More news from the Loire Valley. As I noted back in January, I'll be having a bias in this direction over the next few months. Two years ago, on my bicycle I followed the first 200 km of the Loire River, from the headwaters at Le Gerbier de Jonc along its path through the department of the Haute-Loire. This year during the summer I'll be riding the remaining 800 km. So I'm paying more attention to news about the river.
This last Sunday (March 24), the Nantes newspaper Ouest France, reported on a meeting of a group concerned about the dramatic drop in the level of the river. Normally it's the other way around; people living along a river worry about the river being too high. But over the last 30 years, measurements at Ancenis, a town midway between Angers and Nantes, have recorded a drop of six and a half feet (two meters) in the level of river. Much of this resulted from projects like dredging and levee construction undertaken to permit ocean-going ships to come up river to Nantes. To simplify what happened in the river, the water flow was constricted, its speed increased, and it has been cutting down into the river bed. Not surprisingly, this channelization has had serious consequences for wetlands areas along the river. Many have dried up with a resulting loss of habitats for fish, birds and plants.
The group meeting last weekend that drew Ouest France's attention was the Comité Loire de Demain (CLD) (Committee for Tomorrow's Loire). According to paper, the CLD, formed in 2005, includes 400 individual members,, 34 private associations, and, remarkably, 24 local governments. The group has been advocating measures to stop the continuing drop in the river's level and even to begin to bring it back up. Lately, they've been focusing their efforts on the Plan Loire IV. This will be the latest extension of the Plan Loire Grandeur Nature and will cover the period 2014-2020. According to the article, the CLD has been quite please that the planning officials seemed ready to give a high priority to this issue in Plan Loire IV. Still, the big issue appears to be how to maintain Nantes as a port and, at the same time, return the river to its pre-dredging, pre-levee state.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
What's in the water?
Earlier this week the Environmental Protection Agency released seriously disconcerting news about water quality in our rivers and streams. During 2008 and 2009 the agency drew nearly 2,000 samples from all sizes of streams, from the Mississippi River to little rivulets. Barely a fifth (21%) of these streams could be considered to be in good biological health, meaning that they provided healthy habitats for plants and animals. Slightly more than a fifth (23%) were judged to be in "fair condition." But most significantly more than half (55%) were judged to be in "poor condition"; plants and animals struggle to survive in these streams.
What's causing the pollution? The EPA report stressed two sources. The first, and probably most important, is nutrient pollution in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen originating in agricultural fertilizers and animal waste products, and to some extent from urban waste waters. The second is residential and commercial development; runoff from cleared lands carries pollutants into the streams.
When I can, I also try to follow this issue in France. (Someday maybe the political situation in Italy will get sorted out and I'll have time to catch up on environmental policies there, too.) In France a report issued in 2010 indicated that, even if the sampling methodologies were different, the water quality problems are similar. In this case Onema (l'Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) included lakes and marshes, as well as rivers and streams. The agency reported that 45% of the surface water systems were in good or very good condition, whereas 55% were in average, mediocre, or bad condition.
Interestingly, France is subject to an E.U. water quality agreement and could potentially face sanctions if it doesn't meet agreed-upon standards within the next two years.
What's causing the pollution? The EPA report stressed two sources. The first, and probably most important, is nutrient pollution in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen originating in agricultural fertilizers and animal waste products, and to some extent from urban waste waters. The second is residential and commercial development; runoff from cleared lands carries pollutants into the streams.
 |
| © U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
When I can, I also try to follow this issue in France. (Someday maybe the political situation in Italy will get sorted out and I'll have time to catch up on environmental policies there, too.) In France a report issued in 2010 indicated that, even if the sampling methodologies were different, the water quality problems are similar. In this case Onema (l'Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) included lakes and marshes, as well as rivers and streams. The agency reported that 45% of the surface water systems were in good or very good condition, whereas 55% were in average, mediocre, or bad condition.
Interestingly, France is subject to an E.U. water quality agreement and could potentially face sanctions if it doesn't meet agreed-upon standards within the next two years.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Reflections on the Loire
With the exception of several dams, the Loire is a beautiful river all the way from the headwaters to the Atlantic. The central portion especially, with the chateaux, has been drawing tourists since the time of Henry James -- and probably before. But the Loire is also a hydrological system and a series of natural habitats. It's often referred to as perhaps the last wild river in Europe. But it isn't. The dams I just mentioned; but there are human influence on the river. It provides, for example, cooling waters to more nuclear power plants than any other river in Europe. And along some stretches it's channeled by levees dating back centuries.
A recent edition of La Nouvelle République, the principal newspaper of Tours, included short interviews with Bernard Valette and Roberto Epple, both important figures in efforts to protect the Loire, both speaking of the river's fragility in the face of human actions. Valette founded l'Observatoire Loire in 1992. L'Observatoire, based in Blois, is an environmental education association that, among other projects, provides educational materials to schools and offers boating excursions to learn about the river first hand. Epple was a founder in 1989 of SOS Loire Vivante, one of a coalition of organizations that in the early 1990s successfully opposed construction of several dams on the Loire and its tributaries.
L'Observatoire Loire recently celebrated 20 years and the paper asked Valette to reflect on the condition of the river over this time. He refered to a couple of on-going issues, like the spread of the silure and too many new developments in floodplain areas. (The silure, an immense, ugly form of catfish native to Europe and Asia, can reach lengths of 8 feet or more and weights of nearly 250 pounds. Silures are omnivores and appear to be threatening other species of fish.) But mostly he stressed the still fragile character of the river and the need for people to understand it better.
Epple also notes the river's fragility, but is more specific in naming the threats.
Climate change, he says, has raised the river's average temperature by about 2.5 degrees centigrade (~4.5 degrees fahrenheit) with evident consequences for the river habitat. Further, he says, dams prevent the river from carrying its normal charge of sediments and sand. Over time he fears the river channel will deepen, the speed of the water will increase, and again, habitats will be undermined.
And he worries about over-commercialization along the river that could end up eliminating much of what currently attracts tourists.
To keep in mind the next time you're tempted to think of the timelessness of the Loire Valley.
A recent edition of La Nouvelle République, the principal newspaper of Tours, included short interviews with Bernard Valette and Roberto Epple, both important figures in efforts to protect the Loire, both speaking of the river's fragility in the face of human actions. Valette founded l'Observatoire Loire in 1992. L'Observatoire, based in Blois, is an environmental education association that, among other projects, provides educational materials to schools and offers boating excursions to learn about the river first hand. Epple was a founder in 1989 of SOS Loire Vivante, one of a coalition of organizations that in the early 1990s successfully opposed construction of several dams on the Loire and its tributaries.
L'Observatoire Loire recently celebrated 20 years and the paper asked Valette to reflect on the condition of the river over this time. He refered to a couple of on-going issues, like the spread of the silure and too many new developments in floodplain areas. (The silure, an immense, ugly form of catfish native to Europe and Asia, can reach lengths of 8 feet or more and weights of nearly 250 pounds. Silures are omnivores and appear to be threatening other species of fish.) But mostly he stressed the still fragile character of the river and the need for people to understand it better.
 |
| Roberto Epple. © Photo NR, Jérôme Dutac |
Climate change, he says, has raised the river's average temperature by about 2.5 degrees centigrade (~4.5 degrees fahrenheit) with evident consequences for the river habitat. Further, he says, dams prevent the river from carrying its normal charge of sediments and sand. Over time he fears the river channel will deepen, the speed of the water will increase, and again, habitats will be undermined.
And he worries about over-commercialization along the river that could end up eliminating much of what currently attracts tourists.
To keep in mind the next time you're tempted to think of the timelessness of the Loire Valley.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Decongestion medicine
By some measures the Washington D.C. metropolitan area has the worst traffic congestion in the U.S. And it's probably not going to get better any time soon. But one project, already fairly advanced in its planning, could certainly help.
This the Purple Line light-rail project intended to run through suburban Maryland from Bethesda to New Carrollton across the northern portion of the metropolitan area. The line would give riders an east-west commuting alternative to driving the Beltway or the Inter-County Connector, as well as giving them links to the Washington Metro subway system.
Federal funds have been earmarked for the project. But before they can become available, the State of Maryland needs to come up with its own source of funding. This is why Maryland governor Martin O'Malley's recent announcement of a funding proposal is so important. On Monday of this week he said he would submit legislation to raise $3.4 billion over five years from a 2 percent wholesale tax on gasoline. Besides the Purple Line, the funds would go to development of the Baltimore Red Line, another light-rail line, and the Corridor Cities Transitway, a possible mix of light-rail and dedicated bus lanes to serve in the outer suburban areas developing north of Washington D.C. along the I-270 highway.
It's reported that the governor's proposal will be co-sponsored by the heads of the state Senate and House of Delegates. But it's also expected that Republicans will do all they can to defeat it.
This the Purple Line light-rail project intended to run through suburban Maryland from Bethesda to New Carrollton across the northern portion of the metropolitan area. The line would give riders an east-west commuting alternative to driving the Beltway or the Inter-County Connector, as well as giving them links to the Washington Metro subway system.
It's reported that the governor's proposal will be co-sponsored by the heads of the state Senate and House of Delegates. But it's also expected that Republicans will do all they can to defeat it.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Climate change: EPA and Energy nominations
In his inaugural speech President Obama promised action to address climate change. Monday he announced the nominations of two individuals who could take the lead in doing that. These are Gina McCarthy, named to direct the EPA, and Ernest Moniz to be Secretary of Energy. The two nominations require Senate confirmation.
Both agencies offer opportunities to reduce carbon emissions by means of existing authority. With Republican opposition in the House, this may be the Administration's best chance to do something. Later this year, the EPA is expected to propose emissions standards for new power plants. It could then give its attention to the much more difficult and politically sensitive matter of standards for existing plants. At Energy, the Secretary is expected to issue new efficiency standards for household appliances. More problematic may be his proposals for new nuclear power plants and support for gas production through hydraulic fracturing ("fracking").
Both nominees seem to be highly capable individuals and experienced in administrative politics. And I wish them well. But I'm not expecting really dramatic action. The President himself sent a mixed message at the announcement of the nominations when he talked about "making sure that we're investing in American energy, that we're doing everything we can to combat the threat of climate change, that we're going to be creating jobs and economic opportunity . . ." As the New York Times pointed out, dealing with climate change and promoting domestic energy independence are not necessarily complementary goals. Plus, whatever Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Moniz propose, even under statutory authorities, there's the matter of the House Republicans who will look for every means to oppose and block. Maybe the Democrats will manage to retake the House next year. But even if they do, I'd be surprised if four years from now we'll be able to say that the U.S. had finally adopted serious policies to cut carbon emissions. I only hope I'm wrong.
Both agencies offer opportunities to reduce carbon emissions by means of existing authority. With Republican opposition in the House, this may be the Administration's best chance to do something. Later this year, the EPA is expected to propose emissions standards for new power plants. It could then give its attention to the much more difficult and politically sensitive matter of standards for existing plants. At Energy, the Secretary is expected to issue new efficiency standards for household appliances. More problematic may be his proposals for new nuclear power plants and support for gas production through hydraulic fracturing ("fracking").
Both nominees seem to be highly capable individuals and experienced in administrative politics. And I wish them well. But I'm not expecting really dramatic action. The President himself sent a mixed message at the announcement of the nominations when he talked about "making sure that we're investing in American energy, that we're doing everything we can to combat the threat of climate change, that we're going to be creating jobs and economic opportunity . . ." As the New York Times pointed out, dealing with climate change and promoting domestic energy independence are not necessarily complementary goals. Plus, whatever Ms. McCarthy and Mr. Moniz propose, even under statutory authorities, there's the matter of the House Republicans who will look for every means to oppose and block. Maybe the Democrats will manage to retake the House next year. But even if they do, I'd be surprised if four years from now we'll be able to say that the U.S. had finally adopted serious policies to cut carbon emissions. I only hope I'm wrong.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Two cities' plans for cycling
If the District was really interested in building bicycles into transportation plans it might look to Strasbourg, France, a city in the eastern part of the country on the border with Germany.
 |
| © Frederick Florin/Getty |
Certainly there are differences in culture and local experience with cycling. But even allowing for that, one city seems to offer an example of how bicycles can be made a real part of transportation planning. The other, despite the flourish of a "sustainability plan," seems to be treating them as an afterthought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)