William Holden, Stefanie Powers and their African Dream

This is a story about how fame and glamour mixed with a healthy dose of altruism and curiosity led to the formation of the prestigious William Holden

William Holden

Wildlife Foundation and its associated Mount Kenya Wildlife Conservancy.  

William Holden, one of the biggest box office draws of the 1950s, an Oscar-winning actor and devilishly handsome Hollywood legend carried on a nine-year affair with Stefanie Powers, whose tempestuous but tom-boyish beauty made her one of the most memorable female TV stars of the 1970s and 1980s. With her help, he left behind a legacy far more enduring and meaningful than his acting career. Stefanie remains the globe-trotting president and face of WHWF which she founded in his memory. 

A talented man of many passions (Audrey Hepburn, antique Asian art, Grace Kelly, travel, African wildlife conservation and Stefanie— not in any particular order), his work in Africa was probably his most enduring contribution to the planet. In love with the wildlife of eastern Africa and concerned about their decreasing numbers, Holden and two friends, oilman Ray Ryan and Swiss

Fairmont Mount Kenya Safari Club today

banker Carl Hirschmann,  bought a run-down hotel and converted it to the Mount Kenya Safari Club, refurbishing it as a ritzy watering hole for his wealthy Hollywood friends, European royalty and American tycoons of every commercial persuasion— the international jet set of the time. 

That was 1959, years before ecology, conservation and wildlife protection were to become popular. In 1967, Bill Holden and his friends purchased the surrounding property and founded the Mount Kenya Game Ranch. When business fell off in the '70s, Holden and his partners sold the club to Saudi millionaire Adnan Khashoggi. But, they kept the surrounding property and elevated the Game Ranch’s 1216 acres to an inspirational wildlife education center for Kenya’s youth and an animal rescue sanctuary.

Stefanie Steps Forward

Bill Holden died in 1981 (more on that later). By the following year, Stefanie Powers was the Founder and President of the William Holden Wildlife Foundation and a director of the Mount Kenya Game Ranch and Wildlife Conservancy in Nanyuki,

Stefanie Powers

Kenya—founded by Bill Holden and TV personality Don Hunt in or around 1964. She was also appointed conservation consultant to Jaguar and Land Rover after creating the Jaguar Conservation Trust operated on their behalf in Central America. 

She has been on the advisory board of four zoos in the United States and has served as a fellow of the Los Angeles Zoo, the Explorers' Club, and the Royal Geographic Society.  She is active in the movement to preserve and protect the dwindling herds of  North American wild horses, and has received numerous international awards for her work in conservation, which she considers a life-long commitment.  Powers still resides part of the year in Kenya. 

Bill Holden and Don Hunt
with zebra colt.

Although her history of animal care predates her relationship with Holden, many credit his inspiration for her dedication to wildlife conservation. Bill spent his time in Hollywood making movies to provide much of the funding for the Mount Kenya Game Ranch while Don Hunt and his wife, Iris, managed the ranch on a day-to-day basis. The partners’ ultimate goal was the preservation of endangered wildlife and its regeneration through selected breeding programs.

William Holden Wildlife Foundation

Today the William Holden Wildlife Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Beverly Hills, California. Its mission statement promises: 

To focus on the educational component of wildlife and environmental protection and conservation. To foster a better understanding of the crucial role flora and fauna plays in the quality of life and its sustenance on our planet with emphasis on practical methods of sustainability accessible to all. To teach alternatives to habitat destruction for man and animals. To enlighten students and visitors to the available innovations in energy producing techniques with low environmental impact. To inspire a personal commitment in all who participate.

The Foundation’s Education Center offers conservation programs designed for the local population and serves well over 10,000 students per year. The Foundation also operates an outreach program which installs libraries and field installations at rural schools to benefit over 2,000 students and their families. Holden realized that educating the people of Kenya was key to preserving their wildlife. Visit their website at http://www.whwf.org/

Bill Holden’s Demons…

Fame and glamour were heaped upon Bill Holden throughout his acting career and they helped with creation of his African dream, but they also contributed to his personal undoing. He was an intensely private man, but the disappointments he suffered were in full view of the curious and the prurient. 

His first marriage, to actress Brenda Marshall, began to unravel when he had a vasectomy at her request after birthing two sons. He enjoyed well-publicized extra-marital affairs with his leading ladies— most famously Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly and Capucine. 

Some biographers have said that Audrey was the real love of his life and credit his transformation from big game hunter to conservationist to the horror he felt after he shot an antelope. Observing its huge eyes and long, slender neck, he exclaimed, ‘I've just shot Audrey Hepburn.’

Holden & Hepburn in Sabrina

During the filming of Sabrina, Bill Holden and Audrey Hepburn fell deeply for one another despite his broken marriage to Brenda who would not agree to a divorce. In the end, Hepburn broke it off when she learned he could not have children-- one of her most cherished aspirations.

Holden suffered from alcoholism and depression for many years. By the early 1960s, his roles reflected his accelerated rate of aging. On the one hand he was no longer “The Golden Boy”, but the deepening lines in his craggy face brought him more mature character roles and acclaim for his acting abilities.

His troubles deepened in 1966 while in Italy. Holden was involved in a traffic accident in which the other driver was killed. Holden had been driving under the influence of alcohol; he was charged with vehicular manslaughter, and received an eight-month suspended prison sentence. Holden was apparently overcome with guilt and friends said this led to even heavier drinking.

Stefanie and Bill

He met Stephanie Powers when he was 56 and she was 32 at a California tennis tournament in 1972. The age difference did not seem to matter as Stephanie loved Bill-- and Kenya. For a while he stopped drinking. But his resolve didn't last and eventually, she too left. But Stefanie has kept both Bill and his promise to Africa in her heart for a very, very long time.

… And His Death

William Holden died in his high-rise apartment on the seaside cliffs of Santa Monica, California in November 1981 at the relatively young age of 63. He was alone and heavily intoxicated. He reportedly slipped on a throw rug, gashed his head on a night table and bled to death. The coroner said he was conscious for at least a half an hour after the fall, but probably did not comprehend the severity of his injury and did not call for help. His body was found on November 16, but forensic evidence suggested he had been dead for several days and probably passed on November 12.

His friend, director Billy Wilder said of Bill Holden: “ Here was a most successful man who virtually abandons his profession to take care of endangered species.  He does not care about himself; indeed he kills himself. What he didn't realize was that he himself was an endangered species: the beautiful American.”

Long live the William Holden Wildlife Foundation! The man did good things despite his demons.

Clean Water Act?

Acting like we have clean water is not the same as actually having clean water.

After the Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in 1972 by a bipartisan congressional effort over-riding President Richard Nixon’s presidential veto, America experienced impressive declines in the pollution of its waterways. Then the law was undermined and made toothless by two Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court Acts Questionably

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) (in 2001) and Rapanos v. United States (in 2006), the Supreme Court ignored congressional intent and narrowed its definition of the scope of waters covered by the Act. Armed with these decisions, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers excluded numerous waters from protection and placed unnecessarily high hurdles to protecting others.

These decisions crushed the underlying structure of the Clean Water Act by casting doubt on what waterways are covered by CWA. Today countless streams, ponds and wetlands are threatened, potentially affecting the drinking water of more than 115 million Americans.

Are navigable rivers the only water worthy of protection?

Because the CWA compels the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect the integrity of the “waters of the United States,” industrial and agricultural interests argue that a reference in the text of the law to “navigable waters” limits federal jurisdiction to waters big enough for a boat. Therefore, they argue, it is permissible to discharge whatever they want into smaller waterways despite the fact that they generally drain into navigable waterways.

After 30 years of intermittent, yet impressive progress, at least 26 water bodies have been denied CWA protections in southern California alone, and the EPA has failed to prosecute hundreds of polluters nationwide who benefit from the confusion.

When the Clean Water Act became law in 1972, it provided states the tools needed to target the worst sources of pollution at the time-- particularly industrial waste and city sewage. The CWA forced both

industrial polluters and sewage treatment plants to use new technology to treat and control pollution. Across the country, the CWA succeeded in restoring many rivers, lakes and wetlands, but the goal of cleaning up America’s waters has never been fully realized.

In fact, enforcement of pollution standards on industries has become more lax in recent years, and the law has done little to rein in pollution that is generated not just by heavy industry but also by individuals: the dirt and contaminants from city streets, lots, houses and lawns that flow into lakes, beaches, bays and rivers when rain washes across the landscape.

Storm Water Runoff

Storm-water runoff is another major source of the pollution in our rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Storm-water runoff enters coastal waters.

Runoff worsens the more developed an area becomes. More households mean an increase in the number of septic tanks, car washes, golf courses, lawns and streets that can produce contamination. Waterborne contaminants include engine oil, traces of gasoline and paint, lawn fertilizer, chemical flame retardants from furniture, lead and copper from old roofs, and other kinds of grime.

Storm-water pollution usually gets worse as a community grows. In nature, rain seeps slowly into soil; but in a city, it surges across pavement, gathering filth as it pours into storm drains. In some older cities, it sometimes mixes with sewage-treatment sludge, where it can overflow the system and slop out. In other cases, storm water gushes untreated from cities into water bodies. Such pollution is fouling water nationwide, on nearly every beach, bay, lake, river and marsh that is well occupied and urbanized—from San Francisco Bay and the Louisiana bayous to Chesapeake Bay on the mid-Atlantic coast and the Great Lakes.

Storm-water runoff from industrial sources, municipal storm drains, and other sources was not specifically addressed in the 1972 law, and the EPA declined to include urban runoff and industrial storm-water discharges in their enforcement program until they were sued by environmentalists. The courts ruled that storm-water discharges must be covered by the EPA’s permit program.

The requirements are more stringent for cities with populations over 100,000, but  smaller communities have so much discretion they can ignore the problem, and they rarely have the resources

Dead zone fish kill in Aberdeen Creek, Maryland.

to address the problems anyway. The problems of storm-water are worsening in many parts of the United States. A combination of polluted storm water and farm runoff helped create Chesapeake Bay’s “dead zones,” where few or no fish can survive, and the algae blooms that rendered Toledo, Ohio’s water supply undrinkable last summer.

New Rule Proposed by EPA and Army Corps of Engineers

March 25, 2014,  the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly proposed a new rule that more closely resembles law than guidelines. It is intended to: reduce confusion about CWA protection, clarify the types of waters covered under the CWA, provide more benefit than cost to the American public, and help states to protect their waters. The rule promises to reinforce the Act’s legal and scientific foundations, provide more long-term certainty to landowners while protecting the health of America’s water.

The rule would restore jurisdiction over tributaries of waters already covered by the Clean Water Act and to all of the wetlands, lakes adjacent to these tributaries and floodplains. This includes intermittent and seasonal streams which flow into larger rivers where fish spawn and the young are

Dry (intermittent) stream bed Coronado National Forest,
southeast Arizona.

reared. The health of a stream bed which is dry in August will determine the health of downstream waters when it rains in the fall.

The rule specifically excludes many man-made ditches, ponds, and irrigation systems from their oversight— and honors current exemptions for normal farming, ranching and forestry operations. Nevertheless,  some industry groups are fighting to prevent changes that would stop them from polluting our waters and filling our wetlands. Agricultural groups, oil companies and Republicans are among the most vocal critics, calling the rule change “a blatant case of EPA overreach” that will burden anyone who has a small body of water in their backyard with onerous regulations and federal intrusion into their affairs.

What can be done?

Although the fight over clean water will continue for some time with the usual suspects lining up on their side of the divide (with great predictability), there are things that can be done to protect our clean water.

Individuals can do the following:

• Limit your use of pesticides and fertilizers, and control runoff containing either.
• Wash your car in a commercial carwash, not your driveway. If you do wash it at home, do so on the lawn to prevent runoff from pouring down storm drains.
• Repair automobile fluid leaks promptly.
• Scoop pet poop and dispose of properly to prevent runoff into streams rivers and coast waters.
• Plant rain gardens, or use rain barrels to capture rain water to prevent rainwater from picking up dirt and pollution on the way to its destination.
• Educate yourself, your family and community. Learn how to report sources of pollution.

Working together…

• Insist new developments in your community employ green building technologies like bioswales (gently sloping troughs similar to rain gardens) and pervious pavement.
• Seek out community groups working on clean water issues and speak out.
• Support efforts to fund infrastructure projects through state and federal grants, or through local storm-water utility fees.
• Support the new rule as a step in the right direction. There are links from the EPA and the NWF below to voice your opinion.

Additional reading
Environmental Protection Agency http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Bloomberg BNA (The Bureau of National Affairs) http://www.bna.com/proposed-epa-corps-n17179889094/
   
National Wildlife Federation http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat/Waters/Clean-Water-Act.aspx

Green Vehicle Choices

Being only an average thinker, and not a technical genius, I've had a great deal of trouble understanding the greenest options in modern automobiles. Automobile manufacturers are delivering better fuel economy and lower emissions intended to defeat climate change and improve their bottom lines. For simpletons like me, that means the technology has surpassed either my capacity to understand it, or my patience to study it—

Vokswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI

or both. And, when you add advertising hyperbole on top of that…

The simplest hierarchy seems to be: conventional gasoline engines are the dirtiest with the worst fuel economy; followed by modern, clean diesel engines like the Volkswagen Jetta Sportswagen TDI ; then hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight are supposed to be the cleanest and leanest. Of course, the comparisons are muddled by new gasoline engines that are sippers like the Ford Focus SFE and the Honda Civic HF (both rate 40 mpg on the highway) in the same miles-per-gallon class as the TDIs of Volkswagen and Audi (a VW subsidiary)--  and further muddled by the Volkswagen Golf GTE diesel plug-in hybrid which can achieve 130+ mpg for 30 miles before it runs out of juice. 

Given the trade-offs of range, price and practicality, it seems that the conscientious tree-hugging buyer can find a green vehicle— at least in terms of fuel economy. Then comes the environmental impact of manufacturing, delivering and recycling its parts— particularly the robust batteries of hybrids and all-electric vehicles. 

A Sour Note on Batteries

The good news is that hybrid vehicles can reduce air emissions of smog-forming pollutants by up to 90% and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50%. The bad news is that although more environmentally friendly than lead-based batteries, the two types of batteries primarily used by today’s hybrids, nickel metal hydride and lithium ion, present their own dangers—

Toyota Prius

and they are much, much larger than conventional car batteries. There are also questions about the economic viability of manufacturing the batteries in the long term. 

Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) Batteries
An older technology, NiMH has two major advantages over lithium ion batteries— price and safety. Nickel batteries are mildly toxic in that various nickel compounds, such as nickel chloride and nickel oxide, have known carcinogenic effects in chick embryos and rats. Some manufacturers of hybrid vehicles claim that NiMH costs one-third of an equivalent Li-ion system due to more relaxed safety rules.

An unfortunate disadvantage of NiMH batteries is their high rate of self-discharge. They lose about 20% of their capacity within the first 24 hours, and 10% per month thereafter. In 2005, a low self-discharge (LSD) technology was developed. LSD NiMH batteries significantly improve self-discharge, but have a capacity approximately 20% lower. NiMH batteries face other obstacles as well.

Stanford R. Ovshinsky invented and patented an improved NiMH battery and founded Ovonic Battery Company in 1982. General Motors purchased their patents in 1994, and by

Stanford Ovshinsky

the late 1990s, NiMH batteries were successfully powering many fully electric vehicles, such as the General Motors EV1 and Dodge Caravan EPIC minivan. 

But, in October 2000, the patent was sold to Texaco who was acquired by Chevron a week later. Chevron's Cobasys subsidiary chose to provide these batteries to large original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) only, for fleet vehicles and leases. General Motors shut down production of the EV1 citing lack of battery availability as one of their chief obstacles, but there is reason to believe GM bailed out for a variety of reasons—  including the potential decline of their lucrative spare parts business. Electric vehicles require fewer parts. 

Large-format NiMH batteries were, at that time,  deemed commercially viable and ready for mass production, but there is evidence to support that Chevron and other oil industry allies, even OEMs, may have suppressed the technology. In an interview with the Economist, Stan Ovshinsky stated, "I think we at ECD  made a mistake of having a joint venture with an oil company, frankly speaking. And I think it’s not a good idea to go into business with somebody whose strategies would put you out of business, rather than building the business."

In the end, some experts believe NiMH will serve as an interim solution to more promising lithium systems.

Lithium Ion Batteries
Hitachi is a leader in the development of the lithium ion battery. The battery’s smaller size and lighter weight delivers voltage more than three times that of NiMH batteries while storing large amounts of electricity simultaneously. The batteries also produce higher vehicle power, higher efficiency and provide excellent durability. 

Because it is smaller and lighter, a lithium-ion battery reduces the overall weight of the vehicle to achieve improved fuel economy— 30% better than petroleum powered vehicles. Proponents say that leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions helping to prevent global

Tesla Roadster

warming. Tesla Motors uses this technology which is reportedly the least toxic of the battery types used in automobiles.

What to do with an old battery?
To prepare for a future for electric vehicles — and their batteries, green will not be realized unless there's green recycling as well. Whatever the environmental gains, there's one potential problem, and that is: How to dispose of EV and hybrid batteries once they grow too old and feeble to store and deliver adequate power to move a vehicle?

When will the need will arise?  Although more than 2 million conventional and plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road in the U.S., few have been around long enough to dump a profitable flow of batteries to the recycling industry. The Mineta National Transit Research Consortium, however, estimates that 2035 may be the tipping point. There will be somewhere between 1.3 million and 6.7 million worn-out EV hybrid and plug-in vehicle batteries in the U.S.  That's sufficient volume to justify commercial recycling and/or re-use programs, the report says.

Even then, the Mineta report indicates that while recycling to recover individual components

From this...

won't be very profitable by 2035, reusing the batteries — for energy storage at solar or wind-power generating plants, for example, or re-manufacturing them for re-use in vehicles — will only help establish a successful commercial recycling and reuse industry.

Even if the batteries in the very earliest Toyota Prius and

...to this.

Honda Insight hybrids are defunct, those cars were sold in relatively small numbers. Just 19,000 Insights and 33,000 Priuses were sold in the U.S.through the 2003 model year, when the first-generation Prius was retired-- not enough to feed a commercial recycling industry. 

Nevertheless, recycling is an essential part of a battery’s life, even though lithium-ion batteries used in most EVs and plug-in hybrids and the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in most conventional hybrids are not considered toxic. Both types, unlike conventional 12-volt lead-acid car batteries, are deemed safe for landfills. But the world is running out of space for landfill . It would be better for the environment and for the economy if spent batteries are reduced to their components, to be reused instead of being buried in trash heaps.

What Recycling Means for You
Owners of battery operated vehicles, expect recycling to be a painless— maybe even routine— process. Automakers and the auto dismantling industry will handle the recycling. The car owner won't have to do anything except get the vehicle and its defunct battery to a dealer. Recycling is supposed to help keep battery costs down, because it will permit the reuse of the metals and rare-earth compounds that make these batteries work. Re-use is cheaper than mining and processing all-new material in a world depleting its resources. If lithium-ion batteries accounts for as much as half the cost of a new EV, reducing battery costs through recycling will go a long way toward making electric-drive vehicles competitive with conventional cars. A market for used batteries also will help prop up the resale value of electric-drive vehicles— a definite plus for consumers.

Battery recycling helps reduce CO2 emissions and energy use from processing new

Neodymium Sulfate

material. Recycling can also help with energy security. Many of the rare metals used in these batteries come from other countries, and battery recycling will reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers. The primary metals recovered are nickel, copper and iron. The principal rare earths are neodymium and lanthanum. I've never heard of them, but we could start a war over them!

How recyclable are these batteries?
Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries found in hybrid vehicles are called "zero-landfill" products by the auto industry. They claim that whatever can't be recycled is consumed as fuel in the recycling process, leaving no trash behind. Lithium-ion batteries today are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. Recycling can yield cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese and lithium. Lithium, however, is so cheap there's no incentive for recovering it from lithium-ion batteries today say experts. 

Lithium-ion batteries may enjoy a life of re-use. Even when an EV or hybrid battery can no longer hold and discharge sufficient electricity to power a car's motor, the pack still carries a tremendous jolt. Battery manufacturers claim the packs can still deliver about 80 percent of their capacity when retired from automotive use. The market is lucrative enough that auto companies are partnering with battery, recycling and electronics firms to develop post-automotive markets for lithium-ion battery packs.

For instance, several major power utilities are working with companies— including General Motors, Ford, Toyota and Nissan— to explore the use of these batteries for storage of power produced in off-peak periods by wind turbines and solar generation stations. Lithium-ion packs also are being tested as backup power storage systems for retail centers, restaurants and hospitals, as well as for residential solar systems.

Is a bird in hand worth two in the bush?

by Erika Aoyama

Choosing a green vehicle today almost comes down to an ideological choice. Although we want to preserve the health of the planet and retain as much green in our wallets as possible, we must make judgments about which corporate profit strategy to support.

Battery manufacturers have developed safe, dependable and efficient technologies to move vehicles. Because the vast majority of batteries on the road are still viable, there is no profit to be made in recycling them yet. If and when the tipping point is reached (2035 according to the Mineta Report), battery manufacturers may face other obstacles. 

The next 20 years may see rare earth metal shortages. The automobile industry may elect to concentrate on improved gasoline and diesel engines, either because petroleum remains relatively cheap, or because they do not want to relinquish their aftermarket and auto parts profit centers. And, the oil companies may squelch the battery industry as they have other unwanted competitors.

The bird in hand may be improved gasoline and diesel engines which are progressively leaner and cleaner. Consumer demand will continue to apply pressure through the enactment of laws and buyers’ choice. The future may demand diversity of fuel options in order to preserve our plant’s health and to conserve precious resources, but choosing a green vehicle today can be very confusing.

Since I readily admit my confusion, please check out these additional sources.

Union of Concerned Scientists    http://blog.ucsusa.org/diesel-vs-hybrid-cost-benefits-410

US Department of Energy  http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_batteries.html

Edmunds.com on battery recycling
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America
by Sherry Boschert 

Disney's Smarmy Ways

The Magic Kingdom

The Walt Disney Company is in the image creation business. Americans of all ages relate wholesomeness, innocence and American virtue to its brand, and the company has successfully packaged good feelings and the perception of safety in its theme parks— parks we’d like to believe are the happiest places on earth. Disney’s history is full of unforgettable imagery such as Mickey Mouse, Bambi, Fantasia and The Mickey Mouse Club of 1950s TV fame. The Magic Kingdom, as it is often called, is a carefully designed reality that bears little resemblance to the real world or to the fables and historic events its creators depict. Daniel Boone would not recognize Disney’s version of Davy Crockett.

Disney has become a multi-billion dollar corporation much the same as any other communications giant. The Disney Corporation, like Nike and countless apparel manufacturers, has been exposed for paying pitiful wages to employees in the Third World— through sweatshops in China and Bangladesh.

Like most multinational corporations, Disney has acquired a labyrinth of subsidiaries, including some whose activities (such as producing Hollywood films with lots of sex and violence) do not fit Disney’s carefully cultivated squeaky-clean image. The Walt Disney Company engages in aggressive marketing just like any other corporation, shredding the notion that it is part of a distinctive world of magic and innocence.

For over 80 years Disney has disseminated an unequivocal set of family values and world views. In Disney’s safe and sterile world, good always prevails over evil; and hardship exists

Snow White

only to dramatize how people live happily ever after. Its corporate acquisitions, mergers, subsidiaries and new start–up ventures have permitted Disney to disseminate its world view across the world of entertainment: film, television and cable broadcast networks, books and music, newspaper and magazine publishing, theater productions, amusement parks, home video, consumer merchandise-- and, of course, the internet.

Greenwash by Imagineers

Walt Disney Imagineering is the unique, creative force behind Walt Disney Parks and Resorts that dreams up, designs and builds all Disney theme parks, resorts, attractions, cruise ships, real estate developments, and regional entertainment venues worldwide. Imagineering’s unique strength comes from the dynamic global team of creative and technical professionals building on the Disney legacy of storytelling to pioneer new forms of entertainment through technical innovation and creativity.

The name “Imagineering” combines imagination with engineering. Building upon the legacy of Walt Disney, Imagineers bring art and science together to turn fantasy into reality and dreams into magic. From a Disney website

The Walt Disney Company has crafted an Environmental Policy Statement that defines its commitment to “sustain a positive environmental legacy for Disney and for future generations.” The company’s policy is very well written and hits most of the targets large corporations list as conservation goals. And, in keeping with recent corporate best practices, the policy states that Disney will regularly communicate its progress— presumably as part of its corporate citizenship report.

While Disney is cutting emissions and switching to more efficient energy technologies to shrink its footprint (and to improve their bottom line), the company has not changed its business model. It remains tied to global promotion of travel to its resorts – perhaps the

Do more than
change the bulbs

most environmentally damaging leisure activity on the planet. Disney’s marketers could alter their message and target audiences to reduce the distances traveled and energy burned by its customers. Disney aggressively markets theme parks as international attractions – luring kids and their parents to travel halfway around the globe to commune with Mickey Mouse and leave reality behind for a day or two.

Disney has acknowledged that action on climate change is urgent and requires "fundamental changes in the way society, including businesses, use natural resources, and Disney is no exception." Therefore, the company is greening some of its activities, but not its business model. This is the classic definition of greenwash.

Sustaining the Magic Kingdom and its Throw-Away Culture

Supporting the notion that good triumphs over evil and people live happily ever after, it is imperative that nothing die in the Magic Kingdom— except bugs and other vermin. Aging and diseased plants are summarily removed when the park closes, and cauldrons of chemicals curtail weeds and unwanted or unsightly pests. Growth retardants

Disney's Flowers

keep plants within their designated footprint. Hormones and other treatment chemicals are relied upon to entice flowering out of season so the parks are always vibrant with “natural” color no matter the season.

When Disney’s Imagineers create a world, they go all out. Bay Lake sits to the east of Magic Kingdom Park at Disney World. Since the lake’s natural look was not picture perfect, the lake was drained, most of the cypress trees were yanked and cypress bark was scraped from the lake bottom to prevent the reappearance of its unsightly brown tea. Then the white sand beneath the bark was removed to cover the “beaches” along the lake and on Discovery Island and River Country— two theme parks abandoned to rot like ghost towns in the swamp.

Castaway Cay and Treasure Island

Formerly Gorda Cay, Castaway Cay was once a drug runners’port. Disney is said to have spent $25 million to develop the island as a port exclusively for Disney Cruise Line Ships— Disney Wonder, Disney Magic, Disney Dream and Disney Fantasy. Construction took 18 months and included dredging 50,000 truckloads of sand from the depths of the Atlantic

Abandoned in 1999, but the lights are still lit.

Ocean. The pier and its approaches were constructed to allow Disney ships to dock alongside without the need for tenders to transport passengers ashore. To create the mooring site for the ships, workers dredged sand and blasted through the coral. Not only was the sea bottom altered, but endangered coral was destroyed to create the Disney experience.

Even worse, Disney had already partially developed and then abandoned a 90 acre tract of land in the Abaco Islands in Bahamas which was to have been a cruise ship resort called Treasure Island. A report, by the University of Miami and the College of the Bahamas blames Disney for leaving hazardous materials, electrical transformers and fuel tanks behind. Disney is also blamed for introducing invasive alien plants and insects that threaten the natural flora and fauna of the island. Perhaps that’s what the company considers being green.

The Reedy Creek Improvement District

The Reedy Creek Improvement District is a 40 square mile tract of central Florida land that Walt Disney secretly bought during the early 1960's. Twice the size of Manhattan in area, the district was inhabited by less than fifty people and they were almost entirely Disney executives and their families. And, of course, the governing board of the District is elected solely by these inhabitants, which ensures that Disney retains complete control of this area.

The state of Florida gave the company the right to function as a government. Its rights include the right to levy and collect taxes, to control the planning and zoning of anything built on the property-- with its own building codes and inspectors, the right to run its own

Reedy Creek Fire & Rescue

utilities and fire department and the right to control the infrastructure. The district fields its own security force, and has the right, not yet exercised, to build its own airport, schools, cemeteries, police department and nuclear power plant.

Alexander Wilson, landscape designer and community activist, describes how Reedy Creek sanctioned Walt Disney's willingness to sacrifice reality for the appearance of it. In his book, The Culture of Nature, Wilson wrote of the damage done by Disney to Reedy Creek’s natural environment.

"The park itself is built on a recharge area for the Floridan Aquifer, and the regional development it has encouraged has done irreparable damage to the fragile ecosystem of most of the central and southern part of the state. The wetlands now slated for development are home to many rare and endangered species, among them the bald eagle. The EPA has fined Disney for contaminating these wetlands with toxic waste. The park's sewage effluent exceeds state guidelines, and has been found as far away as the Everglades. Disney had found it cheaper to pay fines than redesign its 'state of the art' engineering systems, much of them funded with public money."

Walt Disney, Control Freak or Profiteer?

So Walt Disney was even willing to throw America’s icon of strength and freedom, the bald eagle, under the bus? This was the man who extolled the American story in almost everything he did— at least his version of the story. In order to make his vision of Disney World and the district a reality, however, it was necessary for him to control everything touching it— the environment, the topography, whatever he wanted to build on it— even the lives of its inhabitants to a certain extent.

Perhaps it was simply Walt Disney’s insatiable hunger for profit at play. It was widely known that he disdained the cheap hotels and restaurants that clustered around Disneyland in Anaheim. They did not fit in the clean and well ordered world he created within the park’s

Walt Disney

gates, and they detracted from the experience he wanted to deliver to the American public. Even more offensive to him was the profits generated by others who capitalized on his vision. In its first 10 years, Disneyland was reported to gross $273 million, but the businesses outside the gate grossed $555 million during the same period. He wanted that profit.

In central Florida, Walt set out to avoid repeating this Anaheim disappointment. He bought up all the land surrounding his planned theme park to achieve total control. The Walt Disney Company set up a roster of dummy corporations in order to buy the land cheaply— and secretly. If the Disney name had been involved with the original purchases, the selling price would have been greatly inflated. It has been estimated that the land is worth more than 10,000 times what Disney paid for it in the early 1960’s.

The Enchanted Shopping Mall

Disney is all about commerce. Visitors are given every opportunity to purchase Disney goods and services. Its theme parks are designed as enchanted shopping malls through the expert use of architecture and decor. The objective is to promote sales and consumption. The layout and structure of Disney theme parks is similar to the typical shopping mall with its external parking lots, kiosks, food courts and hidden infrastructure such as power lines and

Main Street of the Mall

other utilities. The Disney experience is incomplete without meals consumed in Disney restaurants, one’s friends and family outfitted with Disney paraphernalia, and a Disney hotel stay— if one can afford it. Once caught up in the entire experience, visitors behave as consumers with little restraint in spending their money.

Choice within the park is limited— by design. All products and all services in the park are controlled, so that the visitor can only buy what the park offers. Multinational corporations and strategic partners (such as Kodak, Coke, etc.) are featured throughout the Disney mall. Many exhibits in EPCOT, Disney World’s futuristic theme park, are not only sponsored by corporations, but celebrate the aptitude and contribution of these corporations to modern life. Disney’s theme parks showcase thriving corporate wealth, and the consumer paradise that merchants seek-- with advertising and promotion throughout the premises.

Disney, Corporate Citizen

Corporate responsibility is more than issuing a citizenship report and sending press releases touting lofty achievements.  If The Walt Disney Company is sincere in its efforts to act responsibly, there are many things the company could do. Among them: stop selling junk— particularly cheap plastic throw-away junk, curtail the use of chemicals, sell only recyclable packaging, put solar banks in the parking lot of theme parks to provide shade for cars, serve organic food, offer reduced price admission to visitors who ride mass transit, stop violating human rights in factories that produce goods off-shore…  I’m sure Disney’s Imagineers could come up with a better list, but this could get the ball rolling.

On the other hand, here are some of the good things Disney has done:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/newsroom/making-the-magic-more-sustainable-at-disney-parks-and-resorts/

The Fish That Got Away-- Improving Aquaculture

Open Ocean Fish Farm

Did you ever hear the one about the fish that got away? Aquaculture is one of the fastest growing food production sectors in the world, and has been heralded as perhaps the most promising solution for a planet whose population is outgrowing its ability to feed itself. Between offshore open ocean fish farming and land-based containment tanks, aquaculture has the potential to provide consistent, year-round nutrient-rich protein, relieve pressure on depleted natural fisheries and play a significant role in the economy by providing jobs and valuable export trade in a sustainable manner.

Despite its promise, aquaculture could be the one that gets away unless its problems are solved. Poorly managed aquaculture harms both humans and wildlife, but well managed fish farms are doable once the problems are identified and solved.

Challenges to be overcome…

Pollution from wastes and excessive use of chemicals. Aquaculture facilities are like giant aquariums that must flush out their dirty water. They can discharge significant amounts of waste water containing feces, antibiotics, bacteria, excess feed— even anti-foulants and pesticides used to keep pens and cages clean. Excess food and feces increase nutrient levels in the water leading to algae blooms which remove oxygen from the surrounding water. This, in turn, can cause fish kills in waterways and dead zones offshore. Antibiotics effect

Water filter for wastewater treatment

those who eat the fish and contribute to the development of super strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, making it more difficult to treat diseases, which perpetuates the ever increasing use of antibiotics. Studies indicate that farm-raised fish contain higher levels of chemical pollutants such as carcinogenic PCBs than wild fish. To avoid polluting the surrounding environment, aquaculture systems should be contained and/or its wastewater should be treated prior to discharge.

Atlantic Salmon commonly cultured
in offshore fish farms invades
the Columbia River

Escaped farmed fish endanger the health and genetic diversity of local natural fish. Offshore fish farming uses cages or pens which although well engineered, still allow escapes during storms or episodes of equipment failure or human error. Net pens in the open ocean are vulnerable to tears by attacking predators like sharks. Whether escapes occur on purpose or accidentally, aquaculture is the primary source of non-native invasive species that damage the environment and threaten native species with predation, and the transmission of viruses and parasites. They can jeopardize the recovery of depleted or endangered species as they compete for food and habitat. In the end, these invasive species can dilute the native gene pool and threaten the long-term survival and evolution of native fish. Solutions to this problem are limited at this writing.

The source of feed stocks for farmed fish undermines our natural fisheries. In an inefficient turn of insanity in a topsy-turvy world, farmed species are fed wild species. Fish caught to make fishmeal and fish oil, a primary ingredient in fishmeal, represent one-third of the global fish harvest. Increasingly, aquaculture depends upon natural food sources such as krill, squid and other small coastal pelagic fish like anchovy and herring which are the

Anchovies

primary food sources for many who inhabit the ecosystem— everything from birds, marine mammals like seals, sea lions and whales to larger depleted or threatened pelagic fish like mackerel, swordfish, tuna and sharks. Most farmed fish are carnivorous, but some freshwater species like tilapia can be raised and fed more sustainable fare like algae and other vegetable matter— a promising solution to a small part of the problem as long as they don't escape.

The profit motive leads to frankenfish. Since farm raised fish are bred for profit, it is inevitable that wise marketers will select for the most desirable, the most marketable traits. Selecting and breeding only fish with the most advantageous attributes like size and growth

AquaBounty GMO salmon in rear

rate, will alter genetic composition over time. A more direct path to that outcome is altering the genetic makeup of species in the lab— the creation of GMO fish which serves to heighten the dangers of escaped fish.

Aquaculture appears to be in its infancy and requires maturity-- fast. Adequate funds must be available to deal with emergencies, and emergency planning should be assured before any facility earns its permits. Since a number of threats to wildlife and the environment emanate from aquaculture, facilities should be protected from severe weather, unexpected disease outbreaks, human error-- and even terrorism. Damage caused by unplanned events can cause major escapes and chemical pollution.

What can be done?

A robust commitment to responsible, enlightened aquaculture by producers, investors, government and consumers would not only prevent many of the problems discussed above, but it would greatly improve faith in the system and its products. Here are a few nuggets toward that goal.

• Improved research and education about potential ecological impacts and/or negative social and economic side-effects of developing aquaculture.
• Localized and regional oversight, scrutiny and management of all facilities since they impact local communities and supports special consideration for sensitive habitats such as estuaries, mangrove forests, wetlands, riparian fauna and vegetation— and breeding grounds for natural fish and fauna.
• Along with localized oversight mentioned above comes smaller aquaculture facilities with more intensive use of fewer resources. Covers less area affording more manageable resource application, accident prevention and remediation.
• Environmental impact assessments at the outset and centralized collection of environmental data, farm performance and event response— along with regular environment monitoring. This would improve farm performance as well as prevent unplanned events.
• Deeper study leading to improved husbandry practices regarding selection and application of feeds and fertilizers, antibiotics, drugs and other chemicals-- or substitutes for them.
• Last but not least, development of self-regulatory codes of practice or guidelines for best practices for the entire global aquaculture industry.

One Measure of Global Warming

Melting Glacial Ice

One story that has gained a lot of traction over the last 20 years is the one about the power of man-made global warming to change the planet. Is the story true or not? Scientists have wrestled for years with the problem of measuring climate change in the oceans since they cover 70% of the planet’s surface. The logic says that with that kind of coverage, it should be easier to spot the evidence there. Skeptics, therefore, crow that scientists’ limited success proves there is no such thing as global warming. Now a Canadian team has found a way to measure climate change by documenting what temperatures suit different fish species and following their migration to more comfortable venues.

As the world warms, fish that find the sea temperatures too hot for comfort tend to move north or south, away from the tropics-- or to deeper and therefore cooler waters. Dan Pauly of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Washington and his colleagues have found that the mix of fish in the world’s major fisheries has changed since 1970. For example, sea bass and the historic Mediterranean delicacy, red mullet, have moved north into British waters, Pacific salmon are now found in the frigid Beaufort Sea north of Prudhoe Bay and Atlantic cod are leaving the Grand Banks off Newfoundland devastating a historic North American fishing economy.

Red Mullet

Scientists say the average surface water temperature of major fisheries has increased 1° Celsius; and that confirmed fish migrations in or out of fisheries corresponds with water temperature change, not with fishing pressures or with oceanic features like ocean currents. Pauly’s colleague, William Cheung of University of British Columbia notes that it has been difficult to detect evidence of change because of the “over-exploitation of traditional fishing grounds” and greater pressure on more distant and deeper water fisheries. (More on this later as we discuss the history of the Grand Banks.)

Fish Thermometer 

Evidence of climate change has been well hidden by the more evident flux in species’ temperature preferences and over-fishing, so the researchers invented a “fish thermometer”. This is nothing more than meticulously tracking changes in the patterns and makeup of fish catches over time. As the mix of species changes, they were able to examine the temperature preferences of the species caught in the fishery and compare the mix of species to historical catches. The study spanned the years 1970 to 2006. This new scale of measurement recorded an overall warming rate of 0.17°C per decade. Non-tropical ocean waters, specifically, are warming at an even faster rate— 0.22°C per decade.

To further annoy skeptics, the measured rate of change was much faster in some regions. The north-east Atlantic, for instance, has been warming at 0.49°C a decade as measured by the fish thermometer, even though sea surface temperatures showed only a 0.26°C rise as measured by other instruments. Warm water species are on the move, to what were once considered cooler seas.

If such a change is inconvenient for global warming skeptics, it’s very bad news for fishermen in the tropics where many of the world’s poorer people subsist on local seafood. The more temperate zones will see a migration of species from the equatorial zones, but fish are not likely to migrate towards the tropics. So as global warming makes the equatorial seas too hot for comfort, fish catches are likely to fall, and yet another source of nutrition will dwindle.

Pretty Fish, Voracious Eaters

The migration of tropical fish, in particular, can be devastating to more temperate marine ecosystems. Invading tropical species are stripping kelp forests in Japan, Australia, and the eastern Mediterranean and mowing down sea grass in the northern Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic seaboard. Sea grass beds and kelp forests are known as the sea's nurseries because they have nooks and crannies filled with nutrients that feed and protect fish larvae and juveniles from marauding predators. The kelp and sea grass, however, are being replaced with other warm-water species such as coral that follow the arrival of tropical fish.

Parrot Fish

Many tropical fish species are "browsers" that clean coral of algae and plants that could otherwise choke the reefs. But when these herbivorous fish move toward more temperate waters, they eagerly unleash their voracious appetites on a bountiful harvest of kelp or sea grass. Once a tropical fish species arrives in a new area, it can quickly mow down vegetation and the lush habitat that protects other species. For instance, shrimp, crab, and other species that typically spend the first year of their lives hidden from predators in the protection of the grasses disappear without cover, leaving a void for the creatures that depend on them for food.

Kelp Forest

Loss of a kelp forest or sea grass bed can have devastating effects not only on native plants and animals, but also on commercial fisheries. In southern Japan, for example, the arrival of parrot fish destroyed as much as 40 percent of the kelp forests there. These lush areas were once thick with abalone and spiny lobster, which supported a famed fishery. When the kelp vanished, so did abalone and spiny lobster.

Over-fishing or Global Warming— Expediency at any cost?

U.S. and Canadian fishermen have harvested Atlantic cod since the 17th century. Cod was said to be so abundant then that you could almost walk across the ocean on their backs, and it was one of the most lucrative products traded during colonial times. During the 1950s and 60s, technological advances in trawler design and power modeled on the factory whaling ships that had devastated the last remaining whale populations began to lay waste to cod populations.

Map Showing the Grand Banks

These huge factory trawlers came from distant countries, attracted by a seemingly endless supply of cod. Their huge nets hoisted up massive quantities of fish; they rapidly processed and deep-froze the catch, working around the clock in all but the worst weather conditions. They could haul up as much as 200 tons of fish an hour, twice as much as a typical 16th century ship could catch in an entire season. This unbearable fishing pressure throughout the latter part of the 20th century led to commercial collapse of the cod fishery in the mid-1990s.  A concerted effort to rebuild these stocks began soon after. By 1992 the levels of northern cod were the lowest ever measured, forcing the Canadian government to close the fishery, throwing 30,000 people out of work and devastating many fishing communities.

So, says the global warming skeptic, the cod vanished because of over-fishing-- not because of climate change. While true, the over-fishing and ecosystem plundering is hiding the measurable fact that what few cod survive are migrating to colder water— to avoid warming seas. Despite a lengthy ban on cod fishing near the Grand Banks, the cod does not appear to be in recovery.

There is an interesting parallel to be drawn between global warming skeptics (oil companies and allied interests) and vanishing cod skeptics (commercial fishing industry and allied interests). Both subscribe to short-term expediency rather than the long-term health of the planet. Indeed, prior to the actual collapse of the fishery in the early 1990s, the Canadian government preferred to listen to the industrial fishing companies which claimed there was no problem with the declining catches— just like burning fossil fuels has little to do with global warming.

Scientific warnings in the late 1980s  went unheeded because any cut in catches or oil consumption would cause politically unacceptable job losses and cut oil company profits. It seems science is only as good as the money behind it.