Last year brought disturbing news about the number of birds declining in North America, dropping almost 30% over the last 50 years. Much of the data behind this science came from ordinary people who spent their spare time observing birds. This same data, however, has helped shape and measure the results from successful conservation efforts that offer hope for the future. We know conservation efforts work, and future efforts will require getting even more people involved in citizen science.

Nature enthusiasts, including bird watchers, have contributed much to what we now know about birds. Individual birders keep checklists, whether on a bird walk or simply observing birds at their backyard feeders. When aggregated, these individual checklists help wildlife biologists study bird behavior and trends in population levels, helping to identify where conservation efforts can have the greatest impact.

Starting this year, Maryland will kick off a 5-year effort to document where birds breed throughout the state. It is called the Breeding Bird Atlas and has been conducted twice before. The first was carried out from 1983-1987, and the second from 2002-2006. Birders at all skill levels will take to the field to observe birds, trying to determine if they are breeding in specific locations. Their observations will be fed into a database to see how birds are faring on the Eastern Shore and throughout Maryland.

If you would like to help out, or just find out more, contact me at the Talbot County Bird Club (talbotbirdclub@gmail.com). Participating in the Breeding Bird Atlas is a great way to learn more about birds, enjoy the outdoors, and stay positive about the future by contributing to conservation efforts.

Ron Ketter
Talbot County Breeding Bird Atlas Coordinator

The recently-announced agreement between the Maryland Department of the Environment and Exelon Corporation regarding the Conowingo Dam is a baby step in the right direction, but does not do enough to protect the Chesapeake Bay or Sassafras River. At a time when we need innovative, comprehensive solutions to major environmental threats, these two parties have instead elected for a feel-good deal that only requires Exelon to pay for 3% of what they need to contribute to adequately address the problem. Exelon is trying to get off with minimal investment, making this less of a deal and more of a steal.

It’s undeniable that the sediment, trash, and debris at the dam is generated by our northern neighbors, New York and Pennsylvania, and not by the dam itself. We need to hold these states accountable for reducing their pollution as well. However, Exelon is the only entity that profits from the water flowing through the dam. No one should be allowed to profit from a public natural resource without having to contribute to the protection and restoration of that resource. It is inexcusable that Maryland watermen, boaters, homeowners, and taxpayers have to suffer the consequences of this trash and pollution flowing down the Susquehanna and are then expected to pay for the cleanup.

The Sassafras River is only 11 miles from the mouth of the Susquehanna, so we are one of the first areas to feel the effects every time the Conowingo flood gates are opened and trash, sediment, and other pollutants are allowed to flow free. There should not be tractor tires, 55 gallon drums with Pennsylvania addresses, or nurdles (pre-production industrial plastic pellets) washing up on our Sassafras shores, especially when Exelon has the opportunity to prevent them from entering the Bay, but instead balks.

The updated 401 Water Quality Certification for the dam called for Exelon to pay $127 million per year for the 50-year term to begin to address this problem. Now Exelon is trying to claim that $4 million a year, or about 3% of what is needed, is a monumental victory. It’s not. The deal was brokered behind closed doors exclusively between the Maryland Department of the Environment and Exelon, so the only thing that is monumental here is the lack of transparency and enforcement opportunity.

The final affront is that the meager amount Exelon is proposing to pay would go into the state’s Clean Water Fund, which can be raided and reallocated at any point by the governor or legislature for other purposes, so the money might not even be used to address the issue at hand.

None of this is to say that Conowingo or Exelon is the bad guy. For many years, until it reached the end of its effective lifespan, the dam was the most effective best management practice in the entire Bay and trapped tons of sediment and debris. But past success is no excuse for current complacency. Exelon prides itself on being innovative, sustainable, and groundbreaking, so any settlement that is reached should reflect those values in a tangible, enforceable manner that benefits the health of our waterways. Exelon needs to step up and contribute their fair share for meaningful change because Marylanders deserve a healthy Bay and a clean Sassafras River. A problem this big needs accountability at all levels.

Zack Kelleher
ShoreRivers
Sassafras RIVERKEEPER

On Thursday, November 21 at 7 p.m., the Talbot County Democratic Forum’s Environmental Committee will host a workshop about federal and state carbon pricing at Democratic Headquarters, 26 W. Dover St. in Easton. Hope Clark, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby liaison for Representative Andy Harris, will present about the bipartisan federal bill, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Frances Stewart, chapter leader for Climate Reality Montgomery County and member of the Climate XChange, will present about a Maryland state carbon pricing bill. A tree will be planted for each person attending the event.

As impeachment proceedings ratchet up the partisan tension in Washington, there’s still hope that progress can be made on the pressing problems of the day. It appears Republicans and Democrats are coming together on one issue that seemed intractable not long ago: climate change.

In the Senate, Republican Senator Mike Braun of Indiana is teaming up with Delaware Democrat Chris Coons to form the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus. Republicans, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have joined them along with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Sen. Angus King (I-ME), Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO).

The Senate group complements the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in the House that was established in 2016. It became a judgment-free zone where members of both parties could come together for serious discussions about solving climate change. Today, there are myriad bipartisan climate bills in the House, thanks in no small part to the collaborative atmosphere the caucus created.

A bipartisan approach to solving climate change is essential, because passing legislation requires buy-in from both sides of the aisle. Regardless of which party controls the Senate and White House, political winds shift, and policies with broad support will withstand those shifts.

Republicans and Democrats are seeking common ground on climate change because public opinion has reached a tipping point that cannot be ignored. A CBS News poll last month found two-thirds of Americans view climate change as a crisis or serious problem, and a majority want immediate action.

Overwhelming majorities of younger GOP voters regard climate change as a serious threat, too: 77 percent of them said so in a survey by Ipsos and Newsy this fall.

It’s not just polling motivating Congress — it’s citizens. Volunteers with Citizens’ Climate Lobby are carrying a clear message to their representatives: “Make climate a bridge issue, not a wedge issue.” CCL volunteers have held 1,131 meetings with congressional offices so far this year to bring the parties together on climate change.

Now that we have Republicans and Democrats talking to each other about climate solutions, what major climate legislation will they support together?

A price on carbon offers promising common ground. Thousands of U.S. economists support carbon pricing as an effective tool to reduce emissions quickly. Newsweek recently surveyed 300 multinational corporations and found that 95% favor mandatory carbon pricing. And according to Luntz Global, carbon pricing that includes a revenue return to Americans, has four to one support among all voters.

This year, four carbon pricing bills have been introduced with bipartisan sponsorship.

Of the four, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (H.R. 763) has attracted the most support, with 69 House members now signed on, including Republican Francis Rooney of Florida. This legislation would initiate a fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon, rising by $10 per ton each year. All revenue would be paid out equally to every household. In 10 years, a family of four would receive an annual “carbon dividend” of about $3,500. Resources for the Future estimates this policy would reduce carbon emissions 47% by 2030. The bill targets 90% reductions by 2050.

Here on the Eastern Shore, support for this legislation has been expressed with 96 constituent letters, and endorsements from Double Diamond Construction, the Chester River Friends Meeting, the O.L.P. Foundation, and Washington College. That support, here and throughout the country, sends a signal to Republican lawmakers that backing H.R. 763 can be a politically astute move.

Despite the current hyper-partisan atmosphere, elected officials are realizing that climate change is one area where differences must be set aside for the good of our nation and the world. Not only are they realizing it, but they’re starting to act on it.

Mark Reynolds is executive director of Citizens’ Climate Lobby. Hope Clark is the group leader of the Chestertown chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

1st District of Maryland Representative, Andy Harris, recently was one of 11 members of congress to vote against House Bill H.R. 3224. This bill would increase women veterans’ access to Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical care, such as the availability of gender-specific primary care services, PTSD counseling, expanded healthcare for newborns, and more.

The vote was 399 YEA and 11 NAYS. Harris voted NAY. Happy Veterans Day, Ladies. 

This vote is way too extremist for me and does not represent the way I think we should be treating our Veterans. I bet I am not alone. Perhaps it’s time we considered another Republican or Democrat to represent our interests. 

For more information on this Bill visit: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3224

Chris Koch
Easton

The following email was sent to the Washington College community yesterday evening by President Kurt Landgraf to respond to criticism that the liberal arts institution had censured freedom of artistic expression by cancelling a student production of the play entitled “The Foreigner.”

Dear Campus Community,

Last Friday, we announced a decision to cancel two scheduled public performances of “The Foreigner.”  This play—written in the 1980s and frequently produced at educational and professional institutions across the country—centers on a group of people who feel “othered” by society in various ways, including premarital pregnancy, neurological differences, and age. Over the course of the play, these individuals build a community together through listening, learning and, humor, but their bond is threatened by the xenophobic anger and self-proclaimed entitlement of two other characters. In the climax of the play, the community of disenfranchised protagonists rises up to easily defeat the bigoted antagonists (who reveal themselves as members of the KKK). It is through the portrayal and defeat of these villainous characters that the play conveys its message about the evils of xenophobia, the dangers of “othering,” and the importance of empathy.

We made the decision to cancel the performances after listening to members of our campus community who told us that they were deeply hurt and affronted by the existence and portrayal of characters associated with the KKK—even though these characters are clearly portrayed as villains and are easily vanquished by the play’s protagonists. Our intent in cancelling the production was to prevent further harm to members of our community who already feel marginalized. However, the decision to cancel the play has been interpreted by some as a form of censorship on the part of the College. Censorship is anathema to the core values of Washington College, and this was never our intent.

It is our job, as a liberal arts institution, to create a space where difficult issues can be faced head-on and thoughtfully discussed. The production and subsequent cancellation of this play have raised important questions about how we, as an institution, choose, contextualize, and discuss potentially controversial material—on our stages, in our classrooms, and beyond. To that end, we are currently discussing how we can best present the story and message of this play in a way that enables the campus community to have a productive, thoughtful conversation. We will work with all of the relevant student groups, staff, faculty, alumni, and Board of Visitors and Governors to determine the best way to accomplish this and to find the most constructive path forward.

President Kurt Landgraf
Washington College

Provost DiQuinzio and Dean Feyerherm;

Your outrageous decision to cancel the senior capstone production of the award-winning play ‘The Foreigner” at the very moment that the students were about to perform the dress rehearsal was rash, ill-justified and shameful, bringing dishonor to yourselves and to the academic institution that you represent. I am writing to you, and copying the President of the College and the Chair of the Board of Visitors & Governors, to demand a public apology to the theater students and faculty who have been traumatized and victimized by your actions.

Your November 8, 2019 email to parents and the all-campus email that preceded it only compounded your error and illustrate that your actions were made in ignorance and in haste. You were unfamiliar with the play and cannot have taken the time to read and discuss it with those in the theater department who have, or to understand the way that the issues it raises about bigotry and intolerance are addressed in this production. You have now joined a single institution – a high school in Sioux Falls, South Dakota – in censoring and cancelling production of Larry Shue’s award-winning play, which continues to win acclaim for its numerous revivals since its Off-Broadway debut in November 1984.

Your glib statement that parents should understand your decision in the larger context of an ongoing and evolving effort “to be a community that prioritizes inclusiveness and the ability to articulate one’s perspective with an effort toward finding greater understanding, effecting positive change, and strengthening communication among all of our students, staff, and faculty” is belied by your cowardice and refusal to recognize this as precisely the kind of teaching moment that could have created the “brave space” that would advance those ideals. Instead, you gutted a segment of your community – my daughter among them – and made them targets of uninformed accusations of racism from those who objected to the play and who now associate them with racist ideas simply for being part of this manifestly not racist production. You privileged “Callout Culture” and denied members of your community the opportunity to constructively engage with difficult or uncomfortable ideas. Shame on you!

Your assertion that your act of censorship “does not diminish the months of hard work, collaboration, emotion, and thoughtfulness that students invested in the production—nor does it lessen all that they have learned through those efforts” is grossly disingenuous. What they have learned may indeed be valuable, but it is not the sort of lesson that a responsible institution of higher learning would seek to engender. They have learned that their voices do not matter, for they were not among the “members of the student community” with whom you claim to have consulted. They have learned that they may be subject to the whim of arbitrary and capricious authority. They have learned that their investment in a college-sanctioned theater production can be undone whenever a community voice objects to any of its content. They have learned that they will not be protected from the backlash that your decision has empowered.

You compelled your faculty colleagues to cancel the play while the students and director were on stage for the dress rehearsal, and stood silently watching their grief and distress. You did nothing to comfort them. You did nothing to address their pain. Your only concession was to allow a closed performance of the dress rehearsal, and neither of you congratulated them on their performance. You did not even offer to come and help them strike the set. You did nothing to anticipate or ameliorate the trauma that you have caused. Your belated meeting with the director and cast on Saturday only elicited an apology from you when they told you they needed one.

I call it cowardice. I call it cruel. I call it censorship and abuse of power. I call it intellectually dishonest and a mockery of the educational and community values you cite and that Washington College purports to espouse. This is your mess to clean up. Do not sweep it under the rug. Own what you have done and apologize publicly for the unintended but undeniable harm you have caused.

Timothy B. Abbott

In 2012, I had the privilege of touring eastern Turkey including its city of Bitlis from where my mother’s family had emigrated in 1905 because of Turkish persecution of Armenians. My grandfather was born in Bitlis, and I wanted to walk the streets he had walked as a child. 

In 1915, Ottoman Turks began a systematic elimination of Armenians, and when U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Robert Morgenthau protested to Talaat Pasha, one of the Empire’s three leaders, he said, “It is no use for you to argue…we have already disposed of three quarters of the Armenians; there are none at all left in Bitlis, Van, and Erzeroum.” Morgenthau then received a request from Talaat as recorded in his book, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story, “I wish that you would get the American life insurance companies to send us a complete list of their Armenian policy holders. They are practically all dead now and have left no heirs to collect the money. It of course all escheats to the State. The Government is the beneficiary now. Will you do so?”

The Saroyans who arrived at Ellis Island driven by my great-grandmother Lucintak were among the lucky ones. Those relatives who remained disappeared amidst the blood that ran down the streets of Bitlis I walked on a hundred years later.  

For the past century, geopolitical politics and heavy lobbying by the Turkish government has prevented efforts begun by Ambassador Morgenthau to have the U.S. recognize the elimination of more than 1.5 million Armenians. It is historic, therefore, that the House of Representatives approved a resolution on 10/29 commemorating the Armenian genocide. Yet it is puzzling that while 405 representatives—including GOP leadership members Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Whip Steve Scalise, and Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes—all voted in favor of the resolution, our congressman, Rep. Andy Harris, was one of 11 toeing the Turkish line. Perhaps his next step will be to finally get the list of genocide victim policy holders to the Turkish government so that President Erdogan can begin collection.

Jeff McGuiness
St. Michaels, MD