Why We Lose (Part IV)

(Posted by Howard Ernst.)

The Chesapeake Bay Commission describes itself as a tri-state legislative commission created in 1980 “to advise the members of the General Assemblies of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania on matters of Bay-wide concern.” Yet the majority of its elected members have poor environmental voting records…

Read More

J. Chuck Fox–Thank You

On December 3, 2008 an unprecedented event took place in Annapolis, Maryland. A group of twenty distinguished Chesapeake Bay scientists and policy experts crowded into a small room at the Maryland Inn to discuss the fate of the Bay restoration effort. The meeting itself was not particularly significant, most of the people in the room knew each other and all the attendees had participated in similar discussions in the past, but what the participants had to say was groundbreaking. Within a short period of time, the diverse group of environmental experts agreed to a unanimous statement regarding the Bay restoration effort. Their statement declared that the voluntary/collaborative structures under the formal Bay Program had not succeeding and, as a consequence, the Bay’s health was declining, not improving:

Read More

Why We Lose (Part III)

(Posted by Howad Ernst) Sample of 2010 Election Results MD General Assembly Virginia P. Clagett 21,142 (votes), loses seat (District 30), Environmental Matters Committee, Lifetime Environmental Voting Score, LCV (94%) Direct Contributions from Environmental Groups (2010) $0 Total Political Contributions (2010) $26,440 Herbert H. McMillan 22,553 (votes), wins seat (District 30), Lifetime Environmental Voting Score, LCV…

Read More

Why We Lose (Part II)

Number of Chesapeake Bay environmental groups that have chosen a tax status that allows them to contribute to political candidates:

2

Number of Chesapeake Bay environmental groups that have chosen a tax exempt tax status that prohibits them from making political contributions:

617

Read More

Science and the Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Howard Ernst)

For decades, discussions about Chesapeake Bay policy have been dominated by the hundreds of environmental organizations that claim to represent the Bay and the hundreds of industry leaders that the environmentalists often oppose. The industry leaders are typically depicted by their environmental opponents as profiting from using the Bay as a cheap and convenient place to dispose of unwanted byproducts (poultry waste, toxic waste from steel production, runoff from developers…). The environmentalists, on the other hand, are viewed by their industrial opponents as championing pie in the sky ideas that are too expensive and too impractical to be taken seriously.

Read More