The Environmental Blog

Nature Deprivation Can Increase Allergies and Asthma

2012-05-25T11:25:46Z

According to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, lacking a certain amount of contact with our natural environment is one of the reasons more city dwellers develop asthma and outdoor allergies than those who live in more rural areas. The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Helsinki compared samples from 188 participants, all of which lived inFinland. The results of the study showed that those participants that lived in farms or in forested areas had less diverse bacteria on their skin and also had lower sensitivity to allergens found in nature. Scientists say that certain microbiota are found in much higher quantities in rural areas rather than in urban areas. Microbiota are those bacteria that are beneficial to humans in that they help us maintain our immune system.

People who live in cities and urban areas, especially children and the elderly, are not the only people who are developing allergies. In recent years the percentage of children who play sports or play outdoors has been steadily decreasing. So even children who live in suburban areas where there are many green spaces, parks and playgrounds are becoming more susceptible to developing outdoor allergies. And this isn’t just a problem in theU.S. and Finland. A recent report released by the National Trust in Britain stated that only 24% of children in the U.K. play outside.

The University of Helsinki researchers recently told the BBC that the urbanization of many cities and decrease in outdoor activity should be seen as a “lost opportunity for many people to interact with the natural environment and its biodiversity, including the microbial communities.”

Even if children (or adults) who live in urban areas do go outside to play or exercise, the air quality is usually poor and contains many pollutants that can trigger allergies or cause asthma. This is another reason why creating true green spaces and parks with plenty of trees is so important.

Of course, living in more rural areas has many other benefits including less stress and improved quality of life. A few scientific studies have proven the connection between closeness to nature and these two positive effects. One study, published in the Journal of Landscape and Urban Planning found that people who live in areas deprived of green spaces have higher levels of stress. The Inclusive Design for Getting Outdoors found that people living in the UK have a higher quality of life if they have an easy time getting outdoors and experiencing nature.

We must all realize that while we cannot reverse urbanization, it is important to make sure we have access to green spaces. Urban planners need to be putting more emphasis and focus on incorporating more parks, gardens, agriculture and green spaces into urban areas. If you live in an urban area, or even a suburban area, be sure to try to get out to a park with trees and waterways as often as you can. You can also write to your community leaders and advocate for more green spaces and parks in your area.

Photo Credit: Some Rights Reserved by Steve Allen The Environmental Blog

Ecological Footprint and the Earth’s Biocapacity

2012-05-25T11:15:10Z

We are in the middle of an ecological overshoot situation. This is the sobering key finding of the World Wildlife Fund Living Planet Report 2012, released earlier this week.

The Living Planet Report arrived at this conclusion by calculating the discrepancy between human demands on the biosphere (ecological footprint) and the earth’s biocapacity. According to the report the world’s ecological footprint is continuing on a path of over-consumption. Statistics show that in 2008 the earth’s biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha (global hectare) while humanity’s ecological footprint was 18.2 billion gha.

“This discrepancy means that we are in an ecological overshoot situation: it is taking 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources that people are using in a single year. Instead of living off the interest, we are eating into our natural capital.”

-WWF Living Planet Report 2012

GHA – Global Hectare

Both the Ecological Footprint and the earth’s biocapacity are expressed in units of gha or global hectare. 1 gha equals a biologically productive hectare capable of world average productivity. The ecological footprint (demand) is measured against the earth’s biocapacity (supply). In this case, humans’ demands exceed the earth’s biocapacity by over 50% in a year.

Biocapacity

Different countries have different biocapacities, specified by two factors: the bioproductive area available in the country (agricultural land, forests, fishing grounds, etc.) and the bioproductivity per hectare. The latter is dependent on variables like weather, sustainable agricultural practices, health, etc. According to the WWF report, countries with high biocapacity per person tend to have extensive forest areas, like Bolivia and Canada.

Ecological Footprint

However, even countries with low biocapacities can have high ecological footprints, like the UAE (0.6 gha biocapacity per person to 8.4 gha ecological footprint). This is due to export and use of one nation’s biocapacity to supply another nation’s needs. The Living Planet Report defines the components of the ecological footprint as:

Carbon – the amount of forest land needed to sequester carbon emissions (not including the amount absorbed by the ocean and leads to ocean acidification)
Cropland – the amount of productive land needed to grow crops for food, fibre, oil crops, etc.
Forest– the amount of forest needed to supply fuel wood, pulp, and timber
Built-up land – land occupied by manmade infrastructure
Grazing Land – amount of land needed to raise livestock
Fishing Grounds – estimated primary production needed to support caught fish and seafood

How much humans use of these resources and how fast the earth can regenerate them depends not only on one factor (human population, etc.) but on many, and each of them affects the others. Increasing cropland through conversion of forests to agricultural land may sound good, but will cost the loss of forests, biodiversity, and ecosystem services.

Many have and will surely challenge the WWF’s finding that we are in the middle of, and are pushing the earth to, an ecological overshoot situation. But is not that hard to see that our natural resources are finite and can only meet our needs for so long. As with most life issues, striking a balance between the two (reasonable demand and sustainable supply) is imperative.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Institut Escola Les Vinyes on Flickr.

Shell’s Half-Truths

2012-05-25T15:40:54Z

Shell regularly launches press releases on sabotage and oil theft from the pipelines in Nigeria. One example is the news report dispatched to the world by a Shell Nigeria representative on 7 May of this year: ‘Two new leaks were reported on the Trans Niger pipeline at Akpajo and K-Dere in Ogoniland, after a similar number of leaks caused by hacksaw cuts were repaired at the weekend.’

The suggestion is obvious: Shell is doing its very best to combat oil leaks and the resulting environmental pollution, but time after time their efforts are thwarted by local people.

Shell understands very well that public sympathy very quickly goes out to the innocent victim. So they are trying to reverse the roles: it’s not the Nigerian people who have been forced to live amidst millions of litres of oil leaked from Shell’s pipelines that are suffering, but the Western multinational operating according to high business principles but whose efforts are constantly being sabotaged.

Just as dictators, demagogues and other tyrants, Shell knows better than anyone that the best propaganda is not based on pure falsehood, but on effectively mixing facts with lies.

It is not untrue that pipelines are sabotaged in Nigeria and that oil is illegally tapped. No one denies this. But what is untrue is Shell’s suggestion that reliable statistics exist which prove that the rate of sabotage and theft is over 90 percent. In Nigeria, official figures exist only on oil export, not on oil production. That makes it very easy to falsify figures on theft and sabotage. But you will never read that in one of Shell’s press releases.

Also untrue is Shell’s suggestion that the company is in no way to blame for the oil theft. The company still leaves poorly guarded and insufficiently maintained oil pipelines crossing through Ogoniland, a part of the Niger Delta where Shell hasn’t drilled for oil for years because the situation there is considered unsafe for its own personnel.

Shell has created the largest oil disaster in history in Nigeria. The company knows that it will cost tens of billions of euros to repair the damage to nature, agriculture and fisheries, and to compensate the local population for the losses suffered.

Shell is trying to evade paying this bill by continually telling the world ‘it’s not our fault’. According to Nigerian law, in the case of sabotage a company is not required to pay compensation to those affected. Shell’s systematic strategy of denial – intended to keep the profits rolling in – is thus not just a harmless lie. It means that the victims of the oil disaster are condemned to live in poverty, amidst oil that severely pollutes their air, water and food supply.

Sometimes the truth comes out so clearly that even Shell can no longer ignore it. Acknowledging that the company is at fault is then swept under the carpet where no one is likely to notice it. In its Sustainability Report, for instance, Shell recently acknowledged that in 2011 the number of ‘operational spills’ (oil leaks caused by its own error) in Nigeria rose from 32 to 64. It should by now be obvious that Shell has not sent out a press release reporting these leaks.

In August 2011, after years of struggling and under pressure of a legal case, Shell admitted responsibility for a large oil leak near the town of Bodo. Filled with hope, the residents set off to Shell for compensation negotiations. But that soon ended in deception. It turned out that Shell was only willing to acknowledge a small portion of the pollution. According to a recent report commissioned by Amnesty International, the actual pollution is 60 times more than what Shell is willing to pay for.

This is another one of Shell’s clever propaganda tricks: admit a small amount, so that media attention fades away, and then slowly but surely exhaust the victims in backroom battles using endless delaying tactics, which the company can keep up for far longer than a handful of poor African farmers.

Noam Chomsky once said: ‘In war, truth is the first casualty.’ This is also true of the ecological war Shell is waging in Nigeria. It is therefore our task to continue to confront companies such as Shell with the naked truth and to ruthlessly unmask their lies.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Adam Freidin via Flickr.

Author: Geert Ritsema
Campaign coordinator, Milieudefensie – Friends of the Earth Netherlands

Milieudefensie’s latest campaign is called ‘Worse than bad’. Our intention is to get Shell to clean up the oil in the Niger Delta, to compensate residents, and to properly maintain pipelines and installations in order to prevent new leaks. Join us at: www.worsethanbad.org

America’s Most Endangered River’s List Sounds the Alarm

2012-05-23T21:22:00Z

Water is an element that sustains all life here on this planet. We need water to support our very existence much like the air we breathe. The unnerving truth is that our streams, rivers, and watersheds that intertwine through mountains and valleys all over the nation have been compromised and are in a near state of crisis. A Grassroots organization just released their 27^th annual report on Tuesday called “America’s Most Endangered Rivers Report.” They have sounded the alarm to wake up every citizen and policy maker and reveal the true state of on the water quality in this country.

After the American Revolution, we have seen a host of unnatural invasions threaten our water supplies. The once bountiful and thriving rivers of America are now experiencing the damage from increased fracking, new dam construction, mountain top removal mining for coal, urban runoff, and over-depletion of our water supply.

At the top of the Endangered Rivers list is the Potomac River. It spans through our nation’s capital, across Virgina, Maryland and Pennsylvania. It is considered to be the “nation’s river” that supplies drinking water to nearly 5 million people. The Potomac River starts as a network of headwater streams in Virginia, flows almost 400 miles through farmscaped lands to the metropolitan of D.C., and then connects into the Chesapeake Bay.

At one time, this river was in much more despair than it is today. It was deteriorated from agricultural and urban sewage, which ultimately led to a bad case of eutrophication. President Lyndon Johnson even declared the river a “national disgrace.” His remark served as a catalyst for the commencement of the Clean Water Act in 1972 that worked on restoring the beauty and ecology of the historic Potomac River and others alike.

Today, although in better condition than years past, it is still heavily polluted and will only get worse if Congress insists on removing key provisions from the Clean Water Act. The Potomac River is hanging on by a thread as pharmaceuticals, chemical, and bacteria-infested water drains off streets and sidewalks and into the veins of America’s fresh water.

Outside magazine discussed some of the bills presented to Congress that would undermine the sanctity of the Clean Water Act and could turn rivers, including the Potomac, into unsafe cesspools that could potentially make people sick and destroy wildlife.

“When members of Congress fill a glass of water or drink their morning coffee, that water comes from the Potomac River. It’s time to draw the clear connections between healthy rivers, drinking water, and public health in Washington, DC, and in communities nationwide,” Bob Irvin, president of American Rivers, said in a prepared statement.

To view the three specific bills that the American River Organization is keeping their eye on visit Outside Magazine for detailed information.

People need to realize that the safety of our water is the foundation of good health and prosperity. If people just sit back and let the government take advantage of the only environmental legislation that is protecting our freshwater, then we may all be in trouble. Take action and do not let them remove our human right to clean drinking water. If you would like your voice to be heard, visit the American Rivers website and sign a petition telling Congress to preserve our waterways.

Great Falls Potomac River in Maryland

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Raoul Pop and a river runs through

Choosing Environmentally Friendly Kitchen Appliances

2012-05-24T16:58:54Z

If you have appliances in your kitchen that are several years old, it might be time to think about replacing them with more energy efficient models. By reducing your energy consumption you reduce your carbon footprint which in turn helps the environment.

Most appliances today come with an Energy Star rating which lets you know if it is less or more efficient than other models. Appliances are rated on a scale of 1 to 100. If your appliance has a rating of 75 or higher, this means better performance and thus lower energy usage. A rating of 50 is average and anything below that means poor efficiency and higher energy consumption.

Your refrigerator is the most energy-consuming appliance in your kitchen. While older models use more electricity, it’s important to avoid buying a new one with extra features that will also use more energy than a model without all the bells and whistles. Avoid buying a refrigerator with an external ice maker or water dispenser. These extras will require more energy to operate.

Kitchen appliances such as gas stoves use less energy than electric ones, such as your stove. If you decide to purchase a gas stove, be sure it’s properly ventilated with a range hood to avoid the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. When warming up leftovers or cooking a small amount of food, use the microwave instead of the oven whenever possible as it requires more energy to heat up the oven than it does to warm or cook food in the microwave.

Energy Star-rated dishwashers are far more efficient than the federal minimum standard and use less water than their counterparts. These dishwashers also do not depend on water to be very hot to efficiently clean your dishes.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Jez Page via Flickr.

Addressing the Issue of Increasing Stormwater Levels

2012-05-24T16:55:01Z

Star Tribune reports of inter-community efforts to address the challenge of increasing stormwater levels brought about by the warmer climate. WET (Weather-Extreme Trends) is a study project coordinated by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and funded in part by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The project aims to examine weaknesses in existing rainfall and land use trends in the area and explore ways to adapt to changing precipitation levels and patterns caused by the warming climate.

A Signature Trend

According to the study project, both climate research and present/projected weather trends indicate a substantial increase in precipitation levels in terms of both frequency and severity. Since the existing infrastructure and control measures were originally built to deal with past climate patterns, it may ultimately prove inadequate to deal with present climate patterns. Mark Seeley, a climatologist from the Universityof Minnesota Extension, stated that annual precipitation in parts of south central and southeastMinnesota went up by an estimated 15 percent. Other parts of the area also documented record levels in annual rainfall in recent years.

Unusual increase in normal rainfall levels is seen as a “signature trend” of warming climate. This is because warm air has a greater capacity for retaining water. Thermal pollution is associated with an increase in stormwater levels especially in urban areas.

Stormwater Challenges: Flooding and Degraded Water Quality

Stormwater presents several challenges to the urban community as well as to the natural environment. According to Land-of-Sky Regional Council’s fact sheet Stormwater Problems and Impacts: Why All the Fuss?, flooding and degraded water quality are the two major concerns. Increased stormwater levels can cause flooding if existing control measures are not enough to adequately handle the volume. Especially in urbanized areas where impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots, asphalt, etc.) have interfered with natural hydrology, this is a serious issue. Natural ground cover allows 25% shallow infiltration, 25% deep infiltration, 40% evapotranspiration, and only 10% runoff. But covering the natural ground with impervious surface by only 10-20% doubles the amount of runoff. A 35-50% impervious surface covering equals 30% runoff, and a 75-100% impervious surface covering results in 55% runoff. Failure to control heavy stormwater runoff results in public and private property damages including sewer line washouts, sediment deposition on roads, bridge damage and others.

The uncontrolled flow of stormwater runoff also degrades water quality due to the pollutants the runoff carries. This may include sediments, fertilizer chemicals, bacteria, grease, oil, trace metals, and even thermal pollution, which can severely harm marine habitats once they reach streams, rivers, and other bodies of water.

A Timely Effort

Addressing the challenges of a warming climate such as increased stormwater levels is a timely effort. System inventory, hydrologic studies, and control measure options need to be integrated in the community stormwater control plan. Preventive measures which focus on civilian behavior and attitude change is an inexpensive and effective way to address the issue at the individual level. Investing on improvement of control measures which focus on structural defenses and practices can also help in preventing heavy losses in the future.

Programs like WET help to bring down the issue of climate change to local communities in an actual, practical level. By involving the local community, people can relate as well as respond to this critical issue by their individual and community efforts.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by OSU Master Gardener via Flickr.

Share this on Facebook

Tweet This!

Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Share this on LinkedIn

Digg this!

Share this on Reddit

Share this on del.icio.us

Email this via Gmail

Blog this on Blogger

Pin this to Pinterest

Link to this post!

Massachusetts Town Strives to Ban Plastic Water Bottles

2012-05-23T06:36:36Z

It all started when 82-year old Concord, Massachusetts resident Jean Hill used photos of the Pacific Gyre to help fellow residents and local/state law makers realize how dangerous and destructive plastic water bottles can actually be. Hill also highlighted the results of a study conducted by the Container Recycling Institute which found that 88% of plastic water bottles do not get recycled, and this is at an astonishing rate of 30 million bottles a day. One reason for this might be that water bottles are not redeemable for recycling like glass bottles and aluminum cans are.

The residents of Concord were definitely affected by Hill’s attempts to capture their attention as they voted in April of 2010 to ban the sale of bottled drinking water from the town. The ban was slated to start in July 2011, but the state’s Attorney General, Martha Coakley rejected the resident-approved proposal in July 2010, three months after the vote.

This did not stop Hill. She joined up with Jill Appel and the two worked to rework the by law to be reviewed by Coakley again. Seven months later Hill told Concord Conserves, a magazine put out by the non-profit organization of the same name, that the bottled water ban is more than just a recycling issue.

“Even if we recycled all bottles, the bottles would still cause harm to the environment in the form of fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.” Hill said. “Bottled water would still be a virtually unregulated, costly and unjust product.”

Hill also urged her fellowConcordresidents, any anyone else who would listen, that we all need to reduce the amount of trash in the world. And to do that we must work to reduce the amount of plastic water bottles that are out there, not recycle them.

The ban was brought up for vote once again April 25, 2012 at a Concord Town Meeting. It was passed by 39 votes. Now the proposal goes back to the Attorney General for approval. If Coakley does approve it, Concordwill become the first community in the country to ban the sale of single-serving polyethylene terephthalate (PET) water bottles in sizes less than 1 liter, or 34 ounces.

While some might take the stand that as American’s we have the freedom to buy bottled water, those in favor of the ban could make the counter argument and ask if that means we also have the freedom to continue destroying the planet. Supporters of the ban say the reasons bottled water should be banned include:

The production and consumption of bottled water leads to water shortages

Plastic water bottle accumulation contributes to climate change

Our landfills cannot support the current amount of plastic water bottles

Of course, the Concord water ban has the $10 billion bottled water industry worried that other towns will hear about what is going on in Concord and want to do the same in their towns. Even before talk of the Concord ban began, more than 100 towns across the U.S. had already prohibited the spending of city dollars on the product as a way to help reduce the amount of plastic in landfills and waterways as well as reduce greenhouse gases.

Photo Credit: Some Rights Reserved by lizabatty via Flickr.

Share this on Facebook

Tweet This!

Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Share this on LinkedIn

Digg this!

Share this on Reddit

Share this on del.icio.us

Email this via Gmail

Blog this on Blogger

Pin this to Pinterest

Link to this post!

Protecting Ecological Chains

2012-05-23T05:19:15Z

The news of the discovery of one of the longest ecological interaction chains ever, broke headlines last week. The study, published in Scientific Reports, documented how replacement of native palms by non-native ones produced a “cascade” of effects on the land-sea ecological interaction chain that impacted seabirds, fertilization, plankton population, and manta rays.

Stanford graduate students Douglas McCauley and Paul DeSalles were studying manta rays in Palmyra Atoll in the Pacific alongside with other researchers conducting their own studies. This included graduate student Hillary Young who was studying palm trees’ growth and its effect on bird communities and habitats at the time.

Conversation and exchange of theories after the days’ work among the researchers gradually connected the dots of what was happening in the ecological interaction chain. The researchers used several methods including animal tracking and field surveys to study the situation, and found out that the replacement of native island palms by non-native palms caused a decrease in the number of roosting seabirds (about five times fewer). This is thought to occur due to the birds’ preference of the native palms for its more stable canopies. The decrease in the population of visiting seabirds meant less nutrient-rich bird droppings to fertilize the soil and water below. The local plankton population in the area consequently had fewer nutrients to feed on, and their size and numbers grew smaller. The result was fewer manta rays visited the coastlines of the atoll.

Researchers say that such alterations in ecological interaction chains seldom leave traces behind, making their loss unnoticeable. Yet understanding how vulnerable ecological interactions are to human disruptions is crucial to their protection.

The recent study The Conservation of Ecological Interactions discusses the importance of ecological interactions both to the health of the environment and to humans (for the ecosystem service they provide). According to the study, conservation research has a tendency to focus on particular species as the unit of study, instead on entire ecological chains. Studying the effects of habitat destruction tends to revolve around a specific species or a particular assemblage of species.

Yet all organisms are connected in various and important ways, and the loss of one [species] in the ecological chain affects its entirety – in some cases leading to a series of secondary extinctions down the ecological network.

Restoration of an ecological interaction chain is also not that easy. Different factors complicate the process, one example of which is the phenomenon of “community closure.” In community closure the ecological interaction chain changes after the loss of a species, and the locally extinct species cannot reinstate itself after being re-introduced into the interaction chain.

Herein lies the danger of disrupting ecological interaction chains. Often, because the change is so subtle, the effects of the disruption are so unnoticeable that the ecological chain seems unaffected. But something will have undoubtedly changed. As McCauley puts it in an interview in Science Daily,

“What we are doing in some ecosystems is akin to popping the hood on a car and disconnecting a few wires and rerouting a few hoses. All the parts are still there — the engine looks largely the same — but it’s anyone’s guess as to how or if the car will run.”

According to the study The Conservation of Ecological Interactions, ecological interactions are the “currency” of ecosystem services that humans enjoy. Protecting these important interaction chains from human disruptions not only safeguards the health of the environment, but also avoids forfeiting the benefits of its ecosystem services.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by smbuckley23 on Flickr.

Share this on Facebook

Tweet This!

Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Share this on LinkedIn

Digg this!

Share this on Reddit

Share this on del.icio.us

Email this via Gmail

Blog this on Blogger

Pin this to Pinterest

Link to this post!

363,000 acres now protected in North Maine Forest

2012-05-23T04:27:54Z

One of the largest conservation easements in the history of the United States was announced this week. A deal was negotiated between the Nature Conservancy, Plum Creek, and the Forest Society of Maine to conserve 363,000 acres of forestland in the moosehead region of Maine. This would be one of the most extensive protected functional forests in the country. According to the parties involved, it was the last piece of the puzzle to complete an impressive 2 million acre swatch of protected land in Greenville Maine.

An important part of the easement was that it plans to continue to make the forests and lakes accessible to the public by providing recreational areas for things like hunting, fishing, boating, wildlife watching and snowmobiling. All of these activities will be done in designated areas and must fall within the guidelines of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. The hope is that this could help the local economy in the town of Greenville and kick-start a recovery from the recession.
This new conservation deal will protect dozens of rare and endangered plant species, wildlife and fish that dwell in Maine’s Forests as well as 200 miles of lakefront and 69 lakes and ponds.

“Today’s celebration is truly about how conservation, business, government and community interests can work together to achieve remarkable things,” said Alan Hutchinson, executive director of the Forest Society of Maine.

A perfect mix of economic, ecological and recreational culture has been agreed upon for the State of Maine and its rich biodiverse forestland. The 2 million acre range of land spans all the way from St. John Valley to Baxter State Park and Moosehead Lake, which is roughly the size of Yellowstone National Park.

This merger of ideas will protect untouched and pristine headwater streams and untainted forest regions in North Maine advocating support for the local economy all while wildlife remain undisturbed like Moose, Marten, Fisher, and Canada Lynx. The near 400,000 acres will be managed and protected as an ecological reserve. Other accomplishments within the Moose River Project aside from the easement are:

The Moose River Reserve- This particular section runs 15,000 acres that will be managed by The Nature Conservancy. It holds one of the biggest most diverse and untouched peat lands in the Eastern U.S. In addition, the infamous Moose River Bow Trip is known as one of the best scenic and remote paddling circuits in the state.

The Roach Ponds Parcel- This land is 29,000 acres of picturesque forest containing a vital headwater stream to Kennebec, Penobscot and Pleasant Rivers. It inhabits 10 remote ponds and rivers and is interconnected with a 100-mile stretch along the Appalachian Trail. The Appalachian Mountain Club will purchase this parcel to protect special ecological areas and provide access for year-round recreation and sustainable forestry.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Dana Moss on flickr

Share this on Facebook

Tweet This!

Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Share this on LinkedIn

Digg this!

Share this on Reddit

Share this on del.icio.us

Email this via Gmail

Blog this on Blogger

Pin this to Pinterest

Link to this post!

Tree Warden to be Buried in “Herbie” Tree Casket

2012-05-22T07:11:48Z

Huffington Post Green reports that 103-year-old Frank Knight, Herbie’s famous Tree Warden, died this Monday.

Knight was known as Yarmouth’s Tree Warden who fought to save Herbie, the 217-year-old American elm tree and the tallest in New England, from Dutch elm disease for 50 years. Because of Knight’s and other volunteers’ efforts, the historic tree reportedly survived 14 rounds of the disease while hundreds of other elm trees in New England died one after another. Herbie stood as a majestic street tree in Yarmouth, New England for decades and became well-loved by local residents. But two years ago Herbie was felled after finally succumbing to the disease. Frank Knight was among the crowd that gathered to witness the cutting down of the beloved elm tree. The then 101-year-old Knight said that he accepted it was time to let his “old friend” go, and prophetically stated “It’s his time now, and soon it will be mine.”

Herbie was cut down both for safety reasons and to prevent the disease from spreading in the area. The elm tree was 110 feet tall, it’s trunk 23 feet in circumference and it’s canopy’s spread 120 feet wide. It took five hours to cut the tree down after it grew for over 200 years at the corner of Yankee Drive and East Main Street. The town’s current tree warden, Debra Hopkins, made arrangements for Herbie’s wood to be used by local woodworkers. Project Herbie was created to make useful wood products and memorabilia from Herbie’s wood. Hundreds of wooden bookmarks, cutting boards, and medallions were made and sold to the public. As of May 15, 2012, The Herbie Project ‘s site still sells ornaments, bottle stoppers, baseball bats, and other products. A Tree Trust was also created in memory of Herbie’s legacy and focuses on planting disease-resistant street trees.

But the biggest twist in Herbie’s story is that a casket was made from its wood for its special friend and guardian Frank Knight. The project was kept secret from Knight and made at his family’s request. Hopkins observes in an interview that Herbie will be able to take care of Knight now as Knight had taken care of Herbie for the past 50 years. The arrangement to have Knight’s remains buried in the special wooden casket is not only natural and eco-friendly but seemed a fitting end to their story, a lasting memorial to their special connection.

Because of his dedication in protecting Herbie, generations of people have enjoyed the majestic tree’s beauty, shade, and protection. Indeed, residents who have lived for decades near Herbie now anticipate hotter days, more noise from the highway and loss of friendly wildlife neighbors because of the tree’s absence.

Frank Knight may not have been able to do something remarkable in a larger scale like saving entire forests or fixing the global climate, but it doesn’t mean his life had no significant impact. His dedication to saving and guarding just this one tree is an inspiration to everyone who cares about the environment. Like the story of the boy and the stranded starfish, Frank Knight’s legacy proves that no single act is ever wasted. Every little effort to do our part in caring for the environment counts.

Photo Credit: Some rights reserved by Liralina on Flickr.

Share this on Facebook

Tweet This!

Stumble upon something good? Share it on StumbleUpon

Share this on LinkedIn

Digg this!

Share this on Reddit

Share this on del.icio.us

Email this via Gmail

Blog this on Blogger

Pin this to Pinterest

Link to this post!