SLIDES: Paying the Price for Power: When L.A. Turns on the Lights, Northwestern New Mexico Feels It

Presenter: Jonathan Thompson, Editor, High Country News 23 slide

SLIDES: Paying the Price for Power: When L.A. Turns on the Lights, Northwestern New Mexico Feels It

Presenter: Jonathan Thompson, Editor, High Country News 23 slide

Comparative Reproductive Ecology Of Female Buffleheads (bucephala Albeola) And Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes (bucephala Islandica) In Central British Columbia

Waterfowl (Anseriformes) generally have high energetic costs for reproduction because they lay large, energy-rich eggs. Consequently, many temperate nesting ducks (Anatinae) occupy seasonally productive environments to meet nutritional requirements for egg production. However, ducks in the genus Bucephala often breed in unproductive boreal and montane regions. This study was conducted to investigate nutritional aspects of reproduction in female Buffleheads (Bucephala albeola) and Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica) breeding in central British Columbia.;Diet composition of breeding female Buffleheads and Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes, which consisted primarily of benthic insects, was similar, providing support for the food defense hypothesis as an explanation for evolution of fixed space territorially in the genus Bucephala.;Mean egg laying interval ({dollar}\pm{dollar}SE) for Buffleheads was 48.36 {dollar}\pm{dollar} 2.35 hr. which was similar to that of Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes that laid, on average, every 45.32 {dollar}\pm{dollar} 1.40 hr. As a consequence of slower rates of egg production, daily energetic costs of reproduction in female Buffleheads and Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes, evaluated relative to their basal metabolic requirements, are among the lowest documented for ducks.;Patterns of lipogenesis differed between female Buffleheads and Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes, but both species catabolized somatic fat for egg production. Buffleheads maintained stable body protein during reproduction, and thus relied exclusively on dietary protein for clutch formation, whereas Goldeneyes catabolized small amounts of somatic protein to produce egg protein in 1993. Use of body protein by a primarily carnivorous duck suggests that protein availability, i.e. invertebrate abundance, in breeding habitats used by Goldeneyes was periodically deficient. Somatic mineral supplied approximately 8% of clutch minerals in Buffleheads and 3% of clutch minerals in Goldeneyes during the 1993 breeding season, but neither species used endogenous minerals for eggshell production in 1994.;Size of lipid and protein reserves did not limit clutch size in either Buffleheads or Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes. Furthermore, clutch size was negatively related to somatic mineral mass in Buffleheads, but positively related to clutch size in Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes. Thus, from a nutritional perspective, only mineral availability limited clutch size in Barrow\u27s Goldeneyes, whereas relatively low rates of somatic tissue catabolism suggested that nutrient availability may not constrain clutch size in Buffleheads

Procedural Environmental Justice

Achieving environmental justice—that is, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies—requires providing impacted communities not just the formal right, but the substantive ability, to participate as equal partners at every level of environmental decision-making. While established administrative policy purports to provide all people with so-called “meaningful involvement” in the regulatory process, the public participation process often excludes marginalized community members from exerting meaningful influence on decision-making. Especially in the environmental arena, regulatory decisions are often buried among engineering analyses or modeling assumptions.This Article theorizes and calls for an empowered participatory process—one that provides environmental justice communities (those that are disproportionately exposed to pollution) with the consultation and technical expertise needed to bolster the authority of their lived experiences in order to substantively influence regulatory outcomes. While scholars and advocates have rightly foregrounded certain disparities in regulatory outcomes (for example, decisions about where facilities should be located and where enforcement resources are invested), far less attention is paid to the decision-making process that governs what pollution controls can, should, or must be installed. Yet these decisions legalize “acceptable” levels of pollution that a community must bear and sanction those levels for a generation to come. Environmental justice communities can—if properly supported—push back against inadequate or cursory approvals of what controls are implemented to reduce or avoid pollution. They can even press for better or alternative controls, buttressing recommendations with technical advocacy. Ultimately, this support can help improve administrative decision-making (by offering a capacity-based approach to assessing procedural justice) and reinforces a central tenet of the environmental justice movement—that communities be empowered to speak for themselves

Procedural Environmental Justice

Achieving environmental justice—that is, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies—requires providing impacted communities not just the formal right, but the substantive ability, to participate as equal partners at every level of environmental decision-making. While established administrative policy purports to provide all people with so-called meaningful involvement in the regulatory process, the public participation process often excludes marginalized community members from exerting meaningful influence on decision- making. Especially in the environmental arena, regulatory decisions are often buried among engineering analyses or modeling assumptions. This Article theorizes and calls for an empowered participatory process—one that provides environmental justice communities (those that are disproportionately exposed to pollution) with the consultation and technical expertise needed to bolster the authority of their lived experiences in order to substantively influence regulatory outcomes. While scholars and advocates have rightly foregrounded certain disparities in regulatory outcomes (for example, decisions about where facilities should be located and where enforcement resources are invested), far less attention is paid to the decision-making process that governs what pollution controls can, should, or must be installed. Yet these decisions legalize acceptable levels of pollution that a community must bear and sanction those levels for a generation to come. Environmental justice communities can—if properly supported—push back against inadequate or cursory approvals of what controls are implemented to reduce or avoid pollution. They can even press for better or alternative controls, buttressing recommendations with technical advocacy. Ultimately, this support can help improve administrative decision-making and reinforces a central tenet of the environmental justice movement—that communities be empowered to speak for themselves