In Florida the news is about drought. In Alaska, five thousand years of hunting tradition by Inuits is falling through the melting ice, as mounting casualties are ending a way of life.
And in California, Attorney General Jerry Brown is suing San Bernadino County for not doing enough in its land use planning to address climate change and global warming.
Mayor Carlos Alvarez and de facto chair of the county commission, Natacha Seijas, appear to understand the important role of local government in addressing global warming—and planning to reduce carbon emissions.
As difficult as that may be (given the fact that energy company profits are still tied to selling more units, not less) that’s a “lay-up”.
The hard play is to stop suburban sprawl in low-lying areas and farmland. If Seijas and her colleagues on the county commission were honest about global warming, that is what they would do now, to protect future food supply in an age of global warming.
A few weeks ago, the US Department of Agriculture released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/2008. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent—their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.
In addition to falling grain supplies, global fisheries are faltering. Reports in respected journals Science and Nature state that 1/3 of ocean fisheries are in collapse, 2/3 will be in collapse by 2025, and our ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048.
Population growth and skyrocketing economies in India and China are increasing demand steadily at the very same point in history that climate change is scorching food production models.
In Florida, most consumers are going to shrug, with the onset of rainy season. The shelves of supermarkets are full, as ever, even if beef prices are going through the roof.
This is the time to rethink our relationship to food production, in connection with land use policies in Miami-Dade County.
In recognition that farmland is a matter of public health and welfare—in addition to private property rights—Miami Dade County needs to establish a significant land acquisition program, far in excess of the Environmentally Endangered Lands program that currently exists.
A few billion dollars (instead of a few, tens of millions) would go a long way to ease the concern of farmers who will no longer be able to sell their land for suburban sprawl. We don't have a significant land acquisition program in Miami-Dade County, because the Farm Bureau has always opposed any measures that might limit their access to wealth through suburban sprawl.
That model is done. Now is the time to adapt land use policies, before change is forced on all of us.
If you haven’t already, read “Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed”, by Jared Diamond
Used copies available at Amazon,.com from $4.75 plus shipping..
Call Mayor Alvarez and your county commissioner: tell them that it's time to support a bond referendum for a funding source to acquire farmland in Miami-Dade County.
Two billion, is a good start.
7 comments:
i couldn't agree more:
This is the time to rethink our relationship to food production, in connection with land use policies in Miami-Dade County.
In recognition that farmland is a matter of public health and welfare—
Now that even President Bush has spoken out and acted against Darfur maybe Seijas will rethink her position on global warming.
Below is a letter to The Independent (UK newspaper) by an Inuit leader on why an airport in London should not be expanded, however, given how our land use policies in Miami effect global warming I believe that it is relevant to us__________
Aqqaluk Lynge: Global warming is not just a theory to us Inuit, the people who live farther north than anyone else, are the canary in the global coal mine Published: 30 May 2007 What happens in Britain affects us in the north. You may say that the expansion of London Stansted airport will play only a small part in increasing climate change, but everyone can say that about almost everything they do. It is an excuse for doing nothing. The result of that attitude would be catastrophic. The serious consequences affecting my people today will affect your people tomorrow. Most flights from Stansted are not for an important purpose. They are mostly for holidays and leisure. Is it too much to ask for some moderation for the sake of my people today and your people tomorrow? For the sake also of our wildlife and everything else in the world's precious and fragile environment that is more important than holiday flights.The Inuit are experiencing first- hand the adverse effects of climate change. We are on the front line of globalisation.Discussion of climate change frequently tends to focus on political, economic and technical issues rather than human impacts and consequences. I want to alert you to the impacts that Inuit and other northerners are already experiencing as a result of human-induced climate change, and to the dramatic impacts and social and cultural dislocation we face in coming years.For generations, Inuit have observed the environment and have accurately predicted weather, enabling us to travel safely on the sea-ice to hunt seals, whales, walrus, and polar bears. We don't hunt for sport or recreation. Hunters put food on the table. You go to the supermarket, we go on the sea-ice. When we can no longer hunt on the sea-ice, we will no longer exist as a people. Already hunters are telling us the sea-ice is unpredictable in many places and they are not always sure of dealing with the different ice we see today.Traditional hunting grounds of ice floes, in some cases, have disappeared. And they tell us that some hunting areas are impossible to get to because of eroding shorelines. Talk to hunters across the north and they will tell you the same story: the weather is increasingly unpredictable. The look and feel of the land is different. The sea-ice is changing.We have even lost experienced hunters through the ice in areas that, traditionally, were safe.Several Inuit villages have already been so damaged by global warming that relocation, at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, is now their only option. Melting sea-ice and thawing permafrost have caused:* damage to houses, roads, airports and pipelines;* eroded landscape, slope instability and landslides;* contaminated drinking water;* coastal losses to erosion of up to 100 feet per year;* melting natural ice cellars for food storage.Climate change is not just a theory to us in the Arctic, it is a stark and dangerous reality. Human-induced climate change is undermining the ecosystem upon which Inuit depend for their physical and cultural survival. Think about that for a moment. Emission of greenhouse gases from planes, cars and factories threatens our ability far to the north to live in harmony with a fragile, vulnerable, and sensitive environment.Some might dismiss our concerns, saying: "The Arctic is far away and few people live there." That would be immensely short-sighted, as well as callous.The Arctic is of vital importance in the global debate on how to deal with climate change. That's because the Arctic is the barometer of the globe's environmental health. You can take the pulse of the world in the Arctic. Inuit, the people who live farther north than anyone else, are the canary in the global coal mine.By 2070 to 2090, year-round sea-ice will be limited to a small portion of the Arctic Ocean around the North Pole. The rest of the Arctic will be ice-free in summer. Polar bears, walrus, ringed seals and other species of seals are projected to virtually disappear. Our ecosystem will be transformed, with tragic results. Where will we go then for our food? What then will become of the Inuit? Climate change in the Arctic is not just an environmental issue with unwelcome economic consequences. It is a matter of individual and cultural survival. It is a human issue. The Arctic is our home and homeland.What can Inuit - only 155,000 of us - do about this global situation? We are not asking the world to takes a backward economic step. All we are asking is that our neighbours in the south greatly reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. This does not need big sacrifices, but it will need some change in people's lifestyles. Is that plane trip really necessary?This is an edited extract of a submission to the Stansted inquiry by Aqqaluk Lynge, the leader of Greenland's Inuit population and a former president of the Inuit Circumpolar Council
it's time to support a bond referendum for a funding source to acquire farmland in Miami-Dade County.
Two billion, IS a good start!!!!
You have got to invest in the green space. You can't ask the growers to give up their development rights without our helping their families in return.
Come up with the dough, and the growers will be clammering to sign up.
No one has suggested taking away the farmers development rights.
Like everyone else west of the UDB,they are entitled to build one home per five acres.
Agricultural land shouldn't be upzoned just because someone is greedy and wants more than is allowed.
There's $30 million available for purchasing development rights from farmland earmarked in the recent bond approval. Problem is that the funds will trickle out over the 15 years of the bond and is really peanuts in the big picture of what we need.
The State could bring matching funds to the mix, but probably not. Why would they buy the rights to property here at 10x what they could spend in some rural county up-state?
You may believe that purchasing development capacity from people with property west of the UDB is important (as I do too), but do you really think this electorate would support a multi-billion dollar bond issue while they're screaming for tax relief?
The last is a good question: it is really too bad that the electorate has not been educated about the fundamental inequities that arise from Florida tax policy.
We can ignore or imagine that tax relief is possible, in a state that has no income tax, but the deficits will continue to pile up unsustainably until a broader discussion takes place.
As to the specific matter of a bond referendum, across the nation, land acquisition programs have been very popular with voters.
A bold program, here, would be popular too, but it would have to be supported by the entire leadership of Miami-Dade County.
Post a Comment