with the University of California, Berkeley.
Merenlender says oak trees tend to be overlooked by the general public, which is more easily impressed by redwoods. Yet oak forests, she says, provide habitat for vastly more species than do redwood forests.
Sara Cummings with the Sonoma Vintners, a wine industry trade group, says new vineyards are usually planted within what she calls the region's "agricultural footprint" — land that is already designated by county planners as "agricultural." Moreover, she says, more than half the county's wine growers are members of the California Sustainable Winegrowing Program.
But Merenlender is concerned about future expansion into land not previously farmed.
"We're already seeing a lot of acquisition of coastal lands," she says. "Investments are moving north and west, toward the coast."
The issue, it seems, is a global one. A 2013 study predicted that global warming will cause a dramatic shift in the world's wine regions. The report warns that wilderness areas in British Columbia and remote regions of China — one of the world's fastest-growing winemaking regions — may become increasingly coveted by the industry.
"But at least we'll have plenty of wine to drink, "Poehlmann quips, "while we bemoan the fact that our forests are all used up."
"Winery plans to chop down California redwoods to make room for vineyards"
by John Upton [http://grist.org/news/winery-plans-to-chop-down-california-redwoods-to-make-room-for-vineyards/]:
Global warming and the growing global appetite for wine have vineyards on the march.
As the climate in southern England warms to resemble that of France’s Champagne region, British growers are cultivating grapes that make bubbly. Viniculturists are also setting up operations in remote parts of British Columbia and China. And in California, the booming wine industry is crawling out of warming valleys and edging toward the coast — which is bad news for coastal ecosystems.
Areas suitable for vineyards in the world’s major wine-producing regions could shrink between 19 and 73 percent by 2050, according to a study published in April in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers say growers will look for new lands on which to plant their vines, razing wild areas in their wine-making quests.
“Climate change may cause establishment of vineyards at higher elevations,” the scientists wrote. That “may lead to conversion of natural vegetation.”
And so it is in California’s Sonoma County, where environmentalists are fighting in court to prevent a Spanish winemaker from leveling 154 acres with coast redwoods and Douglas firs to make space for new grapevines. NPR reports [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/18/237136077/a-fight-over-vineyards-pits-redwoods-against-red-wine]: [begin excerpt]
Redwoods only grow in the relatively cool coastal region of Northern California and southern Oregon. Parts of this range, such as northwestern Sonoma County, have become increasingly coveted by winemakers.
Chris Poehlmann, president of a small organization called Friends of the Gualala River, says the wine industry is creeping toward the coast as California’s interior valleys heat up and consumers show preferences for cooler-weather grapes like pinot noir.
“Inexorably, the wine industry is looking for new places to plant vineyards,” says Poehlmann, whose group is among the plaintiffs.
[end excerpt]
Artesa Vineyards and Winery has permission from California’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to level thousands of trees. The environmentalists are suing the agency, arguing that its approval of the plan violated the state’s environmental laws.
Poehlmann says the trees that would be cleared are up to 80 feet tall, providing wildlife habitat and protecting streams from erosion. But the winery’s spin doctor would like you to know that these are not old-growth trees (most are 50 years old), so “there are no forests” on the site. Just an awful lot of majestic trees.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Campaign to Save the Bistate Sage Grouse
"Save an endangered bird"
letter by Karen Christine Irwin, El Cajon, San Diego County, "Letters to the editor, Nov. 5" from "San Francisco Chronicle" [http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/letterstoeditor/article/Letters-to-the-editor-Nov-5-4954952.php]:
Thank you for publishing the article "Feds seek protections for some sage grouse," Oct. 26). A genetically distinct population of greater sage grouse, the bistate sage grouse, lives in a limited area of sagebrush grasslands on the border of California and Nevada, but is threatened by livestock grazing, mining, off-road-vehicle use, weed incursion, conifer encroachment and unnatural fire. Bistate sage grouse population and range have been reduced by more than half from historic levels. Fewer than 5,000 bistate sage grouse remain. As Californians, we have a special opportunity to save the last remaining population of these birds for current and future generations to admire and enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)