Controlling the Light Brown Apple Moth Invasion

Native to New Zealand and Australia, the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) was recently classified as a “noxious species” in the United States and Canada. Their West Coast invasion discovered in 2007 created a firestorm of controversy in California. The larvae are known to destroy crops; however the threat in the United States is still under debate. The government initially reacted by spraying pesticides but adverse health effects are being reported but recently pesticides faced stout opposition and the government found alternative ways to control the pest.

The LBAM was discovered through DNA testing at UC Davis which then passed on the information to the Department of Agriculture and the EPA. The US Department Of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) reacted fast along with the EPA by quarantining the infected areas and restricting crop shipments from Mexico and Canada, the suspected culprits of bringing the LBAM to America. The pest seemed to be spreading, so the EPA and APHIS immediately acted an emergency eradication program involving pesticides.

Spraying of pesticides with pheromones to cause hormonal reactions in the LBAM’s were unsuccessful and within a year respiratory and health reactions were reported in the two California counties where the pesticide was sprayed. I agree with the public officials, government officers, and environmental groups who banded together to convince the California Agricultural Commissioner to use alternate means of eradication.

A perfect example of official and unofficial actors, angered citizens Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi along with a coalition of 8 California Cities and 185 non-profit groups called to end the spraying. The opposition shows that the public opinion can change government decisions through nothing but large support and petitioning. Also, the other means of eradication seem much less harmful to the environment and human health. The USDA Agriculture Research Service has developed thousands of sterile moths that will be released to control the population of the pests. This solution is more humane and can be implemented without any threat to human or plant life. Also, this solution has worked with the Mediterranean Fruit Fly and has been proven not to completely eradicate but allow population control.

Shell Stakes Claim on Yampa River

While water supplies have become scarce throughout our country, many industries are fighting to stake their claim on the last remaining water rights available. One such, Shell Exploration and Production Co., has recently applied to Colorado's state water court in Steamboat Springs for the substantial right to use the Yampa River in Northwestern Colorado for future oil shale development. Currently, Shell manages three research and development leases in Colorado, as well as many other water rights throughout the Colorado Basin. Shell is in the process of testing a method of heating shale to release petroleum distillates that can be refined into products such as jet fuel and gasoline .

Shell's future development of oil shale will involve the construction of a 45,000-acre-foot water reservoir, which will claim 375 cubic feet per second (750 acre-feet per day) of water, in turn requiring extreme amounts of energy to complete the process . Water would only be diverted during peak runoff periods in the spring (April-June), and any movement to actually take and store the river water is at least a decade away. "Regardless of where oil prices are, we think the opportunity is great and the benefit is great. We plan to continue our slow and methodical approach and stay the course." Town officials in Moffat County are particularly concerned about the affect on the area's future water rights and development across Northern Colorado .

While Shell has stated reasonable justifications for the water use and will "apply best water management practices to treatment, storage, and reuse" , I feel that the construction of the reservoir should be avoided. Not only does oil shale development have the potential to harm fish and wildlife habitat, contribute to global warming, and produce excessive pollutiing emissions, but also requires large amounts of energy in order to heat and process the oil shale to more than 600 degrees F. The Yampa River has proven an important water source for Colorado's Front Range communities, and "it doesn't make sense to hand over our scarce water just so an oil company can squander it on a pipe dream like oil shale." Objections of the possible construction are comprised from twenty-five federal, state, and local agencies, national parks, coal companies, and agricultural affiliates, simply seeking more detailed information on the proposed reservoir and it's potential impacts. "We want to make sure that the water right isn't speculative, that it will be put to a beneficial use and that Shell can and will develop the required infrastructure...We just want to be part of the process to protect our citizens."

As the Yampa River remains one of the last wild water sources yet to be claimed, I feel it should continue to be valued, and free from industrial disturbance, unlike most other water resources throughout the country. Although Shell has made intriguing claims on the production of the reservoir, they have omitted the necessary proposal of the coal-fired power plants that will be necessary to process this shale, or the excessive amounts of water consumption needed for each barrel of oil produced (3 barrels of water:1 barrel of oil). Not only are our limited water resources at stake to dirty oil companies like Shell, but issues concerning the surrounding habitat, wildlife, and groundwater supply have yet to addressed. In conclusion, I, along with many other citizens throughout the Northern Colorado region, oppose the water rights Shell Oil Company has claimed on the Yampa River.

Home Owner's Associations vs. Green Utilities

When Mark Weinberg of Camarillo, California decided to install 600 square feet of solar panels on his roof so save over $330 a month in electric bills, he not only was excited about his potential savings, but felt as though he was doing a great deed by investing in renewable energy. Upon receiving response from his home owner's association regarding a permit, he was shocked by their response. The HOA for his development demanded that the panels be placed on the rear roof where they would remain out of sight. In this case, out of sight means out of direct sunlight due to his roof slope position.

One of the most frustrating hurdles with installing eco-friendly utilities on one's home is the requirements set by the home owner's association.All too often are peoples' green aspirations being trampled by their HOA's regulations for aesthetics. Most HOA's state that adding renewable energy utilities to a property causes the structure to appear ugly, a subtraction in property value, or a defiance historic regulations. Even Al Gore himself, one of the leaders in the environmental revolution, had a difficult time gaining approval for the installation of green utilities on his home. The local zoning board initially declined his request, he then sent in an appeal, then finally after several redesigns a permit was obtained.

In similar cases, home owner's associations attempt to divert getting tied up with residents by simply ignoring their requests for solar panel permits. By ignoring the residents, they hope to discourage them from making progress towards obtaining a permit. In several occurrences, when a home owner received no response from their HOA, they simply decided to proceed with the construction of the green utility. Only then did their HOA notify the resident of the violation by demanding that they remove whatever they installed. This sleazy behavior expressed by many HOA's has resulted in several lawsuits initiated by frustrated homeowners.

The strict, unrealistic demands expressed by home owner's associations has also lead to losses in the renewable energy industry. Contractors that specialize in retrofitting houses with green utilities have mountains of paperwork and legal obstacles to overcome before they even begin a project. Many companies have stated that if the burdens of HOA's were lifted, they would be fitting double or triple the amount of homes with green utilities than they do currently.

In response to the headache that has been created by such associations, states and towns are taking the initiative to pass laws that forbid HOA's from denying home owner's the rights to solar panels and other systems. Colorado passed a law back in 1979 that allows anyone the privilege of installing solar panels without a home owner's association interfering. It also states that once a property has panels in use, a new neighboring structure that is built cannot block sunlight to the panels. Laws such as this are completely necessary to ensure that everyone will have the right to make their lives a little bit greener. In a few unfortunate situations, a specific home owner's associations will find certain loop-holes in which they can still keep their controlling grip on green utilities by demanding that they be a certain color, shielded by trees, or extreme limits of location. In some cases, they demand the color of the panels be white. This renders the panels almost completely useless since the color white reflects light.

In the neighborhood in which I reside in my hometown of Carlisle, Pennsylvania, there is no HOA that governs my street. Residents willingly do as they please in regards to renewable energy. It is beyond irrational in my opinion to be so displeased with a set of solar panels on your neighbor's roof that you would take time to complain to the HOA. We have much larger issues to worry about that aesthetics when it comes to global warming, diminishing fossil fuels, and air pollution. Laws need to be passed immediately on the state, and possibly on the national level to lift these restrictions so that each property owning individual can help out with the green revolution. Advertisements are absolutely everywhere that promote sustainability and energy efficient techniques, but how the hell are we supposed to comply with them if we can't even gain approval to practice them?

Making Solar Cheaper Than Coal

1366 technologies is working to try do what some believe is not possible. Make solar technology cheaper than coal. Not only are they trying to make the technology cheaper they are trying to make it more efficient. The trick, though, is to get that increased efficiency while making the technology cheap. 1366's first idea on how to accomplish this is called a light capturing ribbon is to produce interconnect wires with V-shaped grooves. With older solar technology, light hits those interconnect wires, which are under the solar cell, and bounce back out. with light ribbons, the grooved wires reflect light at an angle so that it can bounce onto a solar panel's glass covering and back down onto the cell. This internal reflection allows a bit more electricity to be squeezed from the incoming light without having to reinvent the production process. With this technology the efficiency of solar panels is increased about 5%. This is small but when you consider that the production process doesn't have to be reinvented the new panels are cheaper and more efficient (even if the increase is small).

I366 Technologies isn't the only company trying to implement cheaper solar technology. Nanosolar Inc. is also attempting to curb the nations appetite for coal. The Nanosolar cells work on a metal foil substrate, or semiconductor, instead of the stainless steel or glass substrate. The electrodes used are cheaper substitutes which lowers the price of the technology. As opposed to the I366 panels the Nanosolar metal foil semiconductors create an increase in efficiency of 20%. Also as opposed to the I366 technology Nanosolar's technology is available, and with a 25 year warranty!

And as if having these two companies working on cheaper solar technology isn't exciting enough there is a third company HelioVolt which is coming up with just as promising versions of the technology. HelioVolt's version uses a technology called thin-film. Thin-film solar technologies use little or no silicon. This is an advantage in today's worldwide market where there is a shortage of solar-grade silicon. Instead of cutting wafers of silicon crystals to make solar cells, thin-film companies like HelioVolt coat plastics, glass, or other substrates with thin films of material that convert sunlight into electricity. This process greatly lowers the cost of producing solar panels.

These new improvements on an old technology appear to be very promising. Solar technology has long been an appealing renewable energy resource. Low efficiency and high costs though have kept it playing second fiddle to fossil fuels when it comes to energy. Hank Green writes that he thinks it is no longer a matter of whether we will get solar technology cheaper than coal but when. I would have to agree with him. The greenhouse gases that fossil fuels such as coal release into the air are causing huge problems that can only be fixed with renewable energy resources like solar power.

How to Count the Carbon

An idea recently rejected by the Bush administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is contemplating placing carbon dioxide on the list of pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act. The EPA's "findings" determine that there are six new pollutants that should be added to the list and meet the criteria as defined in the Clean Air Act.

As the earth's climate warms, it adversely effects many aspects of everyday life. Understanding their obligations, the Obama administration went straight to work on the U.S.' environmental legislation that so heavily effect climate change. The new president's plan proposes jobs be created for green industry and renewable energy. Although Obama's proposed plan is an environmentalist's dream initiative, economists seem to be second-guessing his ability to properly balance priorities during such a deep recession.


The costs of implementing best available technologies, as required by the CAA, is not as easy as it seems. Industries, vehicles, agriculture and businesses emit carbon dioxide, creating different compliance issues for each category. According to the EPA, carbon dioxide emissions in the coal industry are 40 percent of the nation's total emissions. The same report concluded that coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry. If carbon was regulated, most of the country's power plants would have to temporarily shut down until best available technologies can be achieved.

Affordable energy is already a major issue in the United States and if regulated entities incorporated new costs, coal powered, carbon dioxide regulated energy would be nearly impossible for home owners and commercial industries to afford. During times of economic uncertainty, stringent regulations establish limits on development. Adding carbon dioxide may just create a panic for recession-stricken industries.

As of right now, 18 states seek to cap carbon dioxide emissions for industry and 25 have supported proposals for renewable energy. As proven to work in Europe, the system would allow "companies that produce emissions below a mandatory cap {to} earn carbon credits — which they can then sell to companies that don’t meet the cap. " People like to have choices and limits on development, such as those that would are influenced the CAA, prove to only inhibit economic growth. Through market-based incentives, the government, the workforce and the environment can coexist sustainably to combat air quality control issues.

Proposed Seal Hunt Ban

As Canada approaches its annual arctic seal hunt, proposals to ban the practice have again arisen. Amidst protest from animal rights groups who claim that the seal hunt is cruel and unsustainable, 20 vessels, in addition to land-based hunters, have embarked on the largest marine mammal hunt in the world. Under current Canadian policies, the total allowable catch is set at 280,000-an increase of 5, 000 since last year. Criticism of the practice has sparked efforts to institute a government ban on seal hunting, which brings policy issues to bear for the Canadian government.
Policy controversy surrounds the Sealers and the Fisheries Department who oversee the hunt. Department justification for the hunt appeals to the sustainability and economic necessity of this practice.They attribute increases in harp seal populations in the last 30 years to their managed hunt policies. Additionally, the Sealers and Fisheries Department claims that the seal hunt provides much needed supplemental income for Canadian cod fishermen.
Proponents of the ban argue that the hunt seriously jeopardizes the seal populations, particularly because it is difficult to monitor and enforce management policies. Additionally, they argue that there are no exceptional economic gains to be made from the practice, rendering the preservation of seal populations more important.
A major factor in this controversy is a proposed EU bill that would encourage a ban on seal hunting. The European Parliament’s Internal Markets and Consumer Protection Committee has already voted in favor of prohibiting trade in seal products in the European Union. It is in my opinion imperative that the European Union pass the proposed international ban on seal hunting as to protect biodiversity interests. Some critics claim that increases in total allowable catch like this in the past have resulted in 66% losses of seal populations. The same critics argue that current seal hunt policies do not even conform the Department of Sealers and Fisheries’ management plan. With global climate change already affecting arctic animal populations such as the polar bear[1], it is imperative to incite policies, such as the seal hunting ban, to dissuade any further detriment to their populations. Is the ethical treatment and preservation of species such as harp seals less important that the furs and oils their desecration produces? Furthermore, can the Canadian government allow such practices that flagrantly interfere with wild species in such sensitive environmental times?

[1] http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/climate-change/

Alternative & Renewable Energy Sources:

Regardless of the mixed opinions surrounding the amount of easily obtained oil left on earth for our use, the effects of our dependence upon it are not so easily ignored. The basis of our economy, the well-being of our planet and every single aspect of our daily lives is linked to our use of fossil fuels. Its obvious exhaustibility and negative emission effects are just a couple of the numerous reasons as to why we should begin a rigorous search for alternative and sustainable methods of energy. As our main source of energy continues to diminish, our contributions to finding alternatives are not measuring up. There are however, definite and impressive leads that have been made in the sustainable energy field, that hopefully will guide us to our future energy sources.
First is the option of using biofuels. Liquid biofuels include both biodiesel and ethanol. One reason why this is perceived as a interesting option would be biofuels ability to “hold us over” until alternative energy technologies can be polished and commercialized, they also recycle carbon instead of emitting more into our atmosphere. Unfortunately, not all aspects of biofuels lead us to a perfect solution. In order to produce biofuels we must increase our crop production (particularly of soybeans), which is already under pressure. It must compete for space against food crop production and it will not eliminate greenhouse gas production, as chemicals and fertilizer would be used in the crop maintenance. More importantly, we would be cutting down more trees in order to make room for these new crops, forests that when left standing would be sequestering the carbon in our atmosphere.

Photovoltaic cells are proving to be one of the most optimistic view for our energy future. PV cells have the ability to convert the light from the sun directly into electricity. They can be placed in almost any location and therefore, can create energy exactly where it is needed. PV cells are highly flexible and are currently incorporated into shingles for homes, on the tops of parking decks and even on army tents to provide energy where there would be none. BP, interestingly enough, has incorporated solar energy into many of their branches across the world.

Another hot topic of energy conversation is harnessing the power of wind. Like the energy from the sun, it is also completely renewable. Wind turbines also generate electricity directly and come in many different sizes, those that are used for personal home use up to the commercial turbines. It is, in fact, the fastest growing form of alternative energy and has doubled in the past three years.

With climate change and the scarcity of fossil fuels becoming an ever-increasingly important issue, we must develop an innovative devotion towards finding new alternative and sustainable fuel sources. It is impossible to believe that our technology is not ready for this challenge, but realize that the problems lie within our dependence upon fossil fuels and lethargic initiative.

Local vs. Industrial Agriculture

Increasing concerns with drought, water shortages, and energy has led America to reevaluate the sustainability of all sectors of the economy. One means of counterattacking these issues may lie in the support of local versus industrial agriculture. The benefits of buying local produce significantly outweigh those of industrial agriculture and may prove to be a vital element in meeting needs for the future.

According to The Union of Concerned Scientists, the benefits of industrial agriculture are obvious: "low food prices for American consumers, cheap feed for animal factory farms, a potential energy source to replace foreign oil, and substantial exports to foreign markets." However, large-scale production of agriculture has many perverse impacts on the environment that are not reflected in its artificially low prices. A study by Jules Pretty, a professor at the University of Essex in England, found that negative externalities from industrial agriculture included: "water pollution from farm waste, soil nutrients, erosion and pesticides; loss of landscape and biodiversity; food-borne diseases; air pollution from gaseous emissions; unnecessary transportation costs of food; human dislocation from rural to urban areas; rural community decline; poor human diets and obesity; and the cost of direct government subsidies" ⁴.

Local agriculture significantly reduces many of the harmful impacts on the environment that is seen in industrial agriculture. The Sustainable Table points out that "on average, produce sold in grocery stores travel nearly 1,500 miles between the farm where it was grown and your refrigerator". Minimizing the distance food travels by supporting local agriculture decreases the use of fossil fuels by reducing transportation and packaging. Other ways local farmers tend to practice sustainable agriculture is by rotating a diverse assortment of crops, preserving the soil, and maintaining the rural landscape⁶. Along with many environmental benefits, supporting local agriculture also benefits the local economy by "contributing to the growth of strong small businesses, generating local jobs, raising property values, and leading to strong health care, education, and entertainment sectors" ⁶. A study by the United States Department of Agriculture determined that "farmers earn 37 percent more from sales at local farmers markets than they would if they sold to a wholesaler."

Strong leadership and government policy and planning will be a critical element in the growth and sustainability of future agriculture. Government subsidies currently tend to support industrial agricultural practices. An example of an effort to support local farms is with the Community Food Security Coalition Policy Program (CFSC). Through the CFSC, "over a hundred projects have received funding to strengthen local food systems, increase low-income food security while supporting local farmers, and develop local food planning and policy organizations through this program" ³. I would especially like to see small agricultural towns (such as Blacksburg) become more supportive of its local farms.

1. "Agricultural Marketing Service - Wholesale and Farmers Markets." Agricultural Marketing Service - Home. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateA&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WholesaleAndFarmersMarkets&acct=AMSPW>.
   
2. "Buy Local, local food is sustainable - The Issues - Sustainable Table." 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/buylocal/>.
   
3. "Community Food Security Coalition - Policy Program." Welcome to the Community Food Security Coalition. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.foodsecurity.org/policy.html>.
   
4. Cozart, Thayne. "Industrial vs. Sustainable Agriculture." Untitled Document. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.acresusa.com/toolbox/reprints/Indust%20vs%20sustain_dec03.pdf>.
   
5. "Hidden Costs of Industrial Agriculture | Union of Concerned Scientists." Homepage | Union of Concerned Scientists. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/costs-and-benefits-of.html>.
   
6. "Oxfam America: Buying Local Food: The Smart Alternative." Oxfam America. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/where_we_work/united_states/news_publications/food_farm/art2564.html>.
   

The Storm Between Construction Sites and Virginia Rivers: Stormwater Runoff

Construction sites in Virginia that produce stormwater runoff affecting more than one acre of land, as well as smaller sites that are part of larger projects, have for years been required to apply for a general stormwater permit.   This permit mandates that the operators of these construction areas put in place control mechanisms to not only limit stormwater runoff, but also to prevent dangerous pollutants from the sites from entering stormwater drains and ending up in our state’s already poor streams and rivers.

Recently, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation rewrote this Construction Stormwater General Permit.  While one might think such a revision would only heighten standards, state water conservationists like the Riverkeeper of the Shenadoah River say it only lowers them.  He argues that the new permit is not any better than the old one, that it doesn’t comply with the Clean Water Act, and that the permit basically gives a “blank check” to construction sites to pollute as much water as they want.  

Stormwater runoff from construction activities can have a devastating impact on our water supply.  When rainwater runs over a construction site, it picks up debris, sediments, and chemicals.  These materials, upon reaching a waterway can cause destruction of habitats, stream bank erosion, clogging of streams, and even destruction of wildlife (both those animals swimming in the water and those drinking out of it). 

While many violations of construction site runoff likely go unnoticed, the penalties for those who don’t apply for or honor runoff permits are often severe.  Just today (3/23), a construction company in California agreed to pay a settlement of $2.75 million to make up the multitude of stormwater violations found on one of their 325 acre construction sites. 

Polluted stormwater runoff is a problem for several reasons.  One of the more notable ones, especially for those familiar with either the Shenandoah or Potomac Rivers, are the high number of fish kills in recent years.  In a 2008 report, the US Geological Survey attributed many of these kills, in part, to stormwater runoff containing fertilizers and other chemicals.  

According to a spokesperson for the EPA, “Dirty runoff from construction sites is one of the largest sources of water pollution.”  In fact, the EPA has stated that runoff from construction sites has been found to be up to 1,000 times more polluted than that from undisturbed sites.  But with the use of proper technology, runoff from construction and development sites can be reduced by up to 90%. 

In addition to improving the use of technology on construction sites in order reroute runoff away from storm drains and streams, I believe more should be done to educate construction supervisors and managers on the importance of proper runoff precautions.  Perhaps, in some cases, the construction companies simply don’t realize how much damage they’re causing.  Workshops and even entire conferences within the construction industry are already being held that focus specifically on stormwater runoff.  One such conference happened just last week in Beckley, West Virginia. 

While stormwater runoff from construction sites may not sound like that big of a problem at first, one can easily begin to see just how much damage it can cause.  Certainly, the costs of polluted streams, diseased and dying fish populations, erosion, etc., far outweigh the costs of a few simple pieces of water diversion mechanisms placed on construction sites.  States must enact and enforce stronger regulations regarding construction runoff – perhaps then we can all “build” better bodies of water for future generations to come.

1. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2009/2009-03-18-091.asp
   
2. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/const.cfm
   
3. http://www.eponline.com/articles/71349/
   
4. http://lists.dep.state.fl.us/pipermail/pharmwaste/2008-March/001562.html
   
5. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/States+sue+EPA+over+construction+runoff-a0122813006
   
6. http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=54631
   

Where Have All the Birds Gone?: The Declining U.S. Bird Popluation

Birdwatchers across the United States will soon be putting away their binoculars, discouraged to see fewer flutters in the branches and hear fewer songs in the morning. Although probably unnoticeable to many, bird species in the US are in widespread and steady decline. In fact, of the 800 species of birds found in the US, nearly one third are on the endangered species list or critically threatened.

In 2007 President Bush commissioned the US State of Birds report, a comprehensive assessment compiled by several organizations such as the US Geological Survey and the American Bird Conservancy. The study targeted habitat loss and invasive species as being the main dangers to our bird populations.

As urban sprawl creeps into our forests and skyscrapers climb into the skies there is little refuge for wild birds. The greatest example of this can be seen currently in the state of Hawaii, where almost every bird species on the islands are facing the threat of extinction unless conservation measures are taken urgently.

Pesticides and degradation of bird’s food supplies are other factors adding to the declining populations. The pesticide DDT, the negative effects of which were brought to light by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, was banned in the US in 1972 yet there are still many other man-made chemical compounds in the environment causing widespread bird deaths.

With all of the other pressing environmental issues concerning more noticeable problems such as acid mine drainage, disappearing tropical rain forests, or climate change to name a few, declining bird populations may seem like a minor concern. However, what needs to be taken into consideration is that the biodiversity and health of bird species can be a mirror in which to see our environmental quality, either good or bad. The old “canary in the coal mine” example can be illustrated in our own backyards, forests, wetlands, and coasts. Disappearing bird species is not just an American phenomenon. As Tim Webb of Great Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds stated, "It is just as important to see which birds are not around as which birds are there".

Birds also play important roles in nearly every ecological niche and biome imaginable. They keep our insect and pest populations in check and help distribute plant seeds. Without them many food webs would cease to function, collapsing entire systems, sometimes across vast distances due to many species’ migratory nature.

A study conducted in France showed how climate change is throwing birds out of synchronization and forcing them to continually move northward. The same phenomenon is true in the US and could not only be another problem for many bird species’ survival, but also another indication of global climate change.

Fortunately the US State of Birds report also revealed data that bird populations can and do recover well when conservation measures are taken. Wetland species, such as pelicans, herons, ducks, and egrets are examples of some that have increased dramatically due to conservation and protection. The 2009 State of the Birds report is now available for updates of improvements and further actions needed. Hopefully the US can recognize birds as one of our most valuable environmental assets and will continue to take appropriate measures to protect their habitats and welfare.