Highway Bee Act

[Mona Miller]

http://pollinator.org/BEEAct.htm

"You can help bees and other pollinators by signing on to Group Letter
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/SupportforHwysBEE_Act.pdf
(and shown BELOW) supporting the Highways BEE Act
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/HwysBEEAct_Draft.pdf
(Highways Bettering the Economy and Environment Act), which will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives during Pollinator Week, on June 23, 2011. The bill promotes conservation practices on 17 million acres of highway rights-of-way (ROWs) by encouraging reduced mowing and native plantings that provide improved habitat for pollinators, ground nesting birds and other small wildlife. Click Here for additional background on the legislation.

Who Can Sign?
· Organizations at all levels (national, state, local)
· Companies
· Researchers
· General Puhlic

Sign on Here!
(e-mail kh@pollinator.org) to respond and sign on! It will only take a minute of your time.
· Please indicate how Organization or Company should be listed.
· Include CEO name and title, if desired.
· City-state if regional/localorganization.
· If Individual, city-state and any affiliation.

Forward this opportunity to others who may be interested. Spreading the word helps!

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT! BY PARTICIPATING YOU ARE MAKING A POSITIVE CHANGE FOR POLLINATORS, THE ENVIRONMENT AND OUR ECONOMY."

[Paul Cherubini]

A San Francisco, California based pollinator "non-profit" group is pushing this legislation
(who's CEO makes close to $100,000 a year
http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_arch ... 12_990.pdf)

From what I can tell this Highways BEE Act doesn't seem to specify what it will cost the taxpayers to "enhance plantings of native forbs and grasses" on "17 million acres of roadsides".

17 million acres = 26,562 square miles of land = an area of land almost as big as the state of South Carolina.

It might end up being massively expensive to replacing existing "invasive" vegetation with "native forbs and grasses". And what money and actions will be needed to stop the invasives from taking over again?

The Act http://pollinator.org/PDFs/HwysBEEAct_Draft.pdf says: "Studies have shown supporting native forbs and grasses along the roadside can be beneficial to the pollinator population," but doesn't say how much it has cost to plant and establish such test plots of forbs and grasses to begin with.

Most suspicious of all is there are no photos or videos of already established "enhanced plantings of native forbs and grasses" and stakeholder testimonials about THE DEGREE to which such plantings actually caused "neighboring agricultural lands and wildlife ecosystems to benefit from improved pollination services." Maybe THE DEGREE to which such plantings have helped is extremely small, hence not hardly worth a massive, expensive effort that will only worsen the National Debt which is
currently $129,000 per taxpayer: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[Mona Miller]

Do nothing, criticize, and watch while our environment declines. Perhaps you should run for congress.

[Paul Cherubini]

There so much more that could be done to curb the rate of decline in pollinator habitat that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. Like placing limits on the size of new homes. The average size of a new home was 1,000 square feet in 1950, 1,400 square feet on Earth Day 1970. But in 2008, public records show the Xerces Society CEO bought this 2,800 square foot luxury monster: http://tinyurl.com/3d9pfyv

So like I've said before, the leaders of these pollinator "non-profit" groups are not in a position to "lead by example" and it's not surprizing they are not interested in passing legislation limiting the size of new homes, the horsepower of new car engines, etc (because they are unwilling to give up their big homes and powerful SUV's for the sake of the environment).

[blazing star]

I'm not so sure that i would support this but only because Highway roadside habitat is inherently dangerous for insects and birds that fly into cars. Why welcome them to nest and roost near a dangerous artery of killing machines? I'd much rather see this money pumped into preserved lands that are infested with invasive species.

I have no problem with spending tax payer dollars on habitat restoration. The costs for these activities is offset by water filtration, clean air, loss of soil erosion, etc. These are the cost benefits that people never quantify.

I do find it interesting that Paul has trouble with a CEO for an environmentally friendly organization making $100,000/year but has no trouble supporting the values of Monsanto (whose CEO makes $22 Million during a 5 year period) and which continually lobbies to destroy our environment, lobbies to restrict our right to food choices and sets out to seek the demise of small family farmers.

[Paul Cherubini]

I do find it interesting that Paul has trouble with a CEO for an environmentally friendly organization making $100,000/year

I find it troubling that nearly 10 cents out of every dollar that is donated to a pollinator conservation organization (Xerces Society) is used to pay it's CEO who in turn uses a good portion of that 10 cents to pay the mortgage on his extra large wildlife habitat and natural resource consuming home: http://tinyurl.com/3d9pfyv I see a major contradiction there. The people running conservation organizations should live in modest sized homes and drive small vehicles in order to set an example for the rest of society.

I don't find it troubling that a Monsanto CEO would buy a big, luxurious home as it is common knowledge that corporate CEO's live lifestyles that consume a well above average share of wildlife habitat and natural resources. I don't think it's common knowledge that the leaders of our conservation organizations also routinely buy big homes and vehicles.

[blazing star]

You, yourself, must be trouble by your own existence then as you are abound in contradiction. You sell chemicals that kill butterflies yet you espouse that you conserve them. Then you have animosity when another party lives in contradiction as you do.

I'll dismiss the other part of your post as you post a link to a home with no evidence that this is the party's home to which you affiliate the home. This is a habit of yours throughout all your posts.

[Mona Miller]

I'm not so sure that i would support this but only because Highway roadside habitat is inherently dangerous for insects and birds that fly into cars. Why welcome them to nest and roost near a dangerous artery of killing machines? I'd much rather see this money pumped into preserved lands that are infested with invasive species.
I have no problem with spending tax payer dollars on habitat restoration. The costs for these activities is offset by water filtration, clean air, loss of soil erosion, etc. These are the cost benefits that people never quantify.

Don't think of highways as small areas. Some land along highways is very wide.

[Paul Cherubini]

It might end up being massively expensive to replacing existing "invasive" vegetation with "native forbs and grasses".

Around FIVE BILLION DOLLARS just for the seed alone which runs about $300 an acre:
http://www.xerces.org/pollinator-seed/ (17,000,000 acres of roadside times $300 an acre = $5,100,000,000).

[sbannister]

To me, $5 billion is nothing compared to what we lose if we do nothing. The government spends a lot more than that on things I care nothing about which are in fact destructive to habitat, the environment, etc. and but I'm not going to go there. Don't get me started.... I missed the chance to support the Bee Act, but I'm all in favor of it. did it pass BTW?

[Paul Cherubini]

To me, $5 billion is nothing compared to what we lose if we do nothing.

That 5 billion is just for the cost of the seed. According to the Xerces website "Successfully establishing large areas of wildflowers requires extensive site preparation to remove competing vegetation, especially perennial weeds. Often one to two years of additional follow-up are also required to control weeds in newly established plantings."

So the ultimate cost of this "Highway Bee Act" could run well into the tens, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars worth of labor, administration, supplies and equipment. The problem, as I see it, is that the authors of this Act are not being upfront with either Congress or the general public about just how costly it would be to "replace existing invasive vegetation" on 17,000,000 acres of roadside with "native forbs and grasses".

[blazing star]

More contradiction from Paul. Though illogical, at least he's consistent:

Paul is all up in arms about a lousy one shot expense of $5 Billion for native seeds when the US spends $138 BILLION ANNUALLY for management of invasive species. This annual $138 BILLION is only for control and management of invasive species and does not take into account other losses of economic factors.

[sbannister]

Do nothing, criticize, and watch while our environment declines. Perhaps you should run for congress.

Mona, You got it just right, girl! LOL

[Paul Cherubini]

Paul is all up in arms about a lousy one shot expense of $5 Billion for native seeds when the US spends $138 BILLION ANNUALLY for management of invasive species.

Like the Congress, I am interested in understanding the elementary mathematics of the situation. So far it looks to me like $5 Billion in seed alone will be required and tens of billions more to plants and manage the seeds for 17,000,000 acres of roadside.

BUT according to the Monarch Watch, http://monarchwatch.org/bring-back-the-monarchs/
""Development is consuming 6,000 acres a day, a loss of 2,200,000 million acres per year."
So 17,000,000 acres divided by 2,200,000 acres = 7.73. That means that even if Congress approved spending tens of billions of dollars to plant and manage 17,000,000 acres of roadside, 7.73 years later that effort would have been in vane because 17,000,000 ADDITIONAL acres would have been lost due to development.

So I think Congress and the American public needs to know that no matter how many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is spent, there will still be a net loss of habitat for monarchs and so the population will continue to decline.

New laws and regulations designed to place severe limits on the sizes of new homes and cars would be much less costly and more effective at treating the source of the habitat loss problem instead of treating the symptom via programs like the "Highway Bee Act", but that is not an option either because the leaders of the conservation groups themselves are unwilling to give up their big homes, vans and SUV's in order to set an example for the rest of society.

[blazing star]

If you are interested in understanding the economics of this issue before considering it for support, why do you knowingly support factory meat farms by selling them pesticides to grow their corn to support our meat laden diet? This is yet another contradiction you hold.

More important than the size of our homes and the efficiency of our cars is our diet. Our meat laden diet is what is drastically contributing to loss of habitat. Roughly 1/2 of the United States land mass is used to raise animals for meat, or animal by-product, consumption. It takes about 5,000 gallons of water to raise 1 pound of meat. 3 times more fossil fuel is needed for a meat centered diet compared to a non-meat centered diet. Many species are going extinct to clear forests for animal production. There are more consequences that just these.

I understand that you peddle your wares for chemical companies (it seems you have some sort of link to Monstanto as well) and that's why you never bring this up. You'd be out of a job if more people chose more responsible family farmed, organic food choices. So you tend to try to steer people to seek blame at the foot of some executive of an environmental organization instead of at the door of those that are lobbying to enhance the problem. It's well known that Monstanto has a history of trying to put small, family farmers out of business and that they are often times succesful as small family farms don't have the capital to out compete Monstanto in a legal battle. I'm doing my part to ensure I am eating in a means that is of benefit to the environment. I purchase community shares in a local, organic family farm. This equals less insect (butterfly) killing chemicals purchased from you; that's a very good thing.

[Paul Cherubini]

Our meat laden diet is what is drastically contributing to loss of habitat. Roughly 1/2 of the United States land mass is used to raise animals for meat, or animal by-product, consumption. It takes about 5,000 gallons of water to raise 1 pound of meat. 3 times more fossil fuel is needed for a meat centered diet compared to a non-meat centered diet.

You are probably right, but I'm not aware of any butterfly or bird organization such as Monarch Watch, NABA, Lepidopterists Society, Xerces Society, Audubon Society, World Wildlife Fund, etc., that has voiced an objection to "our meat laden diet" and the resulting environmental consequences that you pointed out. And that's my whole point: these "conservation" organizations have not displayed an interest in campaigning against meat laden diets, big homes and cars, etc., because their leaders want and enjoy them too, hence they are not in a position to set an example for either their members or the rest of society.

[Mona Miller]

Get off your high horse. These organizations have done more for Monarchs and the environment than you have done. You have actually made the environment worse by distributing all those pesticides and herbicides. And, telling people that they are okay--nonsense. Is this how you justify what you do? You complain about other people/organizations so people will forget what you are actually doing. Paul, get the huge red wood out of your eye. You have no reason to complain, you are worse than an over paid non-profit executive.

[Paul Cherubini]

You have actually made the environment worse by distributing all those pesticides and herbicides.

People like me who sell pesticides, big homes, vehicles, roadside mowers and meat for the burgeoning fast food restaurant industry would have less to sell if the above named environmental organizations took steps to reduce the public demand for these items. But they havn't been taking such steps because their very own leaders and members want a meat centered diet, big homes, vehicles and the safest possible roadsides.

Instead of taking steps to reduce demand for these major items that are causing environmental deterioration, all these organizations want to do is find ways to make money (e.g. via passing the Highway Bee Act) endlessly and ineffectively treating the symptoms of the problems. So a treadmill situation is created in which the problems (like milkweed abundance decline) just keep getting worse and worse which in turn enables the organizations to ask for even more money to treat the ever worsening symptoms. Specific example: The obvious, no cost and effective way to reduce the need for roadside mowing and spraying is for the organizations to simply campaign / lobby for less mowing and spraying and urge the motoring pubic to accept the resulting reduction in safety. But the organizations won't do that because their very own leaders and members are not willing to sacrifice road safety for the environment.

[blazing star]

The majority of environmental organizations don't have the funding and governmental subsidies that huge corporations have so they cannot effect policy as these large, polluting corporations can. Case in point Monsanto, Exxon and BP. These corporations all pollute excessively and damage societies and family units but often times suffer little consequence and continue to receive my tax dollars to assist them in doing so. So you'll excuse me when I doubt your statement that these large polluting companies exist solely because a CEO of an environmental organization doesn't lead by example.

A side comment: I haven't researched it but would bet that CEO's of environmental organizations make far less salary than their counterparts working in parallel positions for big polluting corporations. If this is the case, it would be quite a compelling argument that they do lead by example. I've already sited one such incident of salary disparity in this thread.

[Paul Cherubini]

The majority of environmental organizations don't have the funding and governmental subsidies that huge corporations have so they cannot effect policy as these large, polluting corporations can.

I don't see how funding has anything to do with the fact that the leaders of the conservation organizations havn't displayed a desire to promote policies that urge the public to sacrifice their material standard of living, comfort and safety in order to curb environmental deterioration. Example: When the leaders of butterfly conservation organizations http://www.monarchwatch.org/update/2005 ... c-Chip.jpg go out to dinner, do you think they avoid ordering dishes that contain alot of meat animals?

[Mona Miller]

Paul are you a vegetarian?

I feel like responding to you is a great waste of time. I'd rather help people learn how to help the environment and wildlife. Frankly, we have no idea what you really do. I can't trust any of your pictures or information. I lost trust in you a long time ago when I saw how you would post information that betrayed the true facts. I don't know how you can even say that you are interested in helping the Monarch butterfly. The products that you distribute kill so many that it is mind blowing. I can't even get my mind around it. I'm sitting here shaking my head.

I signed the "Highway Bee Act" and I hope it gets funding.

[blazing star]

Paul, You posted a picture of Chip at a restaurant with nothing in his dish. Then, you deduce from that that he ordered meat. Am I surprised? No. It's usual fare for your posts.

Also, you keep espousing how executives of environmental organizations don't do anything to walk the walk and that they are just interested in making money. I did some poking around.

Environmental organization executive pay:
HIGHEST paid executive at Sierra Club makes under $236m annually
HIGHEST paid executive at World Wildlife fund makes under $270m annually

Big polluter, large corporation executive pay:
Executive pay at Dow Chemical over $18 Million annually
Executive pay at Monsanto over $4 Million annually
Executive pay at DuPont Chemicals over $11 Million annually

So once again, you post inane information when you espouse that executive directors are "in it for the profit" comments. If they were, they would join your guise and pollute our planet.

On what documentation do you base the "in it for the profit" comment. Let's all have a look at the data, please.

All of your posts are full of unfounded, unreliable comments. I haven't seen one of any viability.

[Paul Cherubini]

I can't trust any of your pictures or information. The products that you distribute kill so many that it is mind blowing. I can't even get my mind around it.

Do you feel the same about the salesmen who sold you your big Toyota van that kills so many more butterflies than my little Toyota Corolla station wagon and emits 30% more global warming emissions? My position is that butterflies and other wildlife continue to be abundant on farmland despite pesticide use. Just yesturday I took this video in an area of crop monocultures west of Sacramento, Calif: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoZ5_oUgekc
Note all the bird noise in the video recording as well as the butterfly activity. Pesticide treated farmlands are not the biological desert for wildlife that so many city raised folks (including mysef at one time) fantasize them to be.

Another monarch related fantasy is the notion that deforestation is always bad for the overwintering monarchs in Mexico. Here again videos tell the full story.

Forest clearing at the El Rosario overwintering site in Mexico provides the monarchs with access to drinking water: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usDn_PyQSNY

Paved road cut through the monarch forest at the Herrada overwintering site provides the monarchs with a pathway to seeps, clear cuts and dirt roads where the butterflies can find drinking water:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAWhmIHr3XQ

Monarchs Drinking from a road;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU7sjRHhARA

[Mona Miller]

Yes, my big Toyota van that has helped transport headstart kids to field trips and special education kids to after school events. I've also used it to do landscaping at schools for over 14 years. I can get 25 bags of mulch and a 6-8 ft. tree in it. I used to plant at least 2-3 trees a year at school back when I was doing landscaping. I just use the van now around town and borrow my husband's Prius for longer trips. BTW, the Prius killed a good number of insects on my 12 hour round trip to the river on Sat. and Sun. And, you must not have any kids because that is the major reason that I got the van. A large cello and a violin, friends of my kids, carpooling,... My kids are partially grown, but I still use my van for carrying home plants and mulch for my garden.

You must have a very guilty conscience to point a finger at minor things like a person's vehicle or house or salary.

I still think that you should run for congress. Many of our senators and representatives have your take on the environment, which is similar to an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. The ostrich really doesn't see what is going on around them.

[Paul Cherubini]

Just as you justify your purchase of a large butterfly killing van because you use it partly for some environmental purposes, so do farmers who grow Roundup Ready crops and use pesticides. They know these products boost crop yields and therefore prevent the plowing of virgin wildland in order to meet the food requirements of an expanding society. Stopping the expansion of society would reduce the need to grow GMO crops, reduce the number of pesticides sales jobs and reduce sales of big vans, but that can't happen when environmentalists themselves are having multiple children.

[Mona Miller]

Some things are necessity and some things will kill you. Which are you gonna choose?

[Mona Miller]

If you didn't get a chance to sign the Highway Bee Action it is not too late.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Tom, Pollinator Partnership <tva@polliinator.org> wrote:
TWO ACTION REQUESTS-SUMMARY:
1. ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO SIGN
http://pollinator.org/BEEAct.htm
GROUP SUPPORT LETTER
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/SupportforHwysBEE_Act.pdf
2. ENCOURAGE U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS TO COSPONSOR H.R. 2381
*************************
Thanks Again-for adding your name as an individual to the group letter in support of the Highways BEE Act.
· Click Here
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/SupportforHwysBEE_Act.pdf
to view the letter and signatories to date. Highlights—
o 26 national organizations and companies · over 120 other organizations and companies and 1,100+ individuals from every state in the nation · 43 scientists
o Regional organizations and individuals are sorted by state. Check out your state to see who else has signed on!

Action Requests-
1. More Signatories on Group Letter-The group letter effort is continuing, as a way of growing support for the provision.
> You can help by encouraging other organizations, companies and individuals to sign the group letter.
> There is now an easy, online way to sign the group letter. Simply direct your contacts to
http://pollinator.org/BEEAct.htm
2. New Cosponsors-Contact other Members of the House of Representatives and urge them to sign on as cosponsors.
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/SupportforHwysBEE_Act.pdf
> Click Here
http://pollinator.org/PDFs/HwysBEEAct_Draft.pdf
for Dear Colleague Letter sent out by Hastings and Johnson. Staff contact information for their offices is provided.

Update-
· Highways BEE Act (H.R. 2381) was introduced in the House by lead cosponsors Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL) and Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL) on June 23, during National Pollinator Week.
o Additional original cosponsors are Leonard Boswell (D-OR) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR). Johnson and Boswell are members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
o Options are currently being explored on the Senate side for advancing the Highways BEE Act.
· The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is moving forward with a transportation reauthorization bill.
· On the Senate side, the Environment and Public Works Committee has announced plans to hold a hearing and mark up and report out a transportation reauthorization bill before the August recess.

Apologies if you've received similar information via other postings.

Feel free to contact us if you have any questions or suggestions.

Tom R. Thomas (Tom) Van Arsdall, Pollinator Partnership Director of Public Affairs
mail to: tva@pollinator.org