Bill,
Sadly the same excessive and inappropriate development style is on the rise
in Belize, Central America, even though an active conservation community is
locked in full pitched battle to oppose it. Wealthy foreign businesses seem to
be at the basis of it, such as cruise ship lines.
Best wishes,
Ellen McRae
Caye Caulker
Belize
Central America
William Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wayne,
What you say applies in highly interrelated fashion to reefs and
islands of, for example, Dubai and Maldives where, in order of your
presentation but not order of importance:
1. Landscaping is applied to resort islands and government
mega-projects, often involving mass transfer of soil and vegetation
from other islands. In milder cases coastal vegetation is removed or
transformed to make more pleasant beaches or views, and inviting
coastal erosion. Increasingly landscaping (in drag as rehabilitation)
is being done to prettify resort reefs for the enjoyment of tourists
(e.g., seagrass habitats removed - they are unnatural, haven't you
heard, corals transplanted - only "doomed" colonies of course - from
reefs to barren reef flats (howcome they are barren anyway?).
2. Mass grading takes the form of dredge and fill (euphemistically:
reclamation) to enlarge existing islands or create new islands and
peninsulas (e.g. the Palm constructions of Dubai, with smaller scale
versions in Maldives - but just wait), often with baroque coastlines
(more beachfront) and limited water movement inviting further problems
(e.g. cyanobacterial blooms).
3. The filled areas are the reef flats. The reef flats are part of the
island's natural sea defense system. The land so created is low and
often on the outer side of the outer atoll rim (in Maldives). When
disaster strikes (e.g. tsunami, storm surge) "natural forces" or sea
level rise/climate change that are construed as responsible and the
aid agencies spring to the rescue to restore with little thought to
future prevention.
4. Past sins are hidden behind a facade of flam and cute
"conservation" projects to dazzle naive punters.
5. This is cast as eco-friendly despite all of the above and more.
Consider energy, virtually all of which is fossil fuel, and waste, in
a location where all of the punters, their food and drink (including
water), their A/C comfort, liquid and solid waste, etc are imported.
The usual pattern of demographic and temporal distribution of the
wealth gained by milking the environmental commons applies, and
population size is beyond carrying capacity and growing rapidly.
Regards,
Bill
On Dec 14, 2007 9:02 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
> Uh, oh--I'm headed for trouble again. Nobody
> (well, with the exception of a distinct minority)
> likes my ideas; they seem to offend just about
> everybody. (How can an idea offend? Certainly
> rudeness, body odor, etc. can be offensive, but
> why do so many of us consider an idea or
> statement with which we might disagree
> offensive? How can any intellectual endeavor
> proceed under pressure to be politically
> correct?) Have some fun refuting them.
>
> Anyway, here goes (with a sample):
>
> 1. End landscaping. Unlike ecosystems,
> landscaping requires water, fertilizer,
> maintenance, and all the resource/energy/habitat
> depletion and outright waste connected with those
> activities. But this seems to be attacking a
> multi-billion-dollar complex of businesses;
> therefore it will be attacked by all those who
> think their professional ox will be gored in some
> way. Landscaping is, by definition,
> unsustainable--a sizeable "footprint" on the face
> of the earth, however cosmetic.
>
> 2. End mass-grading. So-called "structural"
> fills are a profit-extending device that places
> the equivalent of ancient landslides over lower
> lands. They will "slide" in the future, when
> they load up with water. But that takes enough
> time for the "builders" to be long gone.
>
> 3. Permit building only on land that diminishes
> only those habitats that are in the greatest
> supply. End building in flood plains and other
> hazardous sites, as well as biologically rare ones.
>
> 4. Tolerate no lying about biology and
> ecology. For example, stop claiming that sites
> are "only" weed-covered wastes, and report the
> site's historic biological character. And
> require that it be treated in accordance with its
> biological and ecological potential, based on
> real, complete scientific assessment, not upon "expert opinion."
>
> 5. Tolerate no hyperbole via use of the terms
> "ecological," "sustainable," "green," etc.
>
> I could go on and on . . .
>
> WT
>
>
> At 01:54 PM 12/14/2007, Ray Mims wrote:
> >** High Priority **
> >
> >This is a project of which we are extremely proud to be a part. We are
> >in a comment period right now and would like to have additional
> >architects, builders, engineers, ecologists, horticulturist, landscape
> >maintenance contractors, soil scientist, architect, green building
> >consultant and planners to give us feed back. Please take the time to
> >look at the email and go to our website to view the draft report.
> >
> >ALSO PASS ON TO ANYONE YOU KNOW THAT MIGHT HAVE INSIGHT OR COMMENTS.
> >thank you,
> >Ray
> >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >The USBG has been involved in this partnership and is very excited
> >about Sustainable Sites.
> >The Sustainable Sites Initiative is developing national, voluntary
> >standards and guidelines for sustainable land development and
> >management
> >practices as well as metrics to assess site performance and a rating
> >system to recognize achievement. It is a partnership of the American
> >Society of Landscape Architects, the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower
> >Center, the United States Botanic Garden and a diverse group of
> >national
> >stakeholder organizations. The U.S. Green Building Council, a major
> >stakeholder
> > in the initiative, has committed to incorporating these guidelines and
> >standards into the
> >future evolution of the LEED(R) (Leadership in Energy and Environmental
> >Design) Green Building Rating System. These will also be available at
> >no cost for
> >those that will not go for certification.
> >
> >The initiative is in the process of developing the Standards and
> >Guidelines for Sustainable Sites - a compilation of current research,
> >technology, and practices to provide technical guidance and
> >performance
> >benchmarks. The Preliminary Report on the Standards and Guidelines (
> >www.sustainablesites.org/report.html) is now available for comment.
> >The
> >purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the first findings
> >of
> >the initiative with the intention of collecting feedback from
> >professionals and stakeholders. It is critical to receive knowledge
> >and
> >input from other professionals and stakeholders to ensure that the
> >products of the Sustainable Sites Initiative are relevant to those who
> >influence land practices. Please share this document with other
> >colleagues. An on-line feedback form (
> >www.sustainablesites.org/questionnaire.html) is available to submit
> >comments on the preliminary report. The public comment period will be
> >open until January 11, 2008.
> >
> >Many local and regional efforts now provide guidelines for improved
> >land
> >development and management practices. Sustainable Sites recognizes the
> >importance and relevance of these programs and is interested in
> >information sharing and partnering.
> >
> >Please share this freely with all that you think would be interested.
> >If you have any questions, a system has been set up to field them at
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >I hope you will find this effort as exciting as we do.
> >
> >all the best,
> >Ray
> >
> >Ray Mims
> >Conservation Horticulture
> >United States Botanic Garden
> >4700 Shepherd Parkway, SW
> >Washington, DC 20032
> >202.409.1659 cell
>
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
