Blog

From Melissa-

Tomorrow, we along with others will plead our case at the Board of Land and Natural Resource meeting for a contested case hearing on the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan.

Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, The Sierra Club-Hawaii, The Royal Order of Kamehameha I, KAHEA: The Hawaiian Environmental Alliance, Dwight J. Vincente and Clarence Kukauakahi Ching have submitted a request for a contested case hearing on the plan.

Robert Harris, executive director of the Sierra Club, said that after the plan was approved in April Mauna Kea was chosen for a $1.2 billion Thirty Meter Telescope project.

“Our position is we’re not sure you should be approving new telescopes until this comprehensive management plan is finalized,” Harris said. “If you are going to call this a comprehensive management plan, I think you’re going to have to take into account future development and this plan specifically doesn’t address any development whatsoever.”

Department of Land and Natural Resources staff are recommending against a contested case hearing, saying there are no laws or rules requiring one because of the board’s approval of the plan and that the petitioners have no property interest in the project.

“The (comprehensive management plan) does not permit or authorize any new land use of development on Mauna Kea, including telescope projects,” the recommendation said.

Marti Townsend, program director for KAHEA, said there is a public interest in the protection of public trust resources. More time is needed to develop the plan and get public input, she said.

The DLNR says the acceptance of the plan doesn’t facilitate new construction but Townsend said she thinks it does, especially in light of the recent announcement of the Thirty Meter Telescope project.

“That was our concern all along — that we’re rushing through the management plan process in order to accommodate the TMT and so it’s really a development plan,” Townsend said.

To read full article click here.

The meeting will be held tomorrow (August 28, 2009) at 9:30 in the DLNR Board Room 132 on the first floor of the Kalanimoku Building at 1151 Punchbowl St. The Board Room is located on the makai (ocean) side of the building.

Last Thursday, the bill to ban genetically modified taro on Maui (09-100) was passed from the Economic Development, Agriculture and Recreation Committee to the full, nine-member County Council. Even after receiving hundreds of e-mails in support of the bill (From you guys! Thanks & keep it up!) and listening to passionate testimony, the committee was unable to reach a decision.

The mayor stated in a letter to the committee that she does not support a ban against taro due to the issue of unenforceability because there are no “reputable scientific tests” to distinguish between natural and GM taro.

Instead, Tavares said she preferred committee members defer the bill until the council, her administration, state lawmakers and federal and state agricultural officials find a solution.

“I don’t get these lamebrained excuses about enforcement,” said longtime Native Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte of Molokai.

Medeiros’ bill would make it illegal for any person to test, raise, grow, transport or release genetically engineered taro. The penalty would be a petty misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and 30 days in jail.

Lucienne de Naie of the Hawaii Sierra Club said a law in itself can be a powerful deterrent.
Dr. Lorrin Pang, the Maui District health officer, said there are plenty of people in Maui County who would volunteer to help enforce the law, including himself. Genetically modified taro can be distinguished from natural taro, he said.

To read full article click here.

Please contact Mayor Tavares and tell her what you think about GM taro enforcement! (808) 270-7855; Fax: (808) 270-7870.

The date is not yet set for the meeting to make a decision on Bill 09-100 but the council still needs to hear your support for this bill! Council members that still need  some swaying include Michael Victorino, Gladys Baisa, Joseph Pontanilla, Michael Molina and Council Chair Danny Mateo. Please take a few minutes out of your day to contact the council members and voice your support for the GMO Taro Ban bill. 

Michael Victorino- michael.victorino@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-7760
Fax: (808) 270-7639

Gladys Baisa- gladys.baisa@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-7939
Fax: (808) 270-7127

Joseph Pontanilla- joseph.pontanilla@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-5501
Fax: (808) 270-5502

Michael Molina- michael.molina@mauicounty.us Ph : (808) 270-5507
Fax: (808) 270-5508

Council Chair Danny Mateo- danny.mateo@mauicounty.us Ph :  (808) 270-7678
Fax: (808) 270-7717

Jo Anne Johnson-  jo_anne.johnson@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-5504

Sol Kaho’ohalahala- sol.kahoohalahala@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7768

Bill Medeiros- bill.medeiros@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7246

Wayne Nishiki- wayne.nishiki@mauicounty.us Ph: 270-7108

Please contact them and Ask them to support Bill 09-100 and help protect kalo from genetic modification. Your phone call or e-mail could help to extend the shield of protection for kalo to one more county.

From Alana:

Too often loko i’a are talked about as things of the past, and somewhat obsolete. They are spoken of like memorials of a time past, a time when Hawaiians could essentially farm huge amounts of fish without even needing to feed them. But those days are over, right? No, they don’t have to be. 

On Saturday at He’eia fishpond in Kaneohe, a bunch of people got together to help fish some of the predators, like baracuda, out of the fishpond. He’eia is an estimated 800 years old. It is owned by Bishop Estate, and is cared for by  Paepae o He’eia, a private non-profit organization. It has taken them years to clear destructive mangrove trees off of about half the fishpond wall, and they are still working on fixing a hole in the wall, but they still manage to produce and sell moi. He’eia produces anywhere between 300 and 700 pounds of moi each year and that number is expected to increase when the wall is fixed and the fishpond is completely restored. About 100 years ago there were many more fishponds all around the island, but most of them have either been filled in completely with mangroves, or are in ruin. 

He’eia, though, is a beautiful example of how community effort can lead to something meaningful and productive. Although many fishponds are privately owned now, they could still serve as productive entities of society. He’eia and Moli’i on O’ahu both manage to. Hawaiian fishponds utilized a system that was not found anywhere else on the planet. It was probably the most efficient and sustainable way of raising herbivore fish ever. Fishponds are not the remnants of an ancient culture. Hawaiians are still here, and Hawaii can still benefit from fishponds.

From Alana:

As a result of many letters being sent to state representatives, Rep. Mazie Hirono has decided to co-sponsor the “Offshore Aquaculture is not Fishing Act of 2009″. The bill asserts that under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and regional fishery management councils do not have the authority to permit or regulate the commercial ocean fish farming industry, because it is not fishing. 

The federal law that gives the Gulf Council and NOAA authority to regulate fish and fishing region-by-region was not intended to govern risky industrial enterprises like ocean fish farms.

This is a step in the right direction for the regulation of offshore aquaculture, which might soon happen in the Gulf of Mexico, and expand in places like Hawaii.

From Melissa:

Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) was denied approval by the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of it’s Amended Biofuel Contract with Imperium Renewables on August 5, 2009. The amended contract would have Imperium import biodiesel from a West Coast refinery to power HECO’s new 110-megawatt generating plant, instead of a refinery built by Imperium.

Costs brought on by this amended contract would have shifted costs from Imperium to HECO’s customers, as it would have to import the fuel from the West Coast of the Continental US. The PUC ruled,

“…the Amended Contract limits Imperium’s potential liability for failure to perform, but HECO failed to provide credible evidence that such a provision, which substantially shifted risk from Imperium to HECO and its ratepayers, was necessary.” Given the substantial amendments to the Original Contract, which were not subject to a competitive bidding process (or some other process that would provide the commission with some assurance that the amended terms are reasonable), the commission finds that HECO failed to demonstrate that the Amended Contract is in the public interest…”

Although this is a win for HECO’s ratepayers, they must also ask themselves if biofuel is right for Hawaii. As stated in the testimony of Henry Curtis, Executive Director of Life of the Land, against the Amended Biofuel Contact,

Life of the Land’s position (on HECO’s application requesting the Public Utilities Commission’s of the State of Hawaii’s approval to commit funds estimated at $134,310,260 for the purchase and installation of the Campbell Industrial Park Generating Station and Transmission Additions Project) was that biofuels negatively impact climate change in a number of ways: producing ethanol and biodiesel requires the use of large amounts of fossil fuels, water, and land. Hawai`i is parceling off its agricultural land and where we would get the water remains a huge issue. Will Hawai`i ever be able to grow enough biofuel to satisfy our needs? Life of the Land doubts it. After one hundred plus years of plantation-style monocropping, is this what we really want to do? Growing biofuels is not about small farmers, it is about big agribusinesses and corporate farming. How will this help Hawai`i’s struggling family farms? Should Hawai`i be using our precious agricultural lands to grow energy crops or food? Since Hawai`i imports 90% of our food, wouldn’t promoting food security and feeding our people be a more prudent use of these lands? Biofuel production competes with food products for resources. In the US, corn that could be used to feed people and animals is siphoned off for fuel. In Brazil ethanol production displaces other crops which are then grown in newly decimated Amazon rain forests. The most productive source of biodiesel is palm oil. Most of the world’s biodiesel is grown in Indonesia and Malaysia on recently destroyed rain forests. … Indonesia ranks third in the world in greenhouse gas emissions from the carbon emitted by burning forests and peat soils to make room for mono-cropped palm oil plantations. In essence, we are substituting the greatest source of global warming – the burning of fossil fuels – for the second greatest contributor – deforestation. …

Also provided in the testimony of Henry Curtis, Dr. Tadeus Patzek, Chairman of the Petroleum & Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, states:

Now I am predicting the diverse negative consequences of intensive biofuel use in Hawaii and dare the defenders of the Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO’s) decision to burn palm oil from Malaysia in an electrical power plant on Oahu to laugh at me. What seems to be at stake here is a tragically misguided decision by HECO to secure a new source of fossil fuel for its electrical power station. Their thinking seems to be that as long as the new fuel is not crude oil, somehow its flow will increase the strategic security of energy supply of Oahu. This type of linear, unimaginative thinking is characteristic of large bureaucracies under pressure to come up with a quick fix of a perceived problem.

Are monocropped agrofuels the fix to our dependence on petroleum, or should be be looking other places such as renewable energy systems? As HECO moves to solicit bids for alternative biofuel suppliers, that question should be in the back of everyones mind.

From Melissa:

Air quality monitoring stations in Lualualei, Timberline and Waianae offer daily measurements of Sulfur Dioxide, Ozone, Carbon Monoxide and Particulates in the surrounding areas on an easy-to-use website. The color-coding system on the website is aesthetically pleasing and shows the condition of each pollutant for that day.

A small disclaimer notes:

The data on this web site are preliminary and await review and validation by qualified staff. The data may be revised or invalidated after review. Every effort is made to assert the validity and integrity of the real-time data displayed on this web site, but data can be affected by equipment malfunctions, technical difficulties and other unforeseen circumstances.

So check your air quality, but question the data as well.

The website is user-friendly and answers basic questions about their system.

West Oahu Air Quality Monitoring website

From Alana:

From “Hawai’i has a lot to gain from open ocean aquaculture” in today’s Honolulu Advertiser:

Just as we need to be off imported oil, we need to be off imported seafood. This opportunity can be an economic engine for Hawai’i, and hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.Let’s not stand in our own way. There’s  a lot to gain for everyone.

Absolutely.

The amount of seafood that we import is really astounding. It is upsetting, though, that in the wake of a very large aquaculture operation, which would export up to 90% of its ahi products, statements like the above, are used to defend it.

The article, by Jay Fidell of ThinkTech Hawaii, goes on to say that:

There are anti-aquaculture groups who don’t want “greedy” corportations to make a profit and export aquaculture products to outside markets. Those groups don’t acknowledge andvancements in the technology, and regularly diseminate disinformation about the industry. They’ve been pulling out all the stops, apparently bent on wiping out open ocean aquaculture in Hawai’i. Theyre’re completely wrong. Without open ocean aquaculture, Hawai’i would have to depend on foreign unregulated producers and overfished wild stocks. Those options are not nearly as secure or sustainable as the development of homegrown open ocean aquaculture.

I do not think of myself as entirely “anti-aquaculture”, I just think it should be done right. My cause is not to “diseminate disinformation”, it is to let people know that there are serious implications that multiple aquaculture ventures could have on Hawaii’s marine ecosystems. It is also to open peoples eyes to aquaculture in other parts of the world, and to how it has affected those places. This article makes it seem like there is some hidden agenda beneath fighting these giant open ocean aquaculture projects. But really, I have nothing to gain from this. I have neither read nor heard anything pro-open ocean aquaculture, aside from the people who would benefit direcly from it.