Ted Auch

How bout them apples!

I love it when 1+1 = 3

This figure comes from the truly noble work of Charles Duhigg at The Times. He has been grinding away at the data and the latest piece in this series “Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A.” can be found here http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters along with the articles in the series. I wonder what the math will add up to given the recent Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. This whole mess centers on the use or deletion of the word ‘navigable’ when referring to those bodies of water that are or are not under the EPA’s purview. Anyway what we are seeing here is a full-frontal assault on all laws pertaining to common decency with respect to “natural resources”. When the rivers turn red we will have no one to blame but ourselves, because the solutions are out there and the data is sound, but the will is quiescent.

That is what California should do in putting forth their latest effort to curb their CO2 footprint (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/science/earth/13emissions.html?ref=todayspaper).

I commend California for taking an important and bold step to curb their CO2 footprint. However, it is worth noting their proposal is a duplicate of Washington Senator Maria Cantwell’s CLEAR Act (The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s renewal). CLEAR would bill would cut national GHG emissions 20% and 83% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 2050, respectively. Seventy-five percent of refunds would be returned to the taxpayer and 25% to green energy technologies and infrastructure. The refunds would amount to $1,100 annually for a family of four according to Senator Cantwell’s calculations. We could make more money off emissions if we assumed a higher range, which Senator Cantwell’s office set at $7-21 per ton of C02 in 2012, with annual floor and ceiling increases of 5.5 an 6.5%, respectively. This seems like an idea that even those that don’t believe in climate change could support given the non-trivial contribution to their bottomline and those of us on the left will accept is an acceptable, albeit not ideal, first iteration.

In reading the latest global census data one thing popped in my head: Is it possible that per capita global CO2 footprints may decline in the coming year(s)?

The answer is essentially yes and we have countries like Japan and Russia to thank. For example, Russia’s population of 140.7 million is projected to decline by 0.49% annually and when considering The Reds 10.5 tons of CO2 per capita per year it turns out Russian per capita emissions could potentially decline by 7.28 Million Metric Tons in the next year.

Additionally, Japan is expected to lose 0.10% of it’s 127.3 million people (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/business/economy/18charts.html?ref=todayspaper), which when combined with their per capita footprint of 9.8 tons of CO2 per year we see a potential net decline of 1.25 MMT annually. Furthermore, the eastern european/former Soviet Union states will experience an average net population decline of 0.68% annually resulting in a decline of 790 thousand tons of CO2 from this region in the next year. Russia’s near-abroad neighbor will lessen it’s footprint by 2.57 MMT in the next year given it’s annual population decline of 0.80%

Is this fact? Of course not but it is quite probable, because Russians and Japanese, two significant contributors to atmospheric CO2, are getting older fast and in the case of the latter incapable of staying away from their beloved national spirit. Conversely, our footprint here in the US will increase by 55.83 MMT, Canada and Mexico 5.31 each,  Argentina 1.60, Brazil, 4.24, Venezuela 2.60,  France and the UK 1.65-1.90. Interestingly BBC (Big Bad China) will increase by 32.12 MMT. However, the overwhelming good news is that our global per capita Co2 emissions will increase marginally (+0.023%) in the next year, a trend indeed deserving of attention but not plaudits. The estimates above for China may actually be conservative given that they have gone from producing 1 coal fired power plant a day to 1 per week, which itself is a 14.3% change in energy strategy. Couple this with the fact that China had originally planned to have only 5,000 megawatts (MW) of wind online by the end of next year, but now project 30,000 MW, which essentially replaces the need for forty-eight 625 MW coal plants. This 30,000 figure is 118% of the current US wind power generating fleet (25,400 MW) (reliability_factsheet1).

The cumulative affects of the aforementioned population declines will be a decrease of 12.25 MMT in Russia, Japan, and the Eastern European block. This is equivalent to 48.3% and 21.2% of Canadian and Australian emissions, respectively, or put another way would cancel the annual emissions from the state of Vermont and our nation’s capital combined. Not bad but again just a start. Now get out there and buy some vodka to wash down your nightly serving of sushi! The planet thanks you and your children will thank you as well!

Dairy farmers are in real trouble and it isn’t the kind associated with stepping in a present left by the resident ruminants. No they will be facing serious decisions in the coming months and years, with many here in Vermont (32 since December 1 2008) already having decided to abandon business they have invested decades in. I am specifically speaking of organic dairy producers who have seen demand for their product climb from approximately 75 million pds. in 2006 to a high of 150 during the later stages of 2008 followed by a precipitous drop this year to 125 million pds. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/us/29dairy.html?em) Sales growth has slowed from 20% last November to near zero presently, although projections range from 6 to 12.7%. Many organic farmers owe upwards of half a million dollars from conversion to organic.

Yet, the pain is not exclusive to organic farmers what with the extremely volatile (And getting more so! (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/business/02dairy.html?sq=dairy%20california&st=cse&scp=10&pagewanted=all)) price of milk declining from a high historical high of $19.13 per cwt in 2007 to $12.06 (-36%) presently. Couple this with a steady (1952-2004) and at times marked (1945-1950) aggregate inclination to move away from milk consumption here in the US. While it is true that some of this market decline has been nullified by the doubling of dairy consumption in developing countries and China from 33 in 2002 to 63 pds per year in 2007. Although as with CO2 they pale in comparison to our 580 pound annual habit. Yet, I would ask the Chinese already own a large portion of our debt do we really want them to control our farmers as well?

SO, is it all doom and gloom you may ask? Well the answer in my humble opinion is not so fast my friend! We have only to look inward at Green Mountain Dairy Farm in Sheldon, VT. where the Rowell brothers are getting the most out of their beloved bovines (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/business/businessspecial2/24farmers.html?scp=1&sq=methane%20vermont%20cow%20farm&st=cse). If we use their calculations and assume that 0.25 Kilowatt Hour (kWh) can be generated per dairy cow and we assume there are approximately 141,000 head in Vermont (1,498,100 in th Northeast) we would could potentially generate 35,250 kWh per day (374,525 in the Northeast) of electricty from our friendly ruminates here in Vermont. This translates to about 1,286.7 MW annually, which would provide electricity to 10% of Vermont housing units (311,434) or 12% of all households (240,634) (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html; vermont-area-sheet-us-census-2005), which no matter how you slice it is not a trivial piece of the pie (Pardon the pun!). Assuming the average price of a kWh in VT is 12.5 cents (12.1 cents in NE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/electricity/electricity.html)) and a 5-6 cent premium (ie 17.5-18.5 cents) we are talking about a net income of about $2,187,263, however, if scaling up of this type of effort increases efficiency by lets say 0.15 kWh revenue increases to $3,499,620.

Better yet if we use this process as a Heat Generating mechanism, which has been proven markedly more efficient for biomass relative to fuel or electricity the numbers inflate substantially with 27-35% of homes heated, 3,602.5 MW annually and $6,124,335 in revenue.

Yet, there is more and it involves looking to France a country and mindset that in many ways mirros ours here in Vermont. Folks in southeast France ever wary of financial institutions (Yeah those!) have taken to investing in Holsteins, which bring 4-5% returns annually, while basic French banks tend to offer 0.75 interest rates (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/world/europe/12cows.html?scp=4&sq=france%20cow&st=cse). Yeah I know this is much less than our banks, but the fact is that investing in a neighbor’s struggling dairy or beef operation would I presume give one far more satisfaction. Currently interest rates fluctuate between 1.6 for CDs and 8.8% for home equity. According to Pierre Marguerit managing director of a cattle investment firm in France “People have saved money and don’t want to waste it. Stocks have fallen a lot, and people see it. We need somewhere to put our money for a long-term investment, something more stable. At this difficult time, it’s a much better investment than real estate and much more tangible than the stock market. This is part of the patrimony.”

However, unlike traditional Wall Street related investments the folks in France are finding volatility indices are far lower for cows relative to the latter’s “Masters of the Universe”. The data out of France suggests that such relationships free upwards of 17% of capital for investments and improvement, which in many instances were relegated to the back burner in perpetude.

The fact is that our friends and neighbors in the dairy industry here in Vermont and throughout the country need our help now and I don’t believe they have ever attempted the types of legerdemain the suits in NY, London, and Hong Kong conjured up. They deserve our respect and support during these tough times, because unlike the auto industry they can’t stop feeding and milking their cows. There is huge potential in them there cow patties and it is time to harvest it. Lets show the country and the world the softer side of capitalism!

Yellow Birch was first described in 1803 by the French botanist André Michaux. It is a third of the maple-beech-birch troika – the northern extent of the mixed mesophytic Appalachian and Allegheny forests – characterizing New England and northern Great Lakes. Its northern limit is 48-49N covering 9% (≈74 M ha) of eastern US forests and 183 M ha of Canada.

Great Lakes Colonization initiated during the late Holocene period (4,000 YBP) peaking 3,500-2,000 YBP. In the presence of hemlock both sugar maple and yellow birch are subordinate across their range. Yellow birch and sugar maple exert a strong influence on plant biodiversity, with equitable mixes of the two yielding the greatest diversity across a range of site conditions. The largest yellow birch communities are in southern Québec & Ontario, New Brunswick, upper Michigan, and New York. It is the official provincial tree of Québec where it is commonly referred to as merisier or wild cherry in French. Québec also contains 50% of the species total volume. Preferred climates include winter and summer temperatures of -40°C and 28°C, precipitation of 1,240-1,300 mm yr-1 with half as snowfall, and growing seasons of 60-150 days. Yellow birch occurs between 550-800 m in New England relative to sugar maple and beech with respective peaks of 600-650 and < 600 m, with optimum growth at 671, 549, and 549 m.

Yellow birch bark has few peers what with its shiny golden brown sheen and quite shaggy at maturity texture. The bark is quite resistant to decay so when you encounter what looks like a recently downed stem in the woods don’t be surprised if it is hollow or encasing well-decomposed material indiscernible from the forest floor upon which it lies. Conversely, leaf litter decay tends to be greatest for yellow birch, with sugar maple intermediate and beech the slowest of the forest type. Yellow birch seeds prolifically, maintaining a consistent albeit moderate seed and seedling bank in the forest floor preferring northeasterly, nutrient-deprived, mesic or moist, acid (pH < 6.3) soils of the Precambrian shield and the Spodosol or Alfisol order. Unlike its cohorts yellow birch thrives in swampy sites, along streams, rivers, on and around rock outcrops, and gentle to moderate upland slopes. Primary (>20 mm diameter) and secondary (10-20 mm) roots tend to aggregate along contours and the tree’s uphill side when growing on slopes with slight downhill sweeps. When exposed coarse roots resemble giant snakes and readily graft within- and between-trees.

Reproduction is via wind-disseminated seed and catkin bracts with sexual maturity at 35-40 years and heights of 14 m, although old-growth exceed 300 years. In New Hampshire the following dependence on advanced regeneration was described: beech > mountain maple > sugar maple and striped maple > ash and yellow birch.

Seedling success is most likely on mossy logs, advanced decay coarse woody debris (CWD) and stumps, cracks in boulders, and windthrown hummocks, because leaf litter accrual is detrimental to its survival. Specifically although anecdotally yellow birch appears to prefer red spruce logs and stumps. This pattern of stump and CWD germination along with characteristic ‘heart root’ architecture leads to unique and quite remarkable stilt roots.

These are dramatic appendages resulting from the complete decomposition of organic substrates or root expansion in and around shallow parent material. When scratched the bark of yellow birch bark yields a pleasant wintergreen smell similar to its cousin to the south sweet birch. When in the same forest seedlings/saplings of these two prove difficult for even the most skilled dendrologist to discern.

Some of the most beautiful yellow birch specimens are at the northern temperate-boreal forest ecotone’s upper boundary on Mt. Mansfield, where the characteristic bark mentioned above gives way to what can best be described as a corrugated cardboard aesthetic and feel. I have also found some amazing examples of the stilt root phenomenon along the Forest City trail ascending Camels Hump, with these trees quite photogenic. They remind one of the all knowing sylvan oracles described in children’s books. While infrequent these “Oligarchs of the Woods” strike quite the pose surrounded by gnarly beech and occasional red spruce. When beech, sugar maple, yellow birch, and white ash establish concomitantly, the latter three outgrow beech within ten years and are more prolific within two decades. The balsam fir-yellow birch grouping of eastern Québec and northern or high elevation Vermont is classified as a climax forest. Interestingly clearcutting has been blamed for the demise of yellow birch and balsam fir throughout much eastern Canada. Noticeably large, charcoal colored, perennial, and hoof-shaped conks of Fomes fomentarius, the tinder fungus, are common on birch. The fungus also has been associated with decay in living and dead branches of dieback birches. According to Erdmann

“A decline of yellow birch and paper birch trees, called birch dieback, caused widespread mortality between 1932 and 1955 in eastern Canada and northeast United States. It affected yellow birches of all sizes, even in undisturbed virgin stands.”

Yellow birch is a primary food source for yellow-bellied sapsucker, redpolls, ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, porcupines, moose, and deer. Moose and deer prefer seedlings in the summer and green leaves and woody stems in the fall, preferring succulent materials, with persistent localized herbivory a cause of significant decline. Birds tend prefer to feed on catkins, seeds, and buds.

In Vermont yellow birch readily colonizes abandoned skid trails and areas of significant canopy removal confirming yellow birch’s proclivity for soil or canopy perturbation. The bark contains betulinic acid, which hinders decay and is used to treat melanoma. Woodworkers speak of its utility for veneers, tools, snowshoe frames, and sledges and as the most valuable of the North American birches. Scattered Vermont landscapers have recently incorporated yellow birch in native plantings and last time I checked Cobble Creek Nursery in Bristol was working to propagate from seed Yellow Birch.

For more complete silvics of yellow birch and North American trees writ large the reader is referred to Burns and Honkala 1990

References

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. The Blakiston Co., Philadelphia. 594 pp.
Dhamala, B.R., and M.J. Mitchell. 1996. Soil Disturbance and Elemental Dynamics in a Northern Hardwood Forest Soil, USA. Water Air Soil Poll. 88(3/4):343353.
Erdmann, G.G. 1990. Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton). In Burns, R.M., and B. H. Honkala (eds.) Silvics of North America: 2. Hardwoods. Agriculture Handbook 654. U.S. Dept. Agr. For. Serv. Washington, DC. vol.2, 877 p.
Fayle, D.C.F. 1965. Rooting Habit of Sugar Maple and Yellow Birch. Can. Dept. Forest Publ. No. 1120.
Gaucher, C., Gougeon, S., Mauffette, Y, and C. Messier. 2005. Seasonal variation in biomass and carbohydrate partitioning of understory sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis) seedlings. Tree Phys. 25:93-100.
Habiyaremye, I., Stevanovic-Janezic, T., Riedl, B., Garneau, F-X., and F-I. Jean. 2002. Pentacyclic Triterpene Constituents of Yellow Birch Bark From Quebec. J. Wood Chem. Tech. 22(2 & 3):83-91.
Hannah, P.R. 1999. Species Composition and Dynamics in Two Hardwood Stands in Vermont: A Disturbance History. For. Eco. Mgmt. 120:105-116.
Hannah, P.R. 1972. Yellow Birch Root Occupancy Related to Stump and Breast Height Diameters. Vt. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 669. 9 p.
Houle, G. 1992. The Reproductive Ecology of Abies balsamea, Acer saccharum, and Betula alleghaniensis in the Tantaré Ecological Reserve, Québec. J. Eco. 80(4):611-623.
Hoyle, M.C. 1970. Growth and Nutrition of Yellow Birch as Affected by the Nutrient Status of a Podzol Soil. No. Am. For. Soils Conf. Forest-Soil Relat. No. Am. Pap. 1968 pp. 221-233.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Response of Yellow Birch in Acid Subsoil to Macronutrient Additions. Soil Sci. 108(5):354-357.
Hoyle, M.C. 1969. Variation in Content of Microelements in Yellow Birch Foliage Due to Season and Soil Drainage. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 33(3):458-459.
Hoyle, M.C. 1965. Variation in Foliage Composition and Diameter Growth of Yellow Birch with Season, Soil, and Tree Size. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29:475-480.
Hoyle, M.C., and J.C. Bjorkbom. 1969. Birch Nutrition. In Proceedings, Birch Symposium. p. 95-101. USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, P
Jackson, S.T., and R.K. Booth. 2002. The Role of Late Holocene Climate Variability in the Expansion of Yellow Birch in the Western Great Lakes Region. Divers. Distrib. 8(5):275-284.
Linteau, A. 1948. Factors Affecting Germination and Early Survival of Yellow Birch (Betula lutea Michx.) in Quebec. For. Chron. 24:27-86.
Logan, K.T. 1965. Growth of Tree Seedlings as Affected by Light Density. I. White Birch, Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple and Silver Maple. Dept. For. Can. Pub. No. 1121.
Oosting, H.J. 1956. The Study of Plant Communities. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA. 440 pp.
Oosting, H,J., and W.D. Billings. 1951. A Comparison of Virgin Spruce-Fir Forest in the Northern and Southern Appalachian System. Ecology. 32(1):84-103.
Pelletier, B., Fyles, J.W., and P. Dutilleul. 1999. Tree Species Control and Spatial Structure of Forest Floor Properties in Mixed-Species Stand. Ecoscience. 6(1):79-91.
Redmond, D.R. 1957. Observations on Rootlet Development in Yellow Birch. For. Chron. 33:208-212.
Tyrrell, L.E., and T.R. Crow. 1994. Dynamics of Dead Wood in Old-Growth Hemlock-Hardwood Forests of Northern Wisconsin and Northern Michigan. Can. J. For. Res. 24(8):1672-1683.
Zarnovican, R. 2000. Climate and Volume Growth of Young Yellow Birch (Betula alleghaniensis Britton) at Three Sites in the Sugar Maple-Yellow Birch Forest Region of Québec. Ecoscience. 7(2):222-227.

Dear People,

We love you very much and are proud of all of your accomplishments and amazing ability to empathize, care for, entertain, and defend each other in good times and bad. We both knew that when you came on the scene things would never be the same, but we also knew that there was a latent danger in imbuing you with a myriad of wonderful physical and mental attributes. Our worry was that you would not be able to contain yourselves and that in doing the aforementioned you would forget that as stewards you are required to do the same – sans the entertaining part – for this awe inspiring planet you have been given. Intelligence is a gift and a curse! It is obvious that you are not currently hearing our cries of anger and sadness. We are not eager to inflict wounds to our skin and the organisms that subsist on our bounty just so you get the picture, but will do so if it is the only way. We are left to wonder when you will realize that tapping every one of our veins for your fossil fuel needs without paying anything forward is neither sustainable nor respectful of those with whom you share this planet. We are writing this letter on behalf of all those in our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems that can’t speak for themselves nor can they defend themselves when you really want something! This is also an effort to appeal to your parental sense and sensibility, because passing the baton on these issues is no longer feasible as you’re children’s investment in this effort to reverse our deleterious trajectory will be nullified if you don’t act immediately with purpose and altruism. Stop couching everything in terms of national security and gross domestic product. At this point we want you to internalize Carrying Capacity Vs. Exponential Growth, which in case you aren’t familiar with how they look graphically are two diametric concepts/forces. In good conscience we can only allow a certain number of you to live off this planet’s resources and beyond that carnage the likes of which we have never forced you to deal with will be the norm not the exception. Additionally, we ask that you aim to live simply so that others may simply live.

Our love and concern for your well-being is strong but when we gave you dominion over this planet we knew that someday we would have to shower you with some “tough love”. So, it is with much regret that we lay out how things will be from now on if you don’t decide change your role on this planet from one of fiefdom to that of cooperative participant in ensuring long-term health and happiness of all species great and small. We will no longer be able to feed you in a timely fashion and at all in some areas of the world. It will no longer be able to separate those of you that care from those that don’t and all will feel the wrath of our disappointment. Drought will be unpredictable, storm intensity and frequency will not adhere to any empirical norm, and we will leave you by the side of the road when you do indeed tap all of our lifeblood. These conditions will lead to upheaval on a scale not yet seen anywhere. Our cries have not been acknowledged and consequently yours will as well when you begin to choke on your gluttony. Why so harsh you may ask? We can only respond my noting that our please have been consistent and in a variety of forms, with some more subtle than others, but all meant to get you to listen. We ask what is it that was done to you that you have such contempt for your neighbors even those most like you the gorillas and chimpanzees that many of you feel need to be erased so as to not remind us of where we came from and others still look at those that do as apostate. You talk so often about wanting to go to heaven and not hell, well what about the here and now? What is so bad about this planet that you feel the continued need to bend it to your collective will? The non-human inhabitants of this planet can’t fight back against your guns and fishing trawlers and fences and sprawl. However we can and we will retaliate, because at the end of the day you can’t shoot down or bomb into submission a hurricane, snow storm, drought, or pandemic. So, we just want you to know while we are your biggest fans we can also very easily and with not much more provocation become your worst enemies.

Sincerely.

Mother Nature & Father Time