The Global Warming Archive

Friday, May 29, 2009

What the future looks like

As the planet faces the most dangerous century in its 4.5bn-year history, astronomer royal Martin Rees looks into his crystal ball

Martin Rees
The Guardian,

What does the future hold for our small blue planet and its inhabitants? Photograph: Blue Line Pictures/Getty Images

It would be foolhardy to venture technological predictions for 2050. Even more so to predict social and geopolitical changes. The most important advances, the qualitative leaps, are the least predictable. Not even the best scientists predicted the impact of nuclear physics, and everyday consumer items such as the iPhone would have seemed magic back in the 1950s.

But there are some trends that we can predict with confidence. There will, barring a global catastrophe, be far more people on Earth than today. Fifty years ago the world population was below 3 billion. It has more than doubled since then, to 6.7 billion. The percentage growth rate has slowed, but it is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050. The excess will almost all be in the developing world where the young hugely outnumber the old.

If population growth were to continue beyond 2050, one can't be other than exceedingly gloomy about the prospects. And the challenge of feeding such a rapidly growing population will be aggravated by climate change.

The world will be warmer than today in 2050; the patterns of rainfall and drought across the world will be different. If we pursue "business as usual",

CO₂ concentration levels will reach twice the pre-industrial level by around 2050. The higher its concentration, the greater the warming - and, more important still, the greater the chance of triggering something grave and irreversible: rising sea levels due to the melting of Greenland's icecap; runaway release of methane in the tundra.

Some technical advances - information technology, for instance - surprise us by their rapidity; others seemingly stagnate. Only 12 years elapsed between the launch of Sputnik and Neil Armstrong's "one small step" on the moon. Many of us then expected a lunar base, even an expedition to Mars, within 30 years. But it's more than 36 years since Jack Schmitt and Eugene Cernan, the last men on the moon, returned to Earth. Since that time, hundreds of astronauts have been into orbit, but none has ventured further.

The Apollo programme now seems a remote historical episode: young people all over the world learn that America landed men on the moon, just as they learn that the Egyptians built the pyramids; the motivations seem almost as bizarre in the one case as in the other. The race to the moon was an end in itself - a magnificent "stunt", driven by superpower rivalry. Thereafter, the impetus for manned flight was lost. But, of course, we now depend on space in our everyday lives (GPS, weather forecasting and communications). And robotic exploration has burgeoned. Unmanned probes to other planets have beamed back pictures of varied and distinctive worlds.

I hope that by 2050 the entire solar system will have been explored and mapped by flotillas of tiny robotic craft. Robots and "fabricators" may enable large construction projects, using raw materials that need not come from Earth. But will people follow them? The practical case for sending people into space gets ever-weaker with each advance in robots and miniaturisation. But I'm nonetheless an enthusiast for manned missions - to the moon, to Mars and even beyond - simply as a long-range adventure for (at least a few) humans.

Each mobile phone today has far more computing power than was available to the whole of Nasa in the 1960s. And advances proceed apace. Some claim that computers will, by 2050, achieve human capabilities. Of course, in some respects they already have. For 30 years we've been able to buy calculators that can hugely surpass us at arithmetic. IBM's "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, the world chess champion. But not even the most advanced robot can recognise and move the pieces on a real chessboard as adeptly as a five-year-old child.

Deep Blue didn't work out its strategy like a human player: it exploited its computational speed to explore millions of alternative series of moves and responses before deciding an optimum move. Likewise, machines may make scientific discoveries that have eluded unaided human brains - but by testing out millions of possibilities rather than via a theory or strategy.

But will we continue to push forward the frontiers, enlarging the range of our consensual understanding? Some aspects of reality - a unified theory of physics, or a theory of consciousness - might elude our understanding simply because they're beyond the powers of human brains, just as surely as quantum mechanics would flummox a chimpanzee.

We can with some confidence predict continuing advances in computer power, in IT, in techniques for sequencing and interpreting and modifying the genome. But there could, by 2050, be qualitatively new kinds of change. For instance, one thing that's been unaltered for millennia is human nature and human character. But in this century, mind-enhancing drugs, genetics, and "cyborg" techniques may start to alter human beings themselves.

And we should keep our minds open, or at least ajar, to concepts on the fringe of science fiction. Flaky American futurologists aren't always wrong. They remind us that a superintelligent machine is the last instrument that humans may ever design - the machine will itself take over in making further steps. Another speculation is that the human lifespan could be greatly extended, something that would wreak havoc on all population projections. At the moment this hope leads some to bequeath their bodies to be "frozen" on their death, in the hope of some future resurrection. For my part, I'd still opt to end my days in an English churchyard rather than a Californian refrigerator.

We can make one firm forecast that's important for all "citizen scientists". There will surely be a widening gulf between what science enables us to do, and what applications it's prudent or ethical to pursue.

It's sometimes wrongly imagined that astronomers, contemplating timespans measured in billions, must be serenely unconcerned about next year, next week and tomorrow. But a "cosmic perspective" actually strengthens my own concerns about the here and now.

Ever since Darwin, we've been familiar with the stupendous timespans of the evolutionary past. But most people still somehow think we humans are necessarily the culmination of the evolutionary tree. No astronomer could believe this.

Our sun formed 4.5bn years ago, but it's got 6bn more before the fuel runs out. And the expanding universe will continue - perhaps for ever - becoming ever colder, ever emptier. As Woody Allen said, "Eternity is very long, especially towards the end". Any creatures who witness the sun's demise, here on Earth or far beyond, won't be human. They will be entities as different from us as we are from a bug.

But even in this "concertinaed" timeline - extending millions of centuries into the future, as well as into the past - this century is special. It's the first in our planet's history where one species - ours - has Earth's future in its hands, and could jeopardise not only itself, but life's immense potential.

Suppose some aliens had been watching our planet for its entire history. Over nearly all that immense time - 4.5bn years - Earth's appearance would have altered very gradually. But in just a tiny sliver of its history - the last few thousand years - the patterns of vegetation altered much faster than before. This signalled the start of agriculture. The pace of change accelerated as human populations rose.

Then there were other changes, even more abrupt. Within the last 50 years - little more than one hundredth of a millionth of the Earth's age - the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began to rise anomalously fast. The planet became an intense emitter of radio waves (TV, cellphone, and radar transmissions.) And something else unprecedented happened: small projectiles launched from the planet escaped the biosphere. Some were propelled into orbits around the Earth; some journeyed to the moon and planets.

If they understood astrophysics, the aliens could confidently predict that the biosphere would face doom in a few billion years when the sun flares up and dies. But could they have predicted this unprecedented spike less than halfway through the Earth's life - these human-induced alterations occupying, overall, less than a millionth of the elapsed lifetime and seemingly occurring with runaway speed?

If they continued to keep watch, what might these hypothetical aliens witness in the next few decades? Will final spasm be followed by silence? Or will the planet itself stabilise? And will some of the objects launched from the Earth spawn new oases of life elsewhere?

The outcome depends on political choices. But those choices can be influenced by effective and idealistic scientists, environmentalists and humanists, guided by the knowledge and technology that the 21st century will offer.

'We know what to do: why don't we do it?'

Africans - and especially African women - will suffer most from climate change. Nobel laureate Wangari Maathai intends to help them

- John Vidal
- The Guardian,

Wangari Maathai has spearheaded the planting of billions of trees across the world and is now leading the fight to save the world's second largest forest, in Congo. Photograph: Martin Godwin

Wangari Maathai's office in fuming, downtown Nairobi is full of citations and mementos, but there is one special photograph. It's of her and Barack Obama planting an olive tree in Uhuru park in the city centre in October 2006. It could be any two celebrities posing for a routine photo call, but there is a strong connection between the spiffy, young American senator on his way to the White House and the flamboyant older woman dressed in canary yellow who had just become the first African woman to win a Nobel prize.

The link between them is known as the "Lift". In 1960, 300 Kenyans were awarded Kennedy scholarships to study at US colleges and universities. One of the first was a 22-year-old economics student called Barack Obama, a Luo from west Kenya who was picked to go to a college in Hawaii. With him was Wangari Maathai, a 20-year-old Kikuyu from the highlands heading for Mount St Scholastica college in Atchison, Kansas. Both stayed in the US for five years and both returned personally transformed to a newly independent Kenya.

It was a heady, liberating time. Obama Sr had just married a Kansan and fathered the boy who is now US president. Maathai returned with a masters and "a determination to work hard, help the poor and watch out for the weak and vulnerable". The spectacular results of the scholarship simply reflect, she adds, the potential of people anywhere to flourish if given the opportunity. In London this week for Prince Charles' climate change meeting with 20 Nobel laureates, Maathai, now nearly 70, cut a lone, if flamboyant, figure: she was the only woman, and with Wole Soyinka, one of only two Africans. Yet, she pointed out, it is women and Africans who must bear the brunt of climate change and pay for the west's profligacy. (About which, she had some interesting points to make. "You must understand that what is happening in the west with the credit crunch has been happening for decades in Africa," she told her audience. "The banks are not regulated. We cannot access money, and only a few people can buy houses. Europe is catching up with Africa. When we were campaigning against African debt we were told that it could not possibly be paid off. Many countries collapsed." As for western democracy, and Britain's parliamentary crisis, "the elites have become predators, self-serving and only turning to people when they need them. We can never all be equal, but we can ensure we do not allow excessive poverty or wealth. Inequality breeds insecurity.")

And while the scientists, academics and politicians talked of technological shifts and the need to bring the best brains in the world to bear on the problem, the former professor of biology at University of Nairobi said bluntly that the answers were known. "We all know what to do. Why don't we do it? The question is, how are we to ensure something is done?"

The reality, Maathai says, is that of the nine billion people expected to be on the planet in 2050, eight billion will be in what are now developing countries. "Climate change is life or death. We could be accused of being alarmist, but if we have faith in science then something very serious is happening. Climate change and global warming is the new global battlefield. It is being presented is as if it is the problem of the developed world. But it's the developed world that has precipitated global warming. There will be a much greater negative impact on Africa because of its geography. But instead of adapting we are scraping the land, removing the vegetation and losing the soil. We are doing things to make it worse.

"Besides, it's in the interests of the rich to help Africa adapt to climate change and preserve its forests. By allowing them to be destroyed a lot of the efforts made in the rich world will be negated and undermined."

Maathai links ecology and culture and argues that the challenge for Africa (the title of her new book) is to look to itself and reclaim not just the land, but its cultures and resources. "If the soil is denuded and the waters are polluted, the air is poisoned and the mineral riches are mined and sold beyond the continent, nothing will be left that we can call our own. Our real work is reclamation - bringing back what is essential so we can move forward. Planting trees, speaking our languages, telling our stories are all part of the same act of conservation. We need to protect our local foods, recall our mother tongues and rediscover our communal character."

Instead, "some Africans are asking themselves whether we are being exposed to a new wave of colonialism," says Maathai. "Yes, there is a grab for resources. We are vulnerable to anyone who wants to exploit us. It's like the 18th-century. Africa finds herself with raw materials but does not have the ability to add the technology. She cannot control the process. So she grinds herself without cash. Africa is paying in raw materials. She pays with her soil. In the past people entered Africa by force. These days they come with similarly lethal packages, but they are camouflaged to persuade Africa's leaders and people to co-operate."

The paymaster these days, she says, is China, which has invested tens of billions of dollars in the last decade to extract African oil, minerals, timber and land in return for roads and jobs. "China is really no different from the United States, the Soviet Union and the colonising European nations which facilitated the rise of African strong men and protected them in the post-colonial period, despite knowing of their corruption and cruelty, so they could continue to extract Africa's resources unhindered. If Africa had spent 40 years investing in education, acquiring skills, she would be in a better position now."

Maathai is western and African, local and international, a member of the elite and someone with a rural background, educated both in one of the world's richest and in one of its poorest countries. But her roots are in Ihithe, a village of peasant farmers near Nyeri in the foothills of the Aberdare mountains. The family home, where her sister now lives, nestles in a deep valley. There's a school, the By-Grace cafe, a few hundred houses, sheep on the roadside and tea plantations everywhere.

"Mother lies there," she says. "My relations live there. It's heaven. But people there do not appreciate it because we have a political and economic system that does not allow people to appreciate the beauty of where they live. That's the tragedy of poverty."

The changes that have taken place in Ihithe since the 1950s reflect the linked environmental and social crises now burdening so much of Kenya and the rest of Africa, she adds. "I have seen huge changes. The population has grown enormously. All that area [around Ihithe] was wooded. There were small farms, full of maize, millet and sorghum. The rivers were huge and clean. There was no tea. Today we see tea, tea, tea. Mother never planted tea. Tea has become slave labour. Farming has become the production of a commodity which people cannot process or eat. You cannot process your own tea. Tea without good governance is serfdom and only leads to environmental and social problems."

But above all, she says, there has been deforestation, with the family woodlots grubbed up to plant tea and the hills all around denuded for firewood. Realisation that communities were destroying their own resources led her to start the Green Belt movement. What began as a few women planting trees is now a network of 600 community groups that care for 6,000 tree nurseries. They have together planted at least 30m trees on degraded private and public land, in reserves, and in cities all over Kenya. The movement, which operates in 30 countries, is far more than a tree planting scheme: it has become an unofficial Kenyan agricultural advice service, a community regeneration project, and a job creation plan all in one.

"There is a change taking place. We can hardly keep up with the requests [for help]. The tree is just a symbol for what happens to the environment. The act of planting one is a symbol of revitalising the community. Tree planting is only the entry point into the wider debate about the environment. Everyone should plant a tree," she says.

Since she won the Nobel prize, tree planting has become an essential for all countries wanting to flaunt green credentials. In 2007 she fronted a UN plan to have 1bn trees planted throughout the world. Over 3.1bn have now been planted and the target has been revised to 7bn - one for every person on earth with a few left over - by the end of 2009.

In a tumultuous life as a pro-democracy and environmental activist, Maathai has been arrested many times, imprisoned, beaten, gone on hunger strike, had to barricade herself into her house to keep the police out, stood for president and been elected an MP. Her personal life has been equally stormy. She and her MP husband, who have three children, divorced years ago: he said she was much too strong-minded for a woman and that he was unable to control her. She called the divorce judge "incompetent" and was given six months in prison for contempt.

Now she is trying to protect the Congo forest, the world's second largest stand of trees. If the Congo goes, she says, not only will tens of millions of people lose their livelihoods, but the climatic effects would be catastrophic and be felt as far away as Britain and the US. Britain and Norway have together put up £100m but it means working with some of the most war-ravaged and corrupt countries and companies on earth.

Ten African governments have asked her to their representative in the Congo basin initiative. "I know they want to take advantage of the peace prize and raise the public awareness," she says. "I know there is apprehension. But refusal to take up the challenge [of the Congo forest] would be wrong. I have no illusions. But there is no option." In the end, though, aid is not the answer. "Donors come to be seen as Santa Claus, bringing with them money, materials and input. The people clap and dance in welcome until the tap runs dry. At the same time, donors' money can corrode responsibility. An attitude exists that one does not have to accountable for the use of funds that have originated outside the country. Individuals and governments misunderstand or subvert the donors' intentions."

Her message in London this week has been fierce and urgent. "Nature is still being taken for granted. Yet when it is destroyed, life itself goes. Politicians [everywhere] are putting immediate needs ahead of the long term. We must challenge the decision makers. We must appeal not just to their heads, but to their hearts. I can only see getting worse things if we do nothing."

• The Challenge for Africa: A New Vision, by Wangari Maathai, is published by William Heinemann (RRP £20). To order a copy for £18 with free UK p&p go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop or call 0330 333 6846

Study Links Stranded Marine Animals to Environmental Toxins

From: Doug Fraser, Cape Cod Times

In a study, recently published in the journal Environmental Pollution, Eric Montie, a University of South Florida scientist who did most of his research while a doctoral student at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found high levels of man-made chemicals in the brains and fluid surrounding the brains of marine mammals.

...

Working with the Cape Cod Stranding Network, Montie went to marine mammal strandings in 2004 and 2005 and retrieved the freshly dead or euthanized carcasses of 10 dolphins and a young gray seal. He used a magnetic resonance imaging machine to capture a detailed picture of their brains, to establish a baseline for future research on how chemicals could be affecting their neurological development.

Montie tested for the presence of 170 chemicals in brain and cerebrospinal fluid he'd collected from the stranded animals. He found exceptionally high levels of both the widely used flame retardant PBDE and a form of PCB.

Yale Study Finds Evidence that Damaged Ecosystems Can Recover Rapidly

From: Editor, ENN

A recent study by Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies reports that if humans commit to the restoration effort, most ecosystems can recover from very major disruption within decades to half-centuries. The study was written by Holly P. Jones and Oswald J. Schmitz and will appear in the June edition of the journal PLoS ONE. According to the study, researchers compiled information from 240 independent studies conducted since 1910 that examined large, human-scale ecosystems recovery following the termination of both human and naturally imposed disruption.

Researchers grouped the data into seven broad aquatic and terrestrial types of ecosystems, and disruptions such as deforestation, hurricane, invasive species, oil spoils, power plant and sea trawling. Most of the studies measured multiple response variables, which researched grouped into three categories: ecosystem function, animal community, and plant community. The researchers evaluated the recovery of each of the variables in terms of the time it took for them to return to their original state as determined by each study's author. The study also assessed whether recovery times were related to the magnitude of the disturbance.

Reportedly, 83 studies demonstrated recovery for all variables; 90 demonstrated a mixture of recovered and non-recovered variables; 67 demonstrated no recovery for any variable; and 15 percent of all the ecosystems in the analysis are beyond recovery.
The average recovery time was 20 years or less, and reportedly did not exceed more than 56 years. It was found that recovery from human disturbances was slower than natural disturbances, such as hurricanes. Recovery following agricultural, logging, and multiple stressors was significantly slower than all of other disturbance types.

The results of the study showed a positive relationship between the degree of disturbance and the recovery time. However, this was entirely determined by the type of ecosystem. For instance, the study states that aquatic system recovered much faster than terrestrial. Researchers noted that aquatic systems may recover more quickly because species and organisms that inhabit them turn over more rapidly. For instance, forests took the longest to recover due to the fact that forest inhabitants take longer to regenerate after logging or clear-cutting.

One potential pitfall of the study is that the uncertainty of the systems original state. The study explains that major disturbances such mass extinction combined with lower level disturbances such as pollution or climate change could create a baseline far removed from the historical natural state.

Jones and Schmitz concluded that "recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for humankind to transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems."

To view the research article by Jones and Schmitz, visit: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005653.

Stingrays suffering from contact with wildlife tourists, study finds

Blood tests show that the animals at 'Stingray City' in the Cayman Islands have weaker immune systems and are in poorer health than those left undisturbed

David Adam, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 May 2009 15.00 BST

The Grand Cayman sandbank, dubbed Stingray City, regularly attracts up to 2,500 visitors at a time. Photograph: Cayman Islands Department of Tourism

It features regularly on lists of things people want to do before they die, but swimming with stingray may not be the life-enhancing experience expected – at least not for the animals.

A new study has revealed that stingray at a tourist hotspot in the Cayman Islands are suffering because of all the human attention. The Grand Cayman sandbank, dubbed Stingray City, is regularly swamped with up to 2,500 visitors at a time, most of whom have paid handsomely for the chance to feed, stroke and swim with the creatures.

The study highlights the risks to animals posed by the growing "wildlife tourism" industry. Experts say wild populations of creatures such as dolphins, penguins and sharks are also affected by increased contact with curious people.

The study was one of the first to investigate direct effects on the physiology of animals involved in such tourism. Blood tests showed that the stingrays at Stingray City had weaker immune systems and were in poorer health than animals not disturbed by tourists, perhaps making them more vulnerable to disease and storms.

The experts warn that the "long-term health and survival of tourist stingrays have a significant probability of being affected" and they call for tighter regulation of the industry. Similar crowded tourist sites across the world will be doing similar damage to stingray, they say.

Christina Semeniuk, an ecologist at Simon Fraser University in Canada, who led the research, said: "Our study is the first to definitively show negative physiological impacts that indicate long-term costs to the animals' health."

She added: "The implications of these findings will not only affect the wildlife. Reduced stingray numbers, or injured, unhealthy-looking stingrays can cause the visitor site to become less attractive and may cause a decline in tourist numbers and have an economic impact."

The stingray at the site are regularly injured by boats, the scientists found, while the crowded conditions encourage parasites. The creatures have also come to rely on hand-fed squid, which stingray do not usually eat. "These impacts can have long-term health effects, in terms of reduced longevity and reduced reproductive effort," Semeniuk said. The results will be published in the journal Biological Conservation.

Other studies have looked at the impact of wildlife tourism on grizzly bears, penguins, dolphins, sharks and lizards. "The majority of these studies have looked at changes in the animals' behaviours or their stress responses," Semeniuk said. "Each has suggested that wildlife tourism should be both continually researched and managed."

Vincent Janik of the Sea Mammal Research Unit at St Andrews University said: "It's an important issue, and there doesn't need to be physical contact. Even just watching animals can sometimes bring problems." Studies have shown that dolphins regularly targeted by tourist boats are more likely to be injured and to abandon their young, he said.

Swimming with wild dolphins is banned in many places because of the likely impact on the animals.

Courtney Vail of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society said the treatment of captive dolphins was to blame for the way people treated the animals they encountered in the wild. "You get people trying to ride on their backs and holding on to the dorsal fin. They are trying to recreate the Sea World experience with wild dolphins."

Janik said efforts to control wildlife tourism, such as the stingray experience in the Caymans, need to be handled carefully. "If the tourists aren't there then these animals could just be hunted or eaten. The best way is to educate the operators and the customers." Many of the negative effects of wildlife tourism are likely to be restricted to local populations of animals, he said.

Semeniuk said new legislation in the Cayman Islands has recently been introduced to address the impact of tourists on wildlife. New Wildlife Interaction Zones, including the North Sound of Grand Cayman where Stingray City is located, forbid people taking marine life out of the water. Feeding wildlife will also be more strictly regulated.

But not all of the recorded impacts of wildlife tourism on animals are bad. While most wild creatures react as if the humans are predators, some see tourists as beneficial, either because they reduce the risks of predation by others, or because they supply food. This can allow the animals to dedicate more valuable energy supplies to rest and reproduction.

Disturbia

Dolphins: Creatures in Australia targetted by tourists are more likely to abandon their young

Killer whales: Whale watching in Canadian waters is shown to reduce animal feeding time

Penguins: Even minimal human contact is shown to double the heart rate of New Zealand's yellow-eyed penguins

Apes: Mountain gorillas of Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are known to be susceptible to human diseases

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Emergency Action Taken for Threatened and Endangered Sea Turtles:Six-month Closure Ordered of Gulf of Mexico Fishery

From: Center for Biological Diversity

RELATED ARTICLES
New England Rescinds Protections for Threatened Atlantic Sea Turtles
NOAA Fisheries Service Issues Rule to Improve Sea Turtle Bycatch Monitoring
Conservation Groups Act to Protect Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Federal Study: Loggerhead Sea Turtles Face Extinction, Fishing Fleets Blamed
TALLAHASSEE, Fla.— The National Marine Fisheries Service has ordered a six-month emergency closure of the bottom longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico to protect imperiled sea turtles from capture and death. During the closure, which will go into effect May 16, the agency will determine whether and how the fishery can operate while ensuring the survival of the turtles over the long term.
The Service is closing the fishery because its data indicate the fishery had captured more than eight times the number of sea turtles it authorized in its 2005 biological opinion. A Federal Register notice that will be published May 1 explains that further bottom longline fishing could jeopardize the existence of loggerhead sea turtles "unless action is taken to reduce the fishery’s impact on this threatened species."
Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and a coalition of other conservation groups — Caribbean Conservation Corporation, Florida Wildlife Federation, Gulf Restoration Network and Sea Turtle Restoration Project — had sued the agency in mid-April to seek protection for these imperiled animals and requested the emergency closure implemented today.
"Today is a great day for all who believe in protecting vulnerable sea turtles from unnecessary and illegal harm and ensuring their continued survival in the wild," said Steve Roady, an attorney with Earthjustice. "We commend NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco for setting a new course for NMFS that relies on sound science to manage our oceans for the great benefit of our nation and local communities."
"This temporary closure gives sea turtles a much-needed reprieve and gives the agency time to make scientifically sound decisions regarding the long-term operation of the fishery," said Andrea Treece, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. "More sea turtles will now have a chance to make it back to their nesting beaches — and even just look for food — without getting caught up in longlines."
"After years of delay and the death of hundreds of turtles, it's great to know that protections are finally on their way," said Sierra Weaver, an attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. "This closure will insure that the fishery can operate without threatening these species with extinction."
Details on Emergency Closure:
1. Following the conservation organizations' lawsuit filed April 15 and renewed action by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council to support an emergency closure in mid-April, the Fisheries Service is closing the bottom longline fishery for up to 180 days. 2. The closure will become effective May 16, 2009 (15 days after publication in the Federal Register) to provide two weeks for fishing trips that are now occurring to receive notice and reduce disruption on the fishery for already initiated trips. 3. During this closure, the agency states that it plans to complete a new biological opinion that will evaluate the impact of the fishery and ensure that it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the sea turtle species captured in it. It will also consider measures that could be used to reduce turtle capture and killing by the fishery, to allow it to reopen at a future date. 4. The Service also states that it is working with the Gulf Council to implement “long-term measures to reduce bycatch of sea turtles in the eastern Gulf of Mexico," which "are needed to provide protection for loggerhead sea turtles" in particular due to the long-term decline in their nesting population in Florida. Such long-term measures, for consideration on a permanent basis, would be implemented after a period of public notice during which all interested citizens would have full opportunity to comment. 5. The Service provides notice that it may renew the closure for a longer period of time if necessary for the agency to fulfill its legal obligations under the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson Stevens Act to prevent further harm to threatened and endangered sea turtles.
Background
The National Marine Fisheries Service took this action in part because in 2005, it had determined that the Gulf of Mexico fishery could capture up to 114 sea turtles, including 85 loggerheads, during a three-year period without violating the Endangered Species Act. But in recent months the agency released new information that vessels in the Gulf caught nearly 1,000 turtles between July 2006 and December 2008 — more than eight times the number allowed. In February 2009, the Service requested public comment regarding an emergency closure to protect sea turtles in view of the high numbers of unexpected turtle captures but still had not acted as of April 15, 2009 when conservation groups filed suit to compel protective action by the agency. The National Marine Fisheries Service, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is responsible for ensuring that bottom longline fishing does not pose a threat to sea turtle populations.
Bottom longline fishing is a fishing process that uses hundreds or even thousands of baited hooks along miles of lines laid behind fishing vessels and stretching down to the reef and Gulf floor. The fishing hooks target species like grouper, tilefish, and sharks, but often catch other fish or wildlife, including endangered and threatened sea turtles. Injuries from these hooks affect a sea turtle's ability to feed, swim, avoid predators, and reproduce. Many times the turtles drown or, unable to recover from the extreme physiological stress, die soon after being released from the longlines. A portion of fishing vessels within the reef fish fishery have used bottom longline fishing gear off the west Florida shelf within the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which the Fisheries Service has described as "an important sea turtle foraging habitat."
For more information visit: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2009/sea-turtles-04-29-2009.html

Major Potential CO2 Storage in the North Sea

From: Jenny Haworth, the Scotsman

RELATED ARTICLES
N.Sea CO2 store at 10 million tonnes: StatoilHydro
Microbes found living at record 1.6km below seabed
Scottish climate bill could set global example
Greenville Injection Project Could Have Global Implications
The North Sea could store the carbon dioxide from all Europe's power stations for hundreds of years, the results of major research to be unveiled today will reveal.
Porous rocks beneath the seabed of the North Sea and disused oil and gas fields could provide storage for millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide.
The research, by Edinburgh University, is likely to herald the startof a major new industry for Scotland, using the North Sea to lead the way in efforts to store the greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

It will bring the possibility of compressed emissions being transported from power plants across Europe to underground stores beneath the North Sea using the network of pipes already in place for the oil and gas industry one step closer.
It will be the first time it has been shown the porous rocks — known as saline aquifers — beneath the seabed have the potential to store mass quantities of .
"We will be able to conclusively say we can store it in saline aquifers for hundreds of years," a source told The Scotsman.
"This will be a huge opportunity for Scotland. It could create a huge new industry for Scotland."
Professor Stuart Haszeldine, a world expert in carbon capture and storage at Edinburgh University, has been leading the eagerly-awaited research into the potential of the North Sea to store the greenhouse gas.
Article continues: http://news.scotsman.com/environment/North-Sea-has-potential-to.5225500.jp

Southern California Beetle Killing Oaks

From: ScienceDaily

RELATED ARTICLES
Climate Change To Spur Rapid Shifts In Wildfire Hotspots, Analysis Finds
Rare Beetle Found in Massachusetts Forest
Western Canadian Pine Beetle infestation Spreads
Beetle attack

U.S. Forest Service scientists have completed a study on a beetle that was first detected in California in 2004, but has now attacked 67 percent of the oak trees in an area 30 miles east of San Diego.
Their report appears in the current issue of The Pan-Pacific Entomologist and focuses on Agrilus coxalis, a wood-boring beetle so rare it does not even have an accepted common name. Scientists have proposed the Entomological Society of America common names committee call it the goldspotted oak borer.
Land managers and scientists are concerned about further spread of the infestation because oaks are the dominant tree species in the area. Further tree mortality will increase fire danger and decrease wildlife habitat in southern California.
They are also concerned drought and climate change will make more oaks susceptible to an insect that is not native to California. Oak trees have a nearly continuous distribution in the state, reaching from the infestation area north to the Oregon border.
Article continues: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501154147.htm

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Damaged Barrier Reef coral makes 'spectacular' recovery

Lucky combination of circumstances means corals have unexpectedly grown back within a year

Coral at the Great Barrier Reef Photograph: HO/REUTERS

Sections of coral reef in Australia's Great Barrier Reef have made a "spectacular" recovery from a devastating bleaching event three years ago, marine scientists say.

In 2006, high sea temperatures caused severe coral bleaching in the Keppell Islands, in the southern part of the reef — the largest coral reef system in the world. The damaged reefs were then covered by a single species of seaweed which threatened to suffocate the coral and cause further loss.

A "lucky combination" of rare circumstances has meant the reef has been able to make a recovery. Abundant corals have reestablished themselves in a single year, say the researchers from the University of Queensland's Centre for Marine Studies and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS).

"Three factors were critical," said Dr Guillermo Diaz-Pulido. "The first was exceptionally high regrowth of fragments of surviving coral tissue. The second was an unusual seasonal dieback in the seaweeds, and the third was the presence of a highly competitive coral species, which was able to outgrow the seaweed."

Coral bleaching occurs in higher sea temperatures when the coral lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. The reefs then lose their colour and become more susceptible to death from starvation or disease.

The findings are important as it is extremely rare to see reports of reefs that bounce back from mass coral bleaching or other human impacts in less than a decade or two, the scientists said. The study is published in the online journal PLoS one.

"The exceptional aspect was that corals recovered by rapidly regrowing from surviving tissue," said Dr Sophie Dove, also from CoECRS and The University of Queensland.

"Recovery of corals is usually thought to depend on sexual reproduction and the settlement and growth of new corals arriving from other reefs. This study demonstrates that for fast-growing coral species asexual reproduction is a vital component of reef resilience."

Last year, a major global study found that coral reefs did have the ability to recover after major bleaching events, such as the one caused by the El Niño in 1998.

David Obura, the chairman of the International Union for Conservation of Nature climate change and coral reefs working group involved with the report, said: "Ten years after the world's biggest coral bleaching event, we know that reefs can recover – given the chance. Unfortunately, impacts on the scale of 1998 will reoccur in the near future, and there's no time to lose if we want to give reefs and people a chance to suffer as little as possible."

Coral reefs are crucial to the livelihoods of millions of coastal dwellers around the world and contain a huge range of biodiversity. The UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment says reefs are worth about $30bn annually to the global economy through tourism, fisheries and coastal protection.

But the ecosystems are under threat worldwide from overfishing, coastal development and runoff from the land, and in some areas, tourism impacts. Natural disasters such as the earthquake that triggered the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 have also caused reef loss.

Climate change poses the biggest threat to reefs however, as emissions of carbon dioxide make seawater increasingly acidic.

Last year a study showed that one-fifth of the world's coral reefs have died or been destroyed and the remainder are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network says many surviving reefs could be lost over the coming decades as CO₂ emissions continue to increase.

Budget 2009: Darling promises 34% emissions cuts with world's first binding carbon budgets

Environmentalists warn that emissions targets are out of date

If they can actually do it, the government's pledge to cut global warming emissions by one third in just over a decade should transform the way the UK economy works.

However, critics warned that the cuts would still not be enough to avoid dangerous climate change, and warned that other spending pledges were not nearly enough to meet the target.

Darling has now promised to cut greenhouse gases by 34% by 2020 through so-called carbon budgets, which fix binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions over five-year periods. The 34% target is in line with the advice of the government's independent watchdog, the Committee on Climate Change. "This represents a step change in the UK ambition on climate change," said the budget report.

The budget report said the government "aims" to do this without purchasing controversial carbon credits from cuts made in other countries, but said these "offsets" could be a "fallback option". It also said the target cut would be higher if there was "satisfactory" global agreement on cutting emissions, but stopped short of committing to the higher 42% cut recommended by the CCC in those circumstances.

"These budgets give industry the certainty needed to develop and use low carbon technology – cutting emissions, creating new businesses and jobs," said the chancellor.

Nobody expected the government to reject the emissions targets put forward by its watchdog, which are designed to help reach a promised reduction of 80% by the middle of this century.

However, the formal announcement makes the UK the first country in the world to set legally binding targets.

Environmental campaigners and business groups commended the government on committing itself to firm targets. However, there were immediate warnings that not enough was being done.

Friends of the Earth, the charity which led a mass public campaign for the Climate Change Act which created the targets, said the 34% cut was no longer enough.

"Setting the first ever carbon budgets is a ground-breaking step - but the government has ignored the latest advice from leading climate scientists and set targets that are completely inadequate," said Andy Atkins, the organisation's executive director. "A 42% cut by 2020 is the minimum required if we are to play our part in avoiding dangerous climate change."

There was also widespread criticism that the rest of the budget did not include enough money for renewable energy like wind and tidal power, and energy efficiency for homes and other buildings. The budget also promised up to four "demonstration" projects for carbon capture and storage for coal and gas power plants, and £60m of new spending on research and development of the unproven technology, but critics said these partial capture schemes were not enough if the government goes ahead with plans for up to eight new coal plants.

James Cameron, vice-chairman of Climate Change Capital, a low-carbon investment fund with more than US$1.5bn (£1bn) under management, said: "The idea of a carbon budget is to be applauded and must become a permanent feature of how we direct our economy. But the reality is that creating a low carbon economy requires more than high-level commitment. The scale of investment required is huge, and thus far the commitments to stimulate the economy and reduce emissions have been small gestures, albeit in the right direction. They have identified the correct areas to be targeting with strategic intervention but the orders of magnitude are much too small."

The budget report said a full strategy on how the targets will be met is due this summer, but that the "latest government modelling" showed it was on course to meet the 2020 and two interim targets.

"The strategy will strengthen the long-term policy framework, taking into account recent consultations on heat and energy saving, renewable energy and zero carbon homes," added the report.

Severe Texas Drought Threatens Coastal Wildlife

From: Ana Campoy, Wall Street Journal

A severe drought gripping Texas is causing unusually salty conditions along the Gulf Coast, upsetting the region's ecological balance and threatening coastal wildlife including oysters, crabs and whooping cranes, the most endangered crane species.

The drought is one of the driest on record for Texas and is currently the worst in the U.S., which has seen persistent dry weather across several Western states, Florida and even Hawaii, according to academic and government monitors. The scarcity of rain has reduced fresh-water flow from rivers and streams into coastal marshes, estuaries and bays that normally dilute the salt content of water from the Gulf of Mexico.

This spring, the only migrating whooping-crane flock that exists in the wild lost 23 of its 270 members to hunger and disease brought on by the dry weather, said Tom Stehn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whooping-crane coordinator. That is a big blow to conservation programs that have worked over the past 50 years to slowly increase the number of cranes.

Article continues

New study shows widespread and substantial declines in wildlife in Kenya's Masai Mara

From: Jeff Haskins/ILRI , Muthoni Njiru/CGIAR

Nairobi, Kenya (22 April 2009)—Populations of major wild grazing animals that are the heart and soul of Kenya's cherished and heavily visited Masai Mara National Reserve—including giraffes, hartebeest, impala, and warthogs—have "decreased substantially" in only 15 years as they compete for survival with a growing concentration of human settlements in the region, according to a new study published today in the May 2009 issue of the British Journal of Zoology.

The study, analysed by researchers at the Nairobi-based International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and led and funded by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), is based on rigorous, monthly monitoring between 1989 and 2003 of seven "ungulate," or hoofed, species in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, which covers some 1500 square kilometers in southwestern Kenya. Scientists found that a total of six species—giraffes, hartebeest, impala, warthogs, topis and waterbuck—declined markedly and persistently throughout the reserve.

The study provides the most detailed evidence to date on declines in the ungulate populations in the Mara and how this phenomenon is linked to the rapid expansion of human populations near the boundaries of the reserve. For example, an analysis of the monthly sample counts indicates that the losses were as high as 95 percent for giraffes, 80 percent for warthogs, 76 percent for hartebeest, and 67 percent for impala. Researchers say the declines they documented are supported by previous studies that have found dramatic drops in the reserve of once abundant wildebeest, gazelles and zebras.

"The situation we documented paints a bleak picture and requires urgent and decisive action if we want to save this treasure from disaster," said Joseph Ogutu, the lead author of the study and a statistical ecologist at ILRI. "Our study offers the best evidence to date that wildlife losses in the reserve are widespread and substantial, and that these trends are likely linked to the steady increase in human settlements on lands adjacent to the reserve."

Researchers found the growing human population has diminished the wild animal population by usurping wildlife grazing territory for crop and livestock production to support their families. Some traditional farming cultures to the west and southwest of the Mara continue to hunt wildlife inside the Mara Reserve, which is illegal, for food and profit.

The Mara National Reserve is located in the northernmost section of the Mara—Serengeti ecosystem in East Africa. The reserve is bounded by Tanzania's Serengeti National Park to the south, Maasai pastoral ranches to the north and east, and crop farming to the west. The area is world-famous for its exceptional wildlife population and an annual migration of nearly two million wildebeest, zebra and other wildlife across the Serengeti and Mara plains.

Ogutu and his colleagues focused much of their attention on the rapid changes occurring in the large territories around the Mara Reserve known as the Mara ranchlands, which are home to the Maasai. Until recently, most Maasai were semi-nomadic herders—known for their warrior culture and colorful red toga-style dress—who co-existed easily with the wildlife in the region.