essays | Page 15 | Andy Arthur.org

Can You Sue the State For Failing to Protect Against Pollution?

Andy | July 19, 2012

Article XIV Section 4 states:

The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products.

The legislature, in implementing this policy, shall include adequate provision for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise, the protection of agricultural lands, wetlands and shorelines, and the development and regulation of water resources.

While Article XIV Section 5 provides:

A violation of any of the provisions of this article may be restrained at the suit of the people or, with the consent of the supreme court in appellate division, on notice to the attorney-general at the suit of any citizen.

This would state affirmatively that the any citizen may sue the state for failing to “conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty” and “encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products.”.

The Mohawk Valley Farm Belt

Andy | July 18, 2012

Both sides of the Mohawk Valley, for about ten miles north and south of the river have extensive dairy farming going on. Not large confined animal feeding operations, but instead relatively small dairies that overlook the river, and leave mostly a pastorial landscape of pastures and corn fields, sloped along the hills that overlook the river.

View Larger Map

There are certainly other farming locations in state, but there is something specifically quite pictorial of this area, all overlooking the river, with the relatively high hills that surround the Mohawk River. Few areas of state are as open, or is farming concentrated around a single valley. Most farming areas in state are single valleys — like the Black River Valley — and not hills surrounding a major river.

The Mohawk Valley Farm belt tends to petter out, as you climb out of the Mohawk Valley. Head to far north or south, and the farms are replaced with a lot of scrub land, where less productive farms, with poorer soils and shorter growing seasons have been abandoned. These lands nowadays are primarily owned by rural residents, and used mostly for hunting in the fall and the production of firewood. The worst parcels of all, as it comes to farming, are largely owned by the state, for timber and public recreation.

The belt is pretty clearly defined. Where farms begin and end in scrub land are as visible by the view of the window in your truck, as they are in view from the aerial photos looking down onto the earth. Farming, while an important part of the economy, really is limited to where can occur, and beyond that, most of the land is wasted.

Biomass companies, and alternative crops some day promise to recover this scrubland, that is all but abandoned for anything but deer hunting. It would be nice, but we will see the impacts to the environment once it happens. Scrublands, and recently abandoned, to the human mind look so disorderly, at least until they revert back to full forest.

90% of Wild Forest is Actually Wilderness

Andy | July 16, 2012

A secret of the Adirondack State Land Master Plan is that well over 90% of the lands officially dedicated as Wild Forest are actually forever: wilderness, even though it’s not called that.

Here is why from Adirondack State Land Master Plan:

4. Public use of motor vehicles will not be encouraged and there will not be anymaterial increase in the mileage of roads and snowmobile trails open to motorized use bythe public in wild forest areas that conformed to the master plan at the time ofits original adoption in 1972.

That language basically makes it clear that no new roads or truck trails will be created in Adirondack Forest Preserve. Therefore, except for a handful existing roads, the vast majority of lands of Adirondack Forest Preserve will forever remain free of motor vehicles and snowmobiles (in winter). The milage of snowmobile trails and truck trails will only decline in coming years, strictly fitting into defination of “wild forest”.

Moreover per the consitution:

The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.

Therefore per the consitution, no timber may be removed or destroyed in the forest preserve, which means the consitution explicitly prohibits any new road from being constructed in the forest preserve, except where an existing road exists. You can’t build a new road through the forest without cutting timber.

The only constraint from designating all of Adirondack Wild Forest as wilderness, is some of the parcels are smaller, and there a minimal roads going to campsites, lakes, destinations, and private lands throughout the park, mostly low-speed forest preserve roads, with minimal use.

… no roads, no timber cutting = wilderness area

There Ought To Be Sunlight on Non-Profit Organizations

Andy | July 15, 2012

One thing that concerns me is the lack of transparency for all not-for-profit organizations that are involved in influencing government polic or representing themselves in front of government agencies.

While all not-for-profit organizations must disclose how they spend their money, at least on an yearly bases on publically avaliable IRS Form 901, they do not have to disclose individual donors, or the amount each donor gives. In many cases, through the advocacy and other works of not-for-profits, substantial government lobbying and political influence is given by the organization, yet few actually know who is funding the organization, or what the true rational for the organization’s actions.

If persons are afraid to give to not-for-profit organizations, for fear of disclosure, then they should not give. Not all not-for-profit organizations serve the public interest, as many spend a substantial amount of their funds advocate for policies that are highly detrimental to the public interest. Likewise, there should be public pressure on not-for-profit organizations avoid taking donations from corrupting sources of funds.

A great deal of advocacy on behalf of major corporations takes on behalf of citizens groups. Many cases, grass roots efforts are amplified by large corporate donations, but nobody really knows where the money comes from, except that they report large donations as being a key to sustaining their organization. For sake of openess, all not-for-profit organizations should have to disclose all donations and where they came from.

A Life Powered By Fire

Andy | July 14, 2012

The other day up at camp,
I was dreaming of a life powered by fire.

One where fire would just be
part of my every day existence,
not just walled off as a weekend activity
up at camp.

One where most everything you
did would ultimately result in fire,
where no chore would really be a chore.

Where you’d cut your own firewood,
and chop it, stack it, all
in preparation for it to be burned.

You’d add more wood to the outdoor wood furance,
and build fires every night in the wood stove
to keep things toasty warm.

Matches and lighters would be as much
a part of life,
as a light switch or thermostat in the house.

Even cleaning the house is fun,
noticing all the trash you’ve
collected up to burn.

Taking out the trash sure would be fun,
lighting off some paper,
smelling that pungent smoke,
as the discarded milk bottle burns.

I sure look forward,
to someday living in the country,
and having as many fires as a so desire
everyday …

Why I Enguage in Zero Landfill Camping

Andy | July 13, 2012

Zero Landfill Automoible Assembly Plants.

You often hear commericals on radio that “Subrarus are made in zero landfill factories.” Basically, what they are talking about is their automobile assembly factory, where manufactured components are shipped in reusable containers (to save money), bolted or welded together, and finished up.

They do not include manufacturing of components, or the mining of raw materials to build the cars. Even at zero-landfill assembly factories, some waste is generated, but valuable metal scraps are sent to scrap dealers, and plastic garbage and other wastes are shipped off to municipal trash incinerators, and burned for energy. Zero-landfill Assembly factories typically also have recycling programs in lunch rooms for aluminum cans and recycling for paper in offices, which is fairly common in most industries.

When you read into the claim, you have to be kind of skeptical. Indeed, zero-landfill is much different then zero-waste, or near zero-waste as many environmentalists are persuing. Indeed, much of it’s just certification, rather then any real change in process — as it’s stupid not to reuse shipping containers, scrap waste metals, and do other things that save businesses money.

Zero Landfill Camping.

I don’t generate any trash when I camping that I haul home, and then take to the transfer station for disposal in a landfill. I seperate out the burnable trash from the non-burnable trash, the later which I take home for recycling either for remedemption of the deposit or regular municipal recycling at transfer station. I don’t leave any waste behind, and indeed, I often pick up litter from other persons, including small scraps of paper or plastic people overlook.

I do use styrofoam plates and plastic forks, paper towels, wet whipes, and often camp food comes in more packaging then stuff you get a home, as more stuff is canned or in dry packaging. I don’t use reusable bags when buying camp food, because having lots of plastic bags is handy for camping. It’s a lot easier to burn your trash, then have to wash up a lot of dishes. Food waste is also burned in a hot fire, because one doesn’t want attract bears.

I generate a lot more trash at camp then I do at home. Yet, I don’t want to haul a lot of smelly trash around, so the garbage gets burned at the end of the evening in the campfire. The day’s plastic bag full of burnables gets burned in the hot campfire at the end of day — and is almost instantly incinerated. I like watching trash burn, and I’m not that worried about it compared to what a lot of farmers and rural folks in more rural states burn regularly in their burn barrels and pits.

Tin cans are burned out, to rid of food residue, and tossed in the bin with the aluminim beer and beverage cans. Glass bottles are washed out. Anything that doesn’t burn is hauled home for recycling. I make sure to pick out any aluminum foil or partially burnt trash out of the fire pit. I don’t litter, and there is no trash generated that ever sees a landfill.

Mocking Zero-landfill Concept.

To a certain extent I am mocking the concept of zero-landfill manufacturing, that some manufacturers like to brag about it. Are farmers and rural residents who burn their garbage, recycle tin cans and glass, compost, zero-landfill folk? They are keeping their waste out of landfills after all.

But more seriously, it’s not zero-landfill but zero-waste we should be getting to as a society. It’s one things for a country boy out in the boonies to burning his garbage in a fire, it’s another thing for an urban society to be taking steps to reduce it’s waste. All of the country boys, farmers, and rural residents of the world, generate relatively little trash compared to what our big cities generate.

Cities need to find steps to recycle more of their waste, and recover their organics through source-seperated organics composting, biogas, or source-seperate organic biomass energy production. Cities need to find ways to keep their organic waste seperate from toxic technical materials — we got to stop dumping massive quanities of plastics and metals mixed with organics like food waste and brush into massive garbage incinerators and landfills.

People Who Pay the Individual Mandate Tax Should Get Healthcare

Andy | July 12, 2012

One of the problems I have with the individual mandate, is those who do not get healthcare insurance have to pay a tax, yet get nothing in return. That tax should go directly for paying for healthcare for those persons, by either using that revenue to add them to Medicaid or an assigned risk pool.

Option 1: Automatic Enrollment to Medicaid for Those Without Insurance.

Those who pay the individual mandate tax could automatically be enrolled in the government’s Medicaid program. The individual mandate tax could pay for the costs of enrolling these persons into medicaid. Medicaid would ensure these persons have access to basic healthcare, and because such an expansion would be paid directly out this tax, there would be no cost to government.

Option 2 Assigned Risk Pool for Those Without Insurance.

Alternatively, those who do not enroll in a private market insurance plan could be placed in the assigned risk pool, similiar to those who can’t buy insurance on the private market due to DWI or bad driving records. The individual mandate tax could pay for those individuals who don’t have insurance to be automatically assigned to an insurer, for it’s most basic plan.

Insurers would be forced to accept persons assigned to them, at random, by the government, who don’t currently have insurance. These individuals paying the individual mandate tax, would have their tax revenue handed over to the private company they are assigned to. Insurers would cover their healthcare costs, with very basic plans.

People Still Would Want to Get Insurance.

Being enrolled in Medicaid or a an Assigned Risk Pool insurance is far from an ideal solution for most people. People would be actively encouraged to buy insurance on the exchange, rather then taking whatever the government has randomly assigned to them, or government sponsored Medicaid.

Yet, the assigned risk pool is better then nothing.If for some reason a person didn’t sign up for insurance, they should be covered with basic healthcare insurance. Assigned risk is very market friendly, and is less government involved then expanding Medicaid, so it seems likely that would be the reform chosen for healthcare coverage for all.