Painting Beauty On A Wall

We went to the UCLA hazardous waste drop-off this morning and saw these guys actually painting this Beauty and the Beast billboard onto the side of the building.

If you enlarge the one below (click on it) you can barely see the lines on the wall where they are supposed to paint.

Glad to see that these painters haven't been replaced by a giant ink-jet printer.

My Degeneration, First Blood, Loving God's Wildness, Ket'aq, Show Time, Thermal Physics, and Digital Storytelling

Some books I saw on the new books shelf at UAA library yesterday.

My Degeneration

I was delighted to see local blogger Peter Dunlap-Shoal's graphic story of living with Parkinson's had made its way into the library.  This is an incredible book that only Peter, as a cartoonist with an  impish curiosity could pull off so well.

He treats his current life like an epic heroic adventure against a relentless adversary. The comments on his blog show that it brings comfort to others with the disease and it's incredibly valuable for people who are around them.





  Schroeder's Thermal Physics

This was originally published (with the same cover) in 1999. From Good Reads:

"This might be my favorite physics text book ever (on any subject). It's very readable - strikes a balance between big picture concepts and calculations. I also love how the book explains the connections between the microscopic description of statistical physics and macroscopic thermodynamics. (I wish I knew of a quantum mechanics text book that did this as well.) I used this book intensively while struggling through my graduate Stat Mech class (in retrospect, my undergraduate engineering oriented class on thermodynamics was not adequate preparation), and I'm not sure I would have made it through pancreas...? pathogen...? oh, Pathria... (whatever -- at the time I'm pretty sure it made me feel sick in various vital organs) without it. Although I haven't taught an entire class on thermal physics I have drawn on it heavily when teaching units on entropy and heat engines. In all honesty, I'm not sure how much my students appreciate this, but I at least still appreciate the insights I get! (If only I had found Schroeder's book on Quantum Field Theory as illuminating!) This book is geared towards advanced undergraduate physics majors, but like the Feynmen lectures, there are nuggets here that transcend the intended audience. Unlike the Feynmen lectures, this text is also helpful for solving actual problems. Highly recommended!"

Most of the comments there are in the same vein, but there is also this:

"I found this textbook very frustrating. Not nearly enough theory."

First Blood and The Blockade

From Wikipedia:

The Civil War book series (OCLC 20080930) chronicles in great detail the American Civil War. Published by Time Life the series was simultaneously released in the USA and Canada between 1983 and 1987, with subsequent identical reprints in the late 1980s - early 1990s following suit for foreign, though untranslated, dissemination as well. Some titles focused on a specific topic, such as the blockade, and spies, but most volumes concentrated on the battles and campaigns, presented in chronological order. Each volume in the series was 176 pages in length, heavily illustrated and with pictorial essays on specific topics within each volume and came standard without a dust jacket. Executed in hardcover, each volume was bound in silvery-gray leatherette, the cover endowed with in deep blue printed text imprints, and heavily embossed with Civil War symbology with an oval shaped illustration glued on. There are 28 volumes in the series
:

So, if you're thinking like I am - that these seem to not be 'new books,' - you'd call the reference desk and ask about them. And librarian Ralph Courtney said that the Civil War books and probably the Physics text are gifts that have been donated to the library. And that a lot of the new books to the library right now would fit in that category.


 Ket'aq and Mingqutem Iinga

I couldn't find anything on either of these books - and when I thumbed through them in the library I didn't see anything written in English.  But my google search did land me on an article about St. Lawrence Island by Sarah Garland,   "In remote Alaskan villages, teachers struggle to make school meaningful" that also appeared in The Atlantic.

It had this memorable phrase:

"Despite the near-fatal brush with Western culture, the Yupiks rebounded. . ."

 In any case, these appear to be Yupik language children's books.

Loving God's Wildness: The Christian Roots of Ecological Ethics in American Literature;

From a Project Muse review of Jeffrey Bibro's book:

"When the Puritans arrived in the New World to carry out the colonization they saw as divinely mandated, they were confronted by the American wilderness. Part of their theology led them to view the natural environment as “a temple of God” in which they should glorify and serve its creator. The larger prevailing theological view, however, saw this vast continent as “the Devil’s Territories” needing to be conquered and cultivated for God’s Kingdom. These contradictory designations gave rise to an ambivalence regarding the character of this land and humanity’s proper relation to it. 

Loving God’s Wildness rediscovers the environmental roots of America’s Puritan heritage. In tracing this history, Jeffrey Bilbro demonstrates how the dualistic Christianity that the Puritans brought to America led them to see the land as an empty wilderness that God would turn into a productive source of marketable commodities. Bilbro carefully explores the effect of this dichotomy in the nature writings of Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, Willa Cather, and Wendell Berry. 

Thoreau, Muir, Cather, and Berry imaginatively developed the Puritan theological tradition to propose practical, physical means by which humans should live and worship within the natural temple of God’s creation. They reshaped Puritan dualism, each according to the particular needs of his or her own ecological and cultural contexts, into a theology that demands care for the entire created community. While differing in their approaches and respective ecological ethics, the four authors Bilbro examines all share the conviction that God remains active in creation and that humans ought to relinquish their selfish ends to participate in his wild ecology. . ."

The Tax Aspects of Acquiring a Business

I tried to find a review of W. Eugene Seago's book, but could only find book selling websites.  This blurb comes from Readara:

"The decisions about whether to purchase a business and the price to pay is usually a matter of determining the present values of future cash flows and the availability of funds to acquire the business. Generally, each dollar of cash flow has an associated tax effect and therefore the numbers are meaningless if taxes are omitted from the calculations. Each dollar paid for the business will eventually become a tax deduction, either as an expense or recovery of capital investment. The present value of the benefit of the deductions or cost recovery depend upon when the tax benefit will be realized, the marginal tax bracket of the entity receiving the deduction and the discount rate assigned to the benefit. This book is intended to provide the tools to take into account the tax consequences of how the acquisition is structured. The acquisition may be a purchase of business assets, partners interests, or stock of a corporation, and may be undertaken by an individual, an existing business organization, or a newly formed entity. The consideration may be all cash, cash and debt, or equity interests. The tax consequences of the structure of the acquisition can vary widely, depending upon the form of the transaction. This book will provide a framework for analyzing the forms the transaction can take and the resulting tax consequences. As will be seen in this book, the old adage of substance over form often loses its significance in business acquisitions: Form matters. The audience for this book is graduate business students."

 Show Time:  The 50 Most Influential Exhibitions of Contemporary Art
We Make Money Not Art gives a long and detailed review of the book. Here's a short excerpt:

"Show Time examines the most game-changing and risk-taking exhibitions of the past 30-ish years. The survey begins in the late 1980s when the Cold War ends and globalization takes off. The book surprised me. I knew i’d find beautiful images, compelling ideas and elegant texts in there and i haven’t been disappointed. But i also thought that Show Time would provide me with a clear confirmation that contemporary art is far too busy contemplating its own navel to question its relevance in today’s society and to engage with a public whose idea of a wise investment does not involve shelling out 32 pounds to enter the immaculate tents of the Frieze art fair. But i was wrong (up to a certain extent) as many of the innovative exhibitions the author selected not only show the evolution of the profession but also a clearer desire to go and meet the public whoever and wherever it may be. Another fairly recent trend in curatorial practice is to cross boundaries, to explore and communicate with other practices such as theater, architecture, literature, science (though i didn’t find any convincing example of art&science exhibition in the book), etc. The book explores nine themes in contemporary curating"

It then goes on to discuss each of those themes.  Go to the link to find them.

Digital Storytelling


From the author Carolyn Handler Miller's website:

"The new edition contains up-to-date material about hot areas like tablet computers and how to create content for them; the latest developments in gamification, mobile apps and second screen TV, and an updated chapter on transmedia storytelling, with new case studies. It also contains a brand new chapter on harnessing social media for storytelling purposes. In short, the entire book is revised and updated. Meanwhile, the second edition of my book continues to be the only book on the market to cover the entire arena of content creation for digital media. It is still completely relevant and contains timeless information about character development, structure, and the development process. It also covers transmedia storytelling, Alternate Reality Games (ARGs), virtual worlds and serious games. In addition, it contains an entire multi-chapter section on using digital storytelling techniques for information, education, training, promotion and marketing."

Jay Hammond "If there has ever been a greater waste of energy and economic potential than what Alaska and the nation paid for the All-Alaska pipeline route, I don't know what it might be."

A little history is always helpful and this view of the Alaska pipeline from Jay Hammond's Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor (1994) seems useful in its succinct and clear description of how Alaska built an all-Alaska pipeline (instead of a Canadian pipeline) which had some short-term benefits, but had, in Hammond's view, much, much bigger long term costs.

He frames this argument as a clash between people who have diametrically opposed narratives about the human mission on earth.

"One type are folks who, fed up with environmental degradation and people pressures found elsewhere, flee to Alaska believing it the last redoubt of pristine wilderness and broad horizons.  Here they can indulge in lifestyles which, if not long since lost elsewhere, are at least suppressed in their native states.  Those people have read Robert Service and Thoreau.  They arrive with romantic notions of life in a remote homestead cabin away from the urban rat race.
Along with those would be rustics, however, comes another type of 'pioneer' no less determined to find a different kind of 'good life.'  Jobless or discourage by conditions 'back,' and hearing tales of common, unmanned folk striking it rich in Alaska, they flood north intent upon exploitation.  It's inevitable that the shovels and picks of those treasure seekers often bruise environmentalists' toes." (p. 167)

[I'd note these two views are highlighted in the play The Ticket which is an imagined conversation between governors Wally Hickel and Jay Hammond. It's having its world premiere run in Anchorage through October 9.  But it's so good, I'm guessing it will be extended.  But don't count on it.]

While Hammond says he sees both sides, he acknowledges that he leans with the environmentalists.

Hammond is adamant about how wrong it was to build an all-Alaska pipeline instead of sending the oil through Canada to the midwest by pipeline.  And you could hear the words on the page getting louder as he explained why.

"Almost no one in Alaska, save of course, 'preservationist extremists' dared suggest we even look at a Canadian route for fear of being branded a 'crackpot conservations like Hammond' by the state's most powerful newspaper and labor union.
Clearly, Alaska would experience far less environmental trauma with only six hundred overland miles of pipeline construction across its wilderness than nine hundred miles to Valdez - not to mention the pollution hazards of tankering via Prince William Sound and down the Pacific coast.  The fact that the planned pipeline terminal at Valdez would be erected on a major earthquake fault was also not mentioned, as I recall.
In any event, transporting our oil through a single, 2,100 mile trans-Canada line to the Midwest would clearly be less costly than tankering past  West Coast ports - which is precisely what happened when the southern pipeline fell through and inadequate West Coast refining capacity required North Slope crude to be shipped to the Panama Canal.  There, supertankers had to be unloaded onto smaller vessels able to navigate the isthmus.  These took the oil another 1,500 miles north to the gulf of Mexico, to refineries in Houston.  From there, of course, the product was piped north and east to the marketplace.  Some Alaska oil didn't ship north to Houston, but went all the way to the East coast for refining and sale.
If there has ever been a greater waste of energy and economic potential than what Alaska and the nation paid for the All-Alaska pipeline route, I don't know what it might be.  It has already cost uncounted billions of dollars and has been a major contributor to the nations's enormous trade deficit.
Most economists in 1970 agreed;  only if Alaskan oil was shipped to neighboring Pacific Rim nations, did the longterm economic impacts on the state become a wash with piping it via a trans-Canada route.  There's no doubt this was intended.  Japanese interests admitted such negotiations were under way.
This revelation only further infuriated Midwestern congressmen who wanted Alaskan oil to flow to their refineries.  When Congress threatened to halt pipeline construction until assured no Alaska oil would be sold to the Japanese, pipeline owners and proponents of the trans-Alaska route, scuttled negotiations and gave their word not to ship Alaska oil abroad.  Instead, they'd just ship it twice that distance around the coasts of North and Central American - each additional mile of transportation costs deducted from the wellhead price of the oil.  Since severance taxes on oil extraction are based on the price of oil at the wellhead, less transportation costs, obviously the lower the transport, the higher the tax revenues.  Don't even mention the additional energy wasted in this most inefficient boondoggle." (pp. 176-7)

He does acknowledge that building the All-Alaska route provided jobs for Alaskans and for Valdez, but with caveats.

"Certainly the one-third greater pipeline construction costs expended in Alaska might have provided more jobs and contracts for locals, as proponents promised.  However, since most pipeline workers were imported, and many of the bigger contracts went to Outside firms, it's hard to quantify how much more Alaskans benefited in the short term - if at all - than had much of the pipeline gone through Canada.
True, the greater length of pipe in Alaska, and the number of capital projects located in the Port of Valdez, are values added.  Yet countering these are the costs of state services required to offset population explosions in communities like Fairbanks and Valdez.  Both played for the trans-Alaska route, but were the first to come begging the state for multi-millions in 'impact money' to offset spiraling demands for government services that came with the 'boom.'  .  .  .
"Economic studies financed by Alaska Legislators John Sackett, Al Adams and Jan Faiks, indicated by 1987 Alaska had lost an estimated $15 billion as part of the price paid for the all-Alaska Pipeline.  Since Alaska crude sells at a lower price than imported oil, the higher price would bring on the world market has cost the national treasury many billions as well. " (p. 178)

Hmmm  With a $4 billion deficit this year, that $15 billion would have come in handy.

And he's not done.  He talks about the delays - he says he predicted - caused by court injunctions because of failure onto comply with EPA standards.  A delay he says that added to the national problems caused by the OPEC oil embargo.  BUT . .

" . .  rather than blame 'environmental preservationists,' far greater blame should be laid at the feet of those 'developmental preservationists' who would preserve every exploitive, 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' environmentally insensitive despoiling technique of the 19th Century.  By ignoring laws of the land and the forewarnings of those who promised to force legal compliance, they, not the environmentalists, caused the costly delay.
Forgotten by many who still curse environmentalists for those woes is the fact that during the delay, construction techniques were upgraded and engineering problems resolved.  Now, even some of the pipeline's most ardent promoters admit that, without those improvements, the line might well have proved a disaster.  today they point with pride to what the environmental activists compelled them to do." (pp. 178-9)

Hammond was the Senate President for some of this period and writes about how he tried to get the legislature to require reviews of all the alternatives - basically the Canadian route.  But he was clobbered by Bob Atwood's Anchorage Times.  He does acknowledge that some of the decisions made sense when you understood the financial interests of those pushing for the all-Alaska pipeline.
He concludes talking about the ban on exporting the oil to Japan.

". . .Alaska oil, on its way eastward through the Panama Canal to Gulf states and beyond, passes Mexican oil, on its way westward to Japan.  This is ridiculous.  What we should have done, of course, is simply swap, from for drum, Alaskan oil for Mexican - and enrich the treasures of both nations.  This issue, I regret, once more demonstrates the ability of politicians to subordinate our nation's well-being to demands of local constituencies." (p. 180)

As we deal with our budget deficits now, challenges to the Permanent Fund Dividend, oil credits, and a gas pipeline, it's useful to look back and see what happened 50 years ago and consider what parts of that history might be repeating themselves today.

Costco Packaging Problems

Costco, among others, is known for its hard plastic packaging that is incredibly tricky to open.  But that packaging is also wasteful.

I needed some AAA batteries and I was at Costco.  So I bought a package of 32.  More than I need, but so much cheaper per battery than elsewhere, that I bought them.

Once I got them home, I needed a way to store them since their packaging was useless once it was opened.  That's when I realized how little space the batteries needed to contain them.

The Costco package was 6.5" by 11" - and one inch high.

I got all the batteries into a little box - 2X3X2.

I can put the cardboard part into the recycling, but the plastic, here in Anchorage, has to go to the landfill.

I realize that the small packages are harder to see on the shelf, but they can up them up with big signs.
I realize that the big packages are harder to shoplift, and I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but I know there's a way that we just haven't thought of yet.

Oil Jobs Down. Parnell, What About All Those Jobs SB 21 Was Supposed To Create?

Let's see.  If I recall right, Governor Parnell's every other words were Jobs and SB 21. and the oil and gas industry was plastering the state of Alaska with ads saying how jobs would be lost if people voted for repealing the tax credits the legislature had given them in SB 21.    Despite all the money they spent, the initiative lost by only by a small margin.

And now the ADN has this article about lost jobs.

Oil, gas industry jobless claims up 7th month in a row
Jeannette Lee Falsey Alaska Dispatch News

 Jobless benefits claims are down in Alaska and across the country, but the same cannot be said for the state’s oil and gas sector. The lack of available work has boosted the number of former workers in the extraction and support industries who have filed for unemployment, according to the state labor department. Year-on-year increases in existing unemployment insurance claims by laid-off oil and gas workers began in May 2015, about one year after oil prices began falling. In November, 895 former workers in the sector were receiving jobless benefits, up from 463 for the same month in 2014. . .

Can you imagine how they would be blaming the lost jobs on the repeal of the tax credits if the initiative had passed?   But, I have to acknowledge, the oil companies never promised anything, it was their lackeys in the governor's seat and in the legislature who made claims about increasing jobs.   It's just like Shell blamed government regulation when it was pretty clear that the main reason they  pulled out of the Chukchi this fall was because their drilling produced nothing and the price of oil had tanked.

Now, I understand that government regulation can be quite an obstacle.  I just did another phone round with the IRS today and I feel anyone's pain who has to deal with people like Ms. Rutherford.  And I'm all for simplifying regulations whenever possible.

But it's my observation that the voluminous regulations are due to company lawyers finding loopholes and exploiting them, resulting in more and more regulations.

But we also know that without the government looking out for environmental risks, the oil companies would do in the Arctic what they've done around the world where there aren't good regulations.  Where the oil companies' bottom line is greater than the treasuries of the countries they're working in.  And where it is easy to bribe governmental officials for the permits they need.

And we're always hearing about the great private sector and how entrepreneurs take risks, but they also create LLC's (Limited Liability Corporations) to limit their liability.  They know going in that government regulations have to be met.  It's part of their business plan.  So moaning about it after the fact (well, also during the process) is just so much spin to avoid the responsibility for failing to find oil, or for an environmental catastrophe, or firing employees.

I've got tons of other stuff to do besides this post, but let me give you a few links to show that I'm not making this all up.

The Price of Oil: Human Rights Violations  

Myanmar's Oil and Gas 

McSpotlight on the Oil Industry

Effects of Oil Drilling (on Indigenous People)

And for those who remember the Exxon Valdez spill and the Deepwater issues, you'll note these things happen in the US too, but not quite as egregiously.

Pet Shop Thoughts

My granddaughter and I took a picture to the shop to have the frame repaired and down the street was a pet store that said 'reptiles and birds.'  As a kid, I learned a lot about animals by going to the zoo with my parents.  It was a big deal for me to watch the animals and learn their names and the differences between different kinds of animals, to watch how they moved, to hear their sounds, to smell their smells. I was totally taken by them.   As an adult, I have problems with zoos, but I also recognize they give people an opportunity to connect with animals, and for many, like me, learn to understand emotionally and biologically their importance in the natural world.  And the zoo I went to was an old style zoo and you can see a picture of me there when I was little at this link.

So I entered the pet shop with mixed feelings, and the powerful smell - which I'm pretty sure was from the mice and rats for sale as snake food - didn't help.

A tangle of boas

All these little birds in little catches was disturbing, but fascinating to my granddaughter.  For ten dollars you can buy a female zebra finch.  And lock it in a cage.



















I looked up these Gouldian finches, just because their coloring is so remarkable.

Gouldian finch from Wikipedia:

"The Gouldian finch (Erythrura gouldiae), also known as the Lady Gouldian finch, Gould's finch or the rainbow finch, is a colourful passerine bird endemic to Australia. There is strong evidence of a continuing decline, even at the best-known site near Katherine in the Northern Territory. Large numbers are bred in captivity, particularly in Australia. In the state of South Australia, National Parks & Wildlife Department permit returns in the late 1990s showed that over 13,000 Gouldian finches were being kept by aviculturists. If extrapolated to an Australia-wide figure this would result in a total of over 100,000 birds. In 1992, it was classified as "endangered in the wild" under IUCN's criteria C2ai. This was because the viable population size was estimated to be less than 2,500 mature individuals, no permanent subpopulation was known to contain more than 250 mature individuals, and that a continuing decline was observed in the number of mature individuals. It is currently subject to a conservation program.  .  .  . 

The number of Gouldian finches has decreased quite dramatically during the 20th century. Their habitat has been reduced or altered. Early research indicated a parasite called the air sac mite was responsible for the decline of the species. This is no longer considered to be a major factor. In general, Gouldian finches are susceptible to diseases and viral infections. Their beautiful colours mean that they are easily caught by predators. Fires are listed as the primary threat to the natural populations. The total number of Gouldian finches altogether is not low, however, because they are among the most popular pet birds, and are bred in captivity for the pet trade."

Zoos often justify keeping the animals in captivity because they preserve a species that is endangered in the wild.  I don't know enough to weigh the pros and cons.

There's a post at ladygouldianfinch.com about Ethics in Aviculture which portrays most breeders and brokers as good, decent folks, but does acknowledge there are problems.

"As time goes on and bird keepers gain experience, many decide to breed birds to help pay for (at least) the bird food. Bird breeding isn't a get-rich-quick scheme; so if you are thinking along those lines right now, stop. Most new to breeding are very excited about selling the babies and making a few bucks. So much so, that they have been known to pull chicks from their parents too early. This can often lead to the death of the chick shortly after being sold. If the breeder is a good one, he/she will admit fault and replace the dead bird(s) with more mature birds. If the breeder isn't so good he/she may accuse the bird buyer of making some grave mistake and killing the birds. This practice really bothers me but I see it happen now and then. Granted, anyone buying a bird for the fist time should do their homework first, and would, therefore, know that they weren't at fault, but alas this is rarely the case. In the end the bird(s) and the unsuspecting bird buyer suffers."

Then there are all the turtles.


Here's a discussion on a turtle forum about how some pet shops treat reptiles



At least this store publicized that it is illegal to sell turtles under 4 inches, though they don't mention that the reason is to prevent the spread of turtle salmonella and other health problems.

All the turtles in this tank were under four inches.  Presumably they are raising them to be above four inches, but what about the health issues of having them in the shop?










And then there were all the lizards.  I looked up Bearded Dragon and the first four or five pages of the search results were from businesses and groups promoting their sale and telling people how to care for them.  For example, TheBeardedDragon.org.  These, too, are from Australia.









I don't have pictures of the mice and rats or the tarantulas and various frogs.  But here are some goldfish from a tank that said 'feeder fish.'  This account of someone who worked for Petco talks about how these fish are sold to feed other animals like turtles.  This account goes much further, but it is on a PETA site, so keep that in mind.

"PETCO also sells live “feeder fish” for turtles and reptiles people keep as captive “pets.” These small goldfish are kept by the hundreds in huge, severely crowded tanks with no enrichment. The death toll was so high at the store I worked at that part of the closing procedure every day was to take out the dead “feeder fish” who had been sucked into a filter, wrap them in a plastic bag, and place them in the “dead” freezer, along with dead rats, mice, hamsters, birds, and other casualties."

There are lots of sites that promote exotic pets and give advice on how to care for them.  But there are also some sites that tell a different story.  For example:

The Dirty Side of the Exotic Animal Pet Trade which says, in part,

"The illegal trade in wildlife is second only to that of drugs in the United States, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). A former FWS chief of law enforcement said, “There is no stigma attached to being an animal smuggler. If you get caught illegally transporting animals on a first offense, it’s possible you won't even do jail time. You can’t say the same for running drugs.”

Animal Planet's Facts About The Exotic Pet Trade

Live Science's Owning Wild Animals:  Stats on Exotic Pets (Infographic)  lists four levels of state regulations and I'm pleased to say that Alaska is in the most restrictive category, though I'm not sure how restrictive that is.  Just better than the other three levels.  Here are the five worst states, according to Cap Times in Madison, Wisconsin,

"Wisconsin is one of just five states that allow residents to keep almost any animal they want as a pet. The others are Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina and South Carolina."

The Human Society asks "Should Wild Animals Be Kept as Pets?"

I don't know that there were any animals in the pet shop that had been captured in the wild.  I'm guessing most, if not all, were from breeders.  But there are other issues, including health, and introducing exotic animals into the local eco-system, which is, apparently, a particularly big problem in southern Florida, where the climate and terrain are hospitable to tropical reptiles..

I did mention some of these issues to my granddaughter, but I also let her absorb the beauty and wonder of the animals.

AIFF 2015: Saturday Preview Part 1 Daytime - Animation, Stink! And Much More

Interesting options today.  New venue - Snow Goose - so be careful you don't go to Bear Tooth by mistake.  No Festival films there today.  *means 'in competition."

So, let's do this by morning and by evening.  Morning first.

This screenshot doesn't link, go here for the links

Made in Alaska Shorts at 11am AK EX Large - See what your fellow Alaskans are producing.  For details and trailers of each film, click here.

Stink! - Is by a  dad trying to figure out the chemicals in his kid's pajamas.  You'll be one of the first  to see this.  11:45am at the SNOW GOOSE


STINK! opens in New York on Black Friday November 27th & Los Angeles on December 4. from NetReturn Entertainment on Vimeo.

A Courtship - documentary about an evangelical Christian who wants an arranged marriage.  1pm AK EX Large

Shorts - Real Life  - If you haven't seen a shorts program, go see these, there are some gems in here. And if you don't like one, then the next one comes up quickly.  But the shorts I've seen have all be worth watching.  2pm Snow Goose   (some are in competition)

Under Construction -    This is the movie to see if you want more information on the people Trump wants to ban from the US.   3pm AK EX Large

"Muslim woman Roya struggling to find herself in the sprawl of urban Bangladesh. Roya performs her last show playing ‘Nandini’—the epitome of Bengali womanhood, the central character of Rabindranath Tagore’s play ‘Red Oleanders.’ She delves into a psychological journey and battles to reconstruct ‘Nandini.’ Roya finds herself under-construction—traveling alone to exert her own desires, wishes and ambitions."

From This Day Forward - Another interesting documentary of political relevance as conservatives try to repeal Anchorage's new civil rights protections for the LGBT community.  This film is made by the daughter of a man who told his family when the kids were young, that he was really a woman.  It was difficult for the family, and the now adult daughter goes back home as a filmmaker to document their story.  Well done.  The filmmaker was here for the Tuesday night showing.   3pm AK EX Large




Very, Semi-Serious - A doc on  cartoons in the New Yorker.   4pm Snow Goose


OK, this gets you to about 4:30.  I'll post the rest of the late afternoon and evening soon.

"Even one inch of rain in Los Angeles can generate more than 10 billion gallons of runoff."

One of the most important ideas I've encountered in recent years, was in E.O. Wilson's The Future of Life.  He talks about how the earth naturally cleans the water and the air and how when humans cut trees, fill in wetlands, and pave the earth, we interfere with that natural infrastructure.  Then when we try to replicate what nature did for free, it costs us a fortune.  Wilson cites a 1997 study that estimated the annual value at $33 trillion.

Ecosystems services are defined as the flow of materials, energy, and information from the biosphere that support human existence.  They include the regulation of the atmosphere and climate;  the purification and retention of fresh water;  the formation and enrichment of the soil;  nutrient cycling; the detoxification and recirculation of water;  the pollination of crops;  and the production of lumber, fodder, and biomass fuel. [p. 106]

Flying into LA

So when I read this LA Times piece, I thought I should note it as one more example of how humans have unknowingly tampered with the natural regeneration and cleansing system that the earth provides.  In this case replenishing the aquifers. 

"As we have paved our cities, covering the land with impervious concrete and asphalt, less and less rain is recharging urban groundwater; it’s running off all those hard surfaces into storm sewers and out to the ocean. Every year, hundreds of billions of gallons of storm water wash into Santa Monica Bay, Long Beach Harbor and the San Francisco Bay. Even one inch of rain in Los Angeles can generate more than 10 billion gallons of runoff."

Think about the costs of building desalination plants, while LA is pouring hundreds of billions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean.  I don't know if that total is all the water that goes into the ocean or just the amount that would have stayed in the soil and/or drained down into the aquifers.

Up to now, our capitalist system hasn't applied the cost of such externalities of our economic activities. (For a graphic economics explanation of externalities, see this Khan Academy video.)  So when contractors bulldoze trees and replace them with a building and parking, the cost of the lost air cleansing and water retention those trees did is not not reflected in the price of the new building. Instead the cost is born by society as a whole.  This means that businesses have an incentive to destroy the environment, because doing so doesn't affect them. 

Unless there are strict environmental protections in place and/or government imposes some way to charge for the externality.  A revenue neutral fee on carbon is, for example, seen by many as a way to put the cost of global warming into the price of carbon based products.   Here's an example of how a carbon fee would work.

Meanwhile what I'd like lots of people to understand is this concept of the natural recycling the earth does and how messing with those processes really is damaging a very important natural infrastructure that has great impacts on the earth and the humans that live on earth.  The pavement in California is just one example.  By the way, the author calls for replacing it with more porous material that will allow rainwater to percolate down to the aquifers.   

Summary Of The 10 Chuitna Decision Appeals, Plus The Actual Docs, And What's Next?

First, A Brief Overview Of What's Transpired And What's Coming Next 

PacRim is "a Delaware Corporation owned by Dick Bass and William Herbert Hunt"developing a 300 million ton coal mine across the inlet from Anchorage on Alaska Mental Health Trust  (AMHT) land..  Chuitna  Citizens Coalition (CCC)  had applied for three water reservations (actually instream flow reservations or IFRs) to protect the water and salmon from the future coal mine.  They were granted one for the Lower Reach of Middle Creek which is outside the proposed mine area.  The other two requested water reservations  - Upper Reach and Middle Reach - are in the proposed mine area and those applications were denied.  [Note: The PacRim website says nothing about who owns the company, so I had to get that information from the CCC website.]

CCC was given one of the three IFR's they applied for.  PacRim and other development and mining groups who opposed all the IFR's had 20 days to appeal the decision.  The deadline was the day before yesterday - Monday, October 26.

A total of ten appeals were submitted to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Commissioner Mark Meyrs Monday,  opposing the decision by DNR's Water Division head to grant one (of three) applications for water reservations on the  Middle Creek (also known as Creek 2003). The commissioner's office emailed me copies yesterday.


I also spoke to David Schade, the head of the Water Division, and the person who made the Oct. 6 decision.  He told me the decision was unique in that the decision will grant a community group a certificate for a reservation of water, something the various resource development organizations strongly protested at the October 6, 2015 hearing.  And it's an argument that is echoed in nearly all their appeal letters.   He also told me that  the DNR Commissioner has at least three options:

1. Uphold the decision;
2. Remand it back to the water division in whole or in part; and
3. Change the decision

There's no specific time limit for the decision and it might take awhile.   Schade also said having so many objectors was unique.

So, while this decision gets appealed, PacRim, presumably will continue the work of getting all the various permits from the different state and federal agencies.  Schade said PacRim had applied for 44 water rights and these were 'substantially complete' but additional information will be required before the Water Section will review them and, at the same time, a Chuitna River Reservation of Water application which was filed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  Before then, there will be other permit decisions coming in from the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Mining Section of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, and from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.  After these permitting processes are substantially complete, then the water right applications can be adjudicated.

So, I asked, since the two CCC applications were denied because there was not enough information, will they be able to reapply when the competing PacRim applications are complete?
No, he said.  Those are done.  But DNR is required to protect the public interest including all other competing water rights and impacts on the watershed.   CCC will be able to oppose the PacRim applications just as PacRim and others opposed CCC's applications.

Synopsis Of The Arguments Against The Decision And The Full Letters

I've tried to briefly summarize the key arguments each group or person that appealed the water reservation decision.  Some were easier to do than others.  In any case,  each synopsis is followed by the group's appeal letter, so you can check the details yourself.

1.  Alaska Miners

• Delegation of DNR Regulatory Authority to private group wrong
• “Need” for awarding water reservation not met
• Instream flow reservations as a tool to stop resource development wrong
• Permitting uncertainty

Alaska Miners - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

2. Alaska Mental Health Trust - They own the land and stand to earn substantial revenue from a mine which they can use to support mental health in Alaska.

• The Trust must develop its lands to improve its ability to meet Alaskans’ mental health needs, but its power to do so would be threatened by overly expansive regime of reserved water rights.
• There is no need for a reservation of water rights in Stream 2003
• Granting CCC a reservation of water rights in the Lower Reach of Stream 2003 is contrary to public interest
• If the Commissioner affirms the Division’s decision, he should clarify the scope of the reservation and how it will be administered.
• The Commissioner should deny the reservation requested for the Lower Reach

Alaska Mental Health Trust - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

3. PacRim  The mining company that wants to develop the mine.

• “ CCC did not demonstrate that a need existed for a reservation.”
• “DNR used an approach to determine stream flow that lacked transparency, that has no correlation to the level of water necessary to protect fish and fish habitat, and which could require PacRim to maintain stream levels below the mine area that generally do not naturally exist in the Lower Reach of Streem 2003”
• “DNR’s public interest analysis was flawed because it did not evaluate fisheries information for the Lower Reach and failed to address the potential impact of the reservation on upstream users such as the proposed Chuitna Mine”
• “DNR’s decision establishes a troubling precedent that transforms private citizens into regulators of natural resources projects.”

PacRim - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

4. Pacific Seafood Processors Association

• “Water is a public resource and PSPA believes it is in the public’s best interest that reservations be held by public entities that are formally accountable to the public.”
• “the public interest, through the formal public processes, is best served by balancing the trade-offs of public interests such as conservation impacts, economic benefits, and opportunity costs.”

Pacific Seafood Processors Association - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

5. Alaska Oil And Gas Association (AOGA)

• DNR cannot abandon regulatory supremacy
• Applicant fails to meet threshold “Need” Requirement
• Decision represents an invitation for further frustration
• Decision discourages investment in Alaska

AOGA - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals -

6.  Howard Grey  (Involved in Alaska development, former board member of Alaska Miners)

• “we should consider whether or not the applicant is qualified to administer water resources management duties”
• “we should look at the surrounding ownership to determine if such conveyance will affect the upland owner’s future use and enjoyment of the area or will they be stymied by the proposed segregation?
• “we should consider whether or not the proposed conveyance is in the best interest of the public.”

Howard Grey - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

 

7.  Council of Alaska Producers (“trade association for large metal mines and major metal development projects in the state”)

• “It is fundamental that the State should never delegate authority to a private party to manage these resources, because agencies are accountable to the public and elected officials, but private citizens are accountable to no one.”
• “…DNR must find - that a “need” exists for the reservation.  The applicant failed to do this and DNR’s analysis of the “need” relies of unsupported conclusions about hypothetical impacts where no water from Stream 2003 reaches the Chuit River"

Council of Alaska Producers - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

 


8.  Resource Development Council

• Creates further uncertainty in Permitting Process
• Undermine existing regulatory process and set dangerous precedent for community and resource development projects
• Jeopardize investment
• Tool for anti-development groups to stop projects
• Delegation of Public Resources to Private Citizens

RDC - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals

9.   Borrel Consulting Services  ("Heart and soul of the Alaska Mining Industry")

• No need has been demonstrated
• Robust permitting process already exists, and this reservation process undermines that.
• This loose application of the statute and regulations will likely result in future infringements on private and Native-owned private lands.
• Not following proper procedures (not requiring a need) is bad precedent.
• DNR can’t disregard clear requirement to demonstrate a need

Steve Borrel - Regulation, Alaska, Chuitna, PacRim, Coal Mining

10.  Alaska Chamber

• “DNR is abdicating its statutory responsibility, not to the whole of Alaska’s citizens, but to specific individuals, some not even residing in our state.  This is a decision that assaults the very foundation of the State’s regulatory process.  It pulls resource management from the public interest and concentrates that authority in the hands and interests of individuals.
• This striking, precedent-setting reservation is in direct conflict with the department’s published mission to “develop, conserve and maximize the use of Alaska’s natural resources and lawful 
• processes . . .”

Alaska Chamber - Chuitna Water Reservation Appeals by Steve

I'll try to analyze the arguments in a future post.  But I have some calls I'll need to make before I can do that. Meanwhile you can look at past posts on the Chuitna mine project here. [Reposting because of Feedburning problems]

At Least Eight Appeals Received By DNR On Chuitna Water Reservation Decision

I've been planning to do an update on the Chuitna Decision, but I needed to go through it carefully and figure out reasonable questions.  I thought I'd ask David Schade, the head of the Water Division, who signed the decision and then some of the other interested parties. 

But life happens and I only got through to David today.  We haven't had a chance to discuss my questions, but he did tell me that he'd been told there were eight appeals by late this afternoon - people had 20 calendar days to get appeals in, and the decision was on October 6.  He hadn't seen them yet, so he didn't know who submitted them. 

Here are some of the kinds of questions I had:

1.  Was this decision a postponement of the decision or a denial?  It seems to me that at one point the decision says that the Upper and Central fork portions of the Middle River, which are in the proposed mining area, are ripe for decision yet because the the mine's water reservations aren't complete.  That sounds like things are postponed.  But elsewhere it says the reservations have been denied, which sounds final. 

2.    What is the state of PacRim’s water reservation applications?  Different references were made to their applications but it wasn't clear where they were.
- not ready to be submitted because not enough info?
- have they submitted incomplete applications?  What does this mean?
- if submitted, when were they submitted?


3.  The Department finds that it is in the public interest to allow the PacRim permitting review process to be completed, and therefore that it would not be in the public interest to issue a reservation of water on the Main or Middle Reaches of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 at this time.
Is this a logical fallacy?  If one is in the public interest, does that automatically mean the other isn’t?  What this does seem to be saying is that if the reservation is issued, the permitting process would end.  

4.  Can PacRim really close down the Middle Fork above the Lower Reach and divert the water around and back to the Lower Reach and this won't harm the salmon?  Is there a difference between naturally flowing stream water and water that goes through culverts and how does that impact the quality of the water when it gets returned to the natural water way?  And how long would the water be cut off from the Lower Reach while this is being constructed?  Or are those questions people are still waiting on answers for?


There are more questions, but this gives you an idea.  The Oct 6 decision is linked at the earlier post on this.

Earth Care Jamboree Includes Naked Mabel and Vinyl Floors

Someone asked if I'd post an announcement for the Earth Care Jamboree this Saturday.  I don't normally do requests, but I do post about events that might look interesting to my readers, events that I might attend myself.  And this seems like one.  And the Citizens Climate Lobby, a group I'm a member of, will have a table at the event. 

From what I can tell, there will be music, speakers, workshops, and lots of connections to make.

The main sponsor is the

"The Interfaith Earth Care Action Network (IECAN) [which] is a collaborative group of individuals representing faith communities across Southcentral Alaska, who saw a need to create a space where faith communities can come together to support and empower one another to speak out and take action on climate change."

[So how do you pronounce IECAN?  I.E. Can?]  [I'm trying to get this post up while my granddaughter is tugging on me to take her to the playground.  You know who's going to win this one.]

Here's a link to their blog which has all the details for Saturday.  But I'll give you a sneak preview of just a couple of the people who will be speaking:

Craig Fleener

Craig Fleener is Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in from Fort Yukon Alaska.  He serves as Arctic Policy Advisor to the Governor of Alaska.  Mr. Fleener served as a permanent participant on the Arctic Council and has participated in the work of several of the working groups of the Arctic Council. Mr. Fleener is a wildlife biologist with a specialty in moose management and human dimensions of wildlife and fisheries. 

Xavier Mason

Xavier Mason is a recent UAA graduate and commencement speaker. He is deeply involved in campus and community organizations: co-founder of Tau Kappa Epsilon Fraternity, CBPP Leadership Fellow, and candidate for Oxford's Rhode Scholarship and is currently awaiting designation from the World Economic Forum as a Global Shaper. Xavier will be speaking as the president of the NAACP Youth Council.

 

Doug Causey

Doug Causey is Professor of Biological Sciences, Director of the Applied Environmental Research Center, and Senior Advisor to the Chancellor on Arctic Policy at the University of Alaska Anchorage. He arrived to UAA in June 2005 from Harvard University where he was Senior Biologist at the Museum of Comparative Zoology and Senior Fellow of the JF Kennedy School of Government.  Previous to that, he served as Program Director at the National Science Foundation’s Office of Polar Programs.  An ecologist and evolutionary biologist by training, he has authored over one hundred fifty publications on topics as diverse as the biology of Arctic marine birds, Arctic Climate Change, and the ecology of Alaskan bats.  His research focuses on the dynamics of Arctic ecosystems and climate change, and he has published extensively on policy issues related to the Arctic environment, environmental security, and the resilience of High Arctic communities.

 Climate change seems like an impossible cause to make a difference on, but I've found with Citizens Climate Lobby that individuals can make a difference on climate change.  I'm sure that at this jamboree you'll be able to find lots of ways you can make small contributions to making the planet a better place.  And even though your contribution is small, combined with lots of other small contributions, it will make a big difference.

OK, you get the point.  Arctic Valley, starting at 11am on Saturday, September 12.  I've got a date at the playground waiting right now. 

Dave Schade And The Decision Over Coal, Salmon, and the Middle Fork Tributary To The Chuinta River

Organizing a post is often a problem.   For example, I went to a reception at UAA for grad students in the College of Business and Public Policy (CBPP) yesterday and now I'm asking myself:

1.   Should this be one post (about the UAA reception)?
2.   Or several posts about the different aspects I found interesting?

The problems are exacerbated by how long it takes to upload to Youtube (a movie over a minute or two takes a while on my slow upload connection.)  This is all a preface to what's below. [As I'm about to post this, several hours after I began it, I realize this will only focus on one of the people I met yesterday and the hearing he will conduct tomorrow over conflicting mining and salmon claims in the Middle Fork tributary of the Chuitna River.]

The College of Business and Public Policy has a several masters degrees - public administration (MPA), business administration (MBA), and one in global supply chain management (MS) - and the reception was for new students to be able to meet other students, alumni, faculty, and staff.  I was invited as a faculty emeritus and now sometimes adjunct faculty member.  Lots of things caught my eye and ear, but one in particular, is very timely, so let me start [and finish] with that. 

Alaska Public Radio had a piece on the Chuitna dispute between salmon and coal back in June.  Basically, as I understand this, it's about whether Pacific Rim Coal's mine in the area will negatively impact the fish in the river and if so, whose legal claim to the water and resources is stronger.  Read the article linked above to see about the conflict between traditional and reserved water rights.  There are also a few comments by Dave Schade (pronounced Shady), Chief of Water Resources for the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  I only found that piece while writing this post.  But I did read Schade's name in the August 7, 2015 ADN article.

Dave's name jumped out at me because he was one of my students in the MPA program back in the early 1990s.  I hadn't seen him since then.  And it didn't occur to me that he'd be attending the grad student reception.  He was there at the invitation of his niece Kaitlin who is a student in the MPA program now.

I remember Dave as a strong and independent student.  By independent I mean he wasn't wedded to any particular ideology.  He was born and raised in Alaska and has a firm sense of himself.  As a student I recall he listened and read and thought and came to his own conclusion.  All he would say to folks last night about Friday's public hearing at the Federal Building Annex was that he's got criteria spelled out in the law and it's his job to try to match the facts to the criteria (see bottom of the post) and then make a decision, by the court mandated deadline of October 6.   Pretty much the kind of thing taught in the MPA program - that such decisions have to be based on the 'rule of law' -  meaning that decisions are based on the appropriate law, regulation, or professional standards that most closely govern the situation.  Not by personal preference or arbitrary whim.   I haven't followed the Chuitna River issue in detail, but there does seem to be a bit of room for interpretation, and even there Schade will, I'm sure, explain why he leans one way rather than another.

OK, as I'm writing this, it's clear that there's enough here to make this a post all by itself.  I've got the agenda for tomorrow's (Friday August 21, 2015) meeting from Alaska Business Monthly.

The current hearing agenda is as follows:
8:45 a.m. – 8:50 a.m.             Introduction of Hearing Officer and Panel
                                               Instructions regarding hearing process
8:55 a.m. – 10:25 a.m.            Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.
                                                Trustees for Alaska
10:35 a.m. – 11:35 a.m.          Pac Rim Coal LLP
12:25 p.m. – 12:55 p.m.         Cook Inlet Keeper
1:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.             Alaska Center for the Environment
1:35 p.m. – 2:05 p.m.             Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority
2:10 p.m. – 2:25 p.m.             Alaska Conservation Trust
2:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.             Alaska Miners Association
2:50 p.m. – 3:05 p.m.             Alaska Oil and Gas Association
3:10 p.m. – 3:25 p.m.             Council of Alaska Producers
3:30 p.m. – 3:45 p.m.             Howard Grey
3:50 p.m. – 4:05 p.m.              Resource Development Council
4:10 p.m. – 4:25 p.m.             Chuitna Citizen’s Coalition Inc. – Applicant’s final comments
4:25 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.             Hearing Officer’s Closing Comments

It will be held in the Anchorage Federal Building Annex (222 W. 8th) conference room.  

I tried to find the agenda on the Department of Natural Resources website to be sure it was accurate, but couldn't, so I called their information office, and they couldn't find it and asked if I wanted to talk to Dave Schade.  I smiled to myself and said, 'Sure."  Dave said the agenda was sent out to all the parties involved but not posted online.

Schade:  I'm hoping that we'll get some new information from the testimony.
Steve:  Are there any information holes you're specifically hoping to fill?
Schade:  Now you're asking for specific comments.
Steve:  No, not asking what the holes are, but just if there are any.  

So he offered to send me a copy of the letters he sent out to the parties.

First is the most recent letter which has the agenda (with breaks included) and goes down into administrative details about equipment presenters might need. 

Middle Creek Hearing Letter And Agenda - August 21, 2015

The June 23, 2015 letter narrows the scope of the testimony to objections that have already been made to
1.  to some part of the DNR analyses, and
2.  to granting the reservations

It also addresses the issue I raised above - about information holes DNR might want to fill.  Specifically it identifies questions DNR might ask:

• how particular objections relate specifically to each application under consideration
• what back up information supports particular objections
• what is the basis for any legal or constitutional argument being made
• what timelines or processes an objector might suggest as an alternative to a timeline or process objected to
• how DNR should consider particular objections in relation to the criteria set out in AS 46.15.080 (see bottom of the post)

Alaska Middle Creek Reservation of Water Objection Hearing Notice by Steve

I have to say that from what I can see in these letters, that Schade has spelled out the process in detail for participants and given a sense of the kind of questions they might be expected to respond to. 

They've had this information since June, giving them sufficient time to prepare.  And the things he's asking are what any MPA student is taught to ask for - supporting information for claims, alternatives to things they object to, and the legal basis for their claims.  I remember a student once in class, after I'd asked a question, got an answer, then followed the answer up with "Why?", saying, "I knew you were going to ask that." That 'why?' should be automatic to people doing this kind of work.   Dave needs all the supporting information he can get to be able to make his decision on this.

Since he mentions the specific criteria he's requred to use, I thought I should look them up and post them here. 

AS 46.15.080. Criteria For Issuance of Permit.

(a) The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that

(1) rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected;

(2) the proposed means of diversion or construction are adequate;

(3) the proposed use of water is beneficial; and

(4) the proposed appropriation is in the public interest.

(b) In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider

(1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities;

(4) the effect on public health;

(5) the effect of loss of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriation;

(6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriation;

(7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and

(8) the effect upon access to navigable or public water.

 You can see there's a bit of room for interpretation - words like 'adequate' and 'beneficial.' 'Public interest' at least is spelled out.  A good public administrator will wrestle hard with the law and the facts trying to come up with the most defensible decision possible.  There are some close calls where both sides have strong claims and where two different hearing officers could come up with different, but justified, conclusions.  And then there are decisions where the answer if fairly clear cut. 

You can get more background information from Pacific Rim Coal , the coal mine developers, and from Inlet Keepers, a keep opponent of the mine.

You can also go to the hearing tomorrow.  Testimony is limited to those parties who have already been involved, but the public may attend and listen.

And one final comment.  The  Water Resource Section of the Division of Mining, Land & Water, of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, is just one of the government agencies that have some sort of jurisdiction over this project.