The story in this video tells of one chance to learn from mistakes made in the past at Font Hill.

Hopefully the Government powers in place will listen and not destroy this area with all its wild life heritage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Houc0PgAQCQ

Sea Grass: Be Amazed!...What is the oldest living thing on Earth?

...an Australian researcher published a report identifying the oldest living thing on Earth. It’s sea grass — grass growing underwater — just off the coast of Spain that lives up to 200,000 years.

That means that this sea grass would have been alive at the same time as the first modern humans

According to the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins program, modern humans, called Homo sapiens, which is Latin for “wise man,” or “knowing man,” originated in Africa and began spreading all over the world starting about 200,000 years ago.

LINK:
www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/this-sea-grass-is-really-old/2012/02/1 4/gIQAnWxOKR_story.html

The youtube video is so sensitively and intelligently done. Kudos to Diane McCauley and the others for putting that together.

Watching it, I didn't know whether to cry or scream. WHY do Jamaicans not rise up in revolt over ANY plans to develop that exquisite Font Hill in ANY way? Numbers, people, numbers. And organization.

QUESTION to Diana McCaulay (JET):

What you have created in your Video (Jamaica's Gift to the World) seems nothing less than the Visuals for an Environmental Impact Study/Assessment AGAINST the inappropriate development of the sensitive ecosystem at Font Hill (Luana, on the old maps).

NEPA, which would be so instrumental in ruling on the specific sell-out plot being flaunted (to the Spanish Fiesta hotel group), has already created a document which should be prima facie advocacy FOR the preservation of Font Hill's uniqueness properties.
Diana...you have already reported Fiesta's terrifying Plans for "3,000 rooms, golf course, airport..." and your understanding that a South Coast Sustainable Development Plan WAS done, and this is not at all in keeping with the plan.

The NEPA title is Overview of the Importance of Mangroves and Seagrass Ecosystems, which is Linked below.

Highlights from their NEPA's primer practically scream at the reader:

• Seagrasses“:The Rain Forest of the Sea”...So why then would you Destroy the AMAZON??

• Mangroves, the backbone of Tropical coastlines, providing
**Wave Bufferimg
**Recent studies have shown that the rainbow parrotfish (largest herbivorous fish in the Atlantic)is so dependent on mangroves that it became locally absent after the forests were removed.

• Mangrove forests and seagrasses (fostering food & shelter for marine animals; sediment stabilization; water clarity/Nutrient Cycling) are some of the world's most threatened tropical ecosystems.

• Symbiotic Relationship of Mangroves, Seagrass and Coral Reef

• We depend on these ecosystems to sustain our way of life as they depend on us to protect and conserve them for continued sustainability.

Among other threats to mangroves and seagrasses are effects exacerbated by human activity, NEPA prominently lists:
**Tourism and Real-estate development
**Increased suspended matter in coastal waters (coastal developments and degraded watersheds)
**Beach development (e.g. Negril* North coast hotels)
**Public perception and disregard

Coupled with the backing of a slew of world-class scientists, the likes of Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Institute, environmental groups and outraged citizenry, can you think of a better argument to PRE-EMPT development of Hotel Grandiosa than NEPA's own presentation on the issue?

Is the divestment and development of Font Hill, supported and expedited by the former JLP government, written in stone? Have "unbreakable" contracts been signed? Is the current PNP government taking a position contrary to their predecessors? Were transparency and "due process" courses followed?

Is there anything in the legislation that says we have to wait for Fiesta, or any other invasive species, to file Plans and doctored Environmental Impact Assessments before JET and others can make their own case for a version of "Environmental Heritage" status for sweet-ole Font Hill?

LINKS:
Peter P Marra (Smithsonian Institution Research Scientist): Proposed Development of Key Coastal Habitat in SW Jamaica
http://irf.posterous.com/proposed-development-of-key-coastal-habitat-i

US Scientist Says 'No' to Font Hill's Development
‘DON’T DISTURB’
www.jamaicaobserver.com/environment/US-scientist-says--no--to-Font-Hill-s-develo pment_7817532

NEPA: Overview of the Importance of Mangroves and Seagrass Ecosystems
www.nepa.gov.jm/presentation/overview-mangroves-seagrass.pdf

Diana McCaulay's Discussion on TB.Net Forum: Font Hill and the Fiesta Group (May 6, 2010)


QUOTES:

• "Successive) governments have basically been selling off the beach property... and Font Hill is the latest one. (Dr Bryon Wilson, Zoologist and Lecturer at the University of the West Indies)

• "I am totally against the current approach of the Government, which is to sell off of our coastal assets without proper scrutiny...the Government's approach also went against scientific advice, stakeholders' wishes and "all the voices" advocating for sustainability. "I mean, do we have no commitment to environmental conservation?"
"And, of course, you have the whole potential of that area not only to be a wildlife reserve but (also) to have the associated low-impact long-term tourism that can benefit from the wildlife assets. We seem to have a Government that does not understand the economic potential for using our wildlife and natural resources sustainably, for capitalising on their value for the future."
(Wendy Lee, President of the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association)

• It is very distressing to hear that a big hotel is being contemplated for a place that is identified as to be protected in the Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism ( p 175)... It is a very important wetland area, and (one will) understand the role wetlands play in protecting our coasts and providing fish. So I hope that there is transparency surrounding whatever we plan for Font Hill." (Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer at the Jamaica Environment Trust)

• "Font Hill is a very special area of dense Jamaican biodiversity that has managed to survive human encroachment over time. The area is extremely diverse and rich in many species, such as birds, crocodiles, turtles, bats, butterflies, marine-life and many others -- plus the forest and marine habitat they live in. The area has already been encroached on and reduced to only a few hundred acres of remaining original natural habitat for these animals, many of which are protected,"

"Bulldozing the mangrove and dry forests for massive hotels is insane and immoral. The loss of the reefs and associated marine species and birds would be a serious loss for Jamaica and the Jamaicans who reside in that area -- not to mention the forests in North America that these creatures live in for part of each year."

"This destruction and exploitation is only benefiting foreign multinationals, who will send the profits abroad and Jamaica and the Jamaican people will lose their natural heritage forever. This destructive policy of levelling our coastlines and erecting concrete cities that destroy our natural heritage while simultaneously cutting off Jamaicans from access to their own beaches is wrong."

"The false ploy of it being 'development and jobs' is a farce that has been disproved in Jamaica and the rest of the Caribbean. Our natural heritage is more valuable to us economically and as a nation (in tact), than selling it out to become a concrete polluter in the interest of foreigners"
(Jan Pauel, a member of the Jamaica Environmental Advocacy Network-JEAN)

Annabelle Todd relays this anecdote (from May 6, 2010):
One smart guy told me this today:
""The Spanish have the hotels, the Irish and English the phone company, Canadians the airports, a bankrupt American company had JPS until they were rich again, now the Japanese have it, Chinese get the bauxite, and railroad, French have the toll roads. Oh yeah, Jamaica still owns the NWC...in the land of wood and bottled water.
Free at last, we are a strong independent country!"

On Dec 11, Rebecca posted her notes from the launching of the "Way Back When" tour out of Black River. She posted the following note..."Both the Mayor, Mr. Palmer and the M.P. Dr. Tufton made mention of a Black River museum in the works and Dr. Tufton went on to talk about plans to spruce up the town, building a boardwalk from Hendriks Wharf towards the hospital, and possibly even horse and buggy rides through town. He also mentioned keeping 700 acres of the 3000 acres of land at Font Hill as environmentally protected land and the possibility of a cruise ship harbor nearby. "

Keeping 700 of the 3000 acres how it was supposed to kept. That is like a politician looking the people straight in the eye and telling them we are only keeping 25% of what we promised true, 75% is a lie.

Maybe I never looked good, but in myself I wondered why this comment never upset anyone.

The whole situation reminds me of a similar part of the culture where poor family will allow an older man to "tek care" of their pretty young daughter so they can help send her to school, knowing good and well it is pretty much a prostitution arrangement. In the end, the child is ruined, not better off.

Tempted by big dollar investment/possible bribes, the politricksters encourage this developement, the land gets raped, bruised and battered to the point of no return. In the future we have what?
People better off? Aside from the few hundred who get subsistence or less paying jobs, in the end the country is just raped of resources, exploited for labor and scarred beyond repair. Unfortunately, this has been going on from the get go and the JA environment is getting worse and worse, the country is unwilling to learn from those who have done it right (Costa Rica). We are losing our Treasure fast.

I agree with MeAgain. {edited by TBNet}
ALL of Font Hill should be preserved, not only a small portion of it.

Jamaica has a new government. Are they going to carry through this policy?

The policy of preserving 100% or preserving 25%?

This 200,000yo sea-grass seems to be part of the 'climate change' hype....much like the disappearing glaciers on the Himalayas,and the disappearing polar bears.

Spooky D...we want to share your consere-a-tive stance towards Earth's science and the theological guidance that just might influence how we ought to ethically interact with the Greatest as stewards of the universe...parallel or other-wise.

So putting aside the Gospel of Hype, we consulted the writings of a conserving-conservative thinker on the subject of ecology. These are some truisms that David Jenkins, Vice president for government and political affairs with Republicans for Environment Protection (REP), shook out of his sleeve.

Referring to a Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States articulating "his total rejection of scientific consensus on climate change, which he refers to as "junk science" with fervor and conviction, his certitude is not supported by either evidence or Christian theology. It can only be chalked up to ideology, misinformation or a too-generous helping of both."

Jenkins inserts the belief of this candidate, and a contingent of religious believers ("dominionists"), that "man's dominion over the earth must be used "for our benefit, not for the Earth's benefit." He seems oblivious to the fact that the two are inseparable, that a healthy earth is essential to human life."

The symbiotic relationship between our environment and human life is not typically lost on genuine conservatives, only on right-wing ideologues. The conservative author Russell Kirk, whom Ronald Reagan referred to as "the prophet of American conservatism," wrote "Nothing is more conservative than conservation."

"...if conservatism is about anything, it is about prudence and rational, informed decision-making. This candidate's dismissal of scientific evidence and closed mind regarding climate change and other environmental concerns preclude prudent decision-making.

From a faith perspective, his ideas are no less disturbing. He said, "...we should not let the vagaries of nature destroy what we have helped create."
Referring to the sublime actions of God's creation as "the vagaries of nature" and implying that man's creations should somehow take precedent over -- as opposed to existing in harmony with -- God's creation, seems impious.

His total rejection of climate science, in its own way, is also dismissive of God's design.
In the Book of Genesis (3:19), God told Adam that his body would return to the ground when he died, saying, "...out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And unto dust you shall return." What Santorum overlooks is that God was describing a fundamental part of the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle is a miraculous process by which trees and other plants, animals, people, and the ocean remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and transfer it into the ground where the excess is sequestered. This is how nature maintains the proper balance of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that is required for sustaining life.

The designed resting place for a significant amount of that excess carbon is deep underground in the form of oil and coal.

When we extract oil and coal from the earth and burn it in ever increasing quantities, we throw a monkey wrench into the operation by releasing excess carbon from bygone eras back into the atmosphere.

Does it not then stand to reason that God, after designing the earth's processes to sequester excess carbon, would prefer that we respect His creation and work to reduce our carbon emissions?

(This Republican presidential candidate), like some of the climate skeptics on talk radio, peddle the notion that the earth was created on such a grand and complex scale, it is impossible for mankind to mess it up. In other words, we can do anything we want without serious consequence.

Does that really sound like something God would say?

Actually, it sounds a lot more like something the snake in the Garden of Eden would say.

Is there any aspect of our spiritual or physical life where our actions are without consequence? Everything we do has consequences -- and the earth's life-sustaining ecology was not designed to be immune from our actions and choices.

Too much accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disrupts the climate and causes the earth to overheat. This build-up also forces the oceans to absorb extra carbon, which makes the waters more acidic and less hospitable to marine life.

A good and faithful steward of God's creation will be in tune to how man is impacting nature, and sensitive to the ecological web of life that sustains all of us, not be dismissive of it.

Before accusing others of subscribing to a "phony theology," (this candidate for the highest office) should first follow Jesus' advice and take the plank out of his own eye."


With the Second Coming or Raptures and End Times/Departures, viewed by some Believers, as not too far off into the future, what harm could a Dominator see in "Drill Baby Drill" till we frack the last ounce of oil out of Earth's arteries and free its carbon chemistry into the atmosphere?

LINK:
HuffingtonPost: Santorums Impious Denial Theology

All ecosystems are all integrated, and they all have feedbacks and loops to the climate and the atmosphere, and they all, altogether create the biosphere/ecosphere. (Linus521)