05-16-2017, 05:52 AM
The TMT debate. Does Mauna Loa have any relevance? Two lines of thought dominate the opposition to TMT: native Hawaiians’ spiritual reverence for Mauna Kea and the environmental impact of the project.
The Sierra Club’s website states the TMT Plan ”will add to the significant, adverse and substantial impacts to the cultural and natural resources” of the mountain and “permanently alter an undeveloped portion of the northern plateau.”
The proposal “would unleash a whole new era of summit development, allowing even larger telescopes of 50 or 100 meters in size,” the website continues.
Often implicit in these arguments, as in the other similar arguments worldwide about projects in natural areas, is the notion that a unique natural resource is threatened.
Mauna Kea is pretty unique. But it is not one of a kind. Barely 25 miles south lies another giant mountain, equally impressive in many people’s opinions. Though a bit lower (by about 120 feet) and less striking in terms of (steep) relief, Mauna Loa is larger and dominates half of our island.
Hawaiian religious views, to my knowledge, do not much enter in the discussion of Mauna Loa. (I welcome correction.) But perhaps there are environmental and aesthetic factors.
The Wekiu Bug does not live on Mauna Loa. But a similar species, Nysius aa, lives there and apparently is doing quite well. Does the population of another mountaintop bug in Hawaii lessen concerns about the general threat to Hawaii’s high-altitude insects?
Does the existence of another virtually untouched 13,000-foot-plus mountain on our island reduce the perception that large areas of Hawaii’s high-altitude terrain are being degraded? Is the annoyance of looking up and seeing telescopes marring the beauty of Mauna Kea mitigated by a glance toward Mauna Loa--and seeing its natural profile untouched?
* * * *
What about moving (gradually) Mauna Kea’s telescope complex to Mauna Loa? What about abutting NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory? Situated at 11,141 ft. on the mountain’s north slope, MLO has been operating since 1956.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
Presumably the approximate 2,600 ft. difference between the MLO site and Mauna Kea’s 13,802 ft. summit produces a major difference in observation quality. Could geologists identify a safe construction site closer to Mauna Loa’s 13,679 ft. summit?
The idea should be explored, given the importance of looking 30, 50, 100 years out. The Sierra Club’s reference to “a whole new era of development” is not only true, but would be inevitable--pending approvals.
Some TMT proponents might wish to avoid discussing the prospect that TMT will be “just the first of several,” but IMO, honesty is the best policy. How could it be otherwise? Existing observatories will grow obsolete. In 30-50 years major advances in telescope technology will likely emerge. Exploration of space could gain new importance.
If TMT is blocked, will not the same happen to subsequent proposals? Doesn’t a rejection of TMT effectively end the long-term future of astronomy on Mauna Kea, or at least relegate Hawaii island--arguably one of the world’s premier astronomical sites--to a steady decline toward antiquated technology? Such technology is handicapped to produce new science.
How much risk is there in pushing toward the higher elevations of Mauna Loa? What do geologists say? What do astronomers think about Mauna Loa’s potential?
Mauna Loa lava flows to the south Kohala-Kona coast occurred not long ago. One flow reached near the ocean near Kawaihae around 1859. Another reached the ocean near Hookena (south of Kona) in 1950. Yet along the entire west coast of our island lie billions of dollars of real estate.
Construction risks have long been taken with Mauna Loa or in the mountain’s path.
The Sierra Club’s website states the TMT Plan ”will add to the significant, adverse and substantial impacts to the cultural and natural resources” of the mountain and “permanently alter an undeveloped portion of the northern plateau.”
The proposal “would unleash a whole new era of summit development, allowing even larger telescopes of 50 or 100 meters in size,” the website continues.
Often implicit in these arguments, as in the other similar arguments worldwide about projects in natural areas, is the notion that a unique natural resource is threatened.
Mauna Kea is pretty unique. But it is not one of a kind. Barely 25 miles south lies another giant mountain, equally impressive in many people’s opinions. Though a bit lower (by about 120 feet) and less striking in terms of (steep) relief, Mauna Loa is larger and dominates half of our island.
Hawaiian religious views, to my knowledge, do not much enter in the discussion of Mauna Loa. (I welcome correction.) But perhaps there are environmental and aesthetic factors.
The Wekiu Bug does not live on Mauna Loa. But a similar species, Nysius aa, lives there and apparently is doing quite well. Does the population of another mountaintop bug in Hawaii lessen concerns about the general threat to Hawaii’s high-altitude insects?
Does the existence of another virtually untouched 13,000-foot-plus mountain on our island reduce the perception that large areas of Hawaii’s high-altitude terrain are being degraded? Is the annoyance of looking up and seeing telescopes marring the beauty of Mauna Kea mitigated by a glance toward Mauna Loa--and seeing its natural profile untouched?
* * * *
What about moving (gradually) Mauna Kea’s telescope complex to Mauna Loa? What about abutting NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory? Situated at 11,141 ft. on the mountain’s north slope, MLO has been operating since 1956.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa_Observatory
Presumably the approximate 2,600 ft. difference between the MLO site and Mauna Kea’s 13,802 ft. summit produces a major difference in observation quality. Could geologists identify a safe construction site closer to Mauna Loa’s 13,679 ft. summit?
The idea should be explored, given the importance of looking 30, 50, 100 years out. The Sierra Club’s reference to “a whole new era of development” is not only true, but would be inevitable--pending approvals.
Some TMT proponents might wish to avoid discussing the prospect that TMT will be “just the first of several,” but IMO, honesty is the best policy. How could it be otherwise? Existing observatories will grow obsolete. In 30-50 years major advances in telescope technology will likely emerge. Exploration of space could gain new importance.
If TMT is blocked, will not the same happen to subsequent proposals? Doesn’t a rejection of TMT effectively end the long-term future of astronomy on Mauna Kea, or at least relegate Hawaii island--arguably one of the world’s premier astronomical sites--to a steady decline toward antiquated technology? Such technology is handicapped to produce new science.
How much risk is there in pushing toward the higher elevations of Mauna Loa? What do geologists say? What do astronomers think about Mauna Loa’s potential?
Mauna Loa lava flows to the south Kohala-Kona coast occurred not long ago. One flow reached near the ocean near Kawaihae around 1859. Another reached the ocean near Hookena (south of Kona) in 1950. Yet along the entire west coast of our island lie billions of dollars of real estate.
Construction risks have long been taken with Mauna Loa or in the mountain’s path.
