Climate Change
All set for synthetic silk?
Synthetic silks have a great future – if only scientists can unlock the chemistry of natural silk
It's tougher than Kevlar and stronger than steel, and no one really knows how to make it. Except spiders of course. And silkworms.
Scientists have been trying to mimic the remarkable properties of natural silk for years, with varying success. New approaches are needed to break the deadlock, argue Fiorenzo Omenetto and David Kaplan of Tufts University in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.
Omenetto and Kaplan say reconstituted silks could have a wide range of applications, from implantable drug delivery systems to optical and electronic devices.
We've all watched a spider build a web or lower itself down a delicate thread. You might even have seen a silkworm make a cocoon. It looks simple, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Researchers still do not fully understand the complex chemical changes that turn silk from a concentrated protein solution inside the glands of a spider or silkworm to a high-strength extensible fibre on the outside.
Though synthetic silks have been made in the lab, Omenetto says they fall short of natural silk.
"We don't use synthetic silks [for hi-tech applications] because they're basically not good enough," he said. Instead scientists use reconstituted silk extracted from silkworm cocoons.
"The natural fibre is put in solution and purified, the protein is extracted and essentially you go back to what is in a silkworm gland. That's the 'magic sauce' from which you can make new materials," Omenetto explains.
However, he and Kaplan predict that high-quality synthetic silks, modified for a diverse range of applications, could soon be made on an industrial scale.
"In the next few years, silk sutures, drug delivery systems and fibre-based tissue products that exploit the mechanical properties of silks can be envisioned for ligament, bone and other tissue repairs," the pair write in Science.
Follow-on applications could include degradable electronic displays and implantable optical systems for diagnosis and treatment.
Omenetto believes that silk will be harvested from transgenic plants in the same way as cotton. Researchers have already created transgenic bacteria and fungi in an attempt to increase silk yields.
In 1995, a team of American researchers inserted a synthetic gene for spider dragline silk into the bacterium Escherichia coli, which made the protein. In 2002, a North American team produced spider silk in mammalian cells.
"The remaining challenges are quality control and scale-up," says Omenetto.
Currently silk is harvested by boiling and separating the cocoons of the domesticated silkmoth larva, Bombyx mori, which are reared on farms. The 5,000-year-old process, known as sericulture, provides over 300,000 tonnes of silk per year to the commodity textile and medical suture industries. But the process is labour and time-intensive.
"In a synthetic form we could bypass the purification process and have control over quality and yield," argues Omenetto.
There may be other advantages. Natural silk contains the glycoprotein sericin, which causes an immune response when used in medical sutures. The sutures have to be wax-coated to eliminate this problem, but it makes them non-biodegradable. "With purified silk you could eliminate the immune response and still maintain the mechanical properties of the silk," says Omenetto.
However, others urge caution about the prospects for artificial silk. "There are many applications for such materials, but first we have to be able to make them to order and at reasonable cost, and here we have quite a way to go," says Fritz Vollrath of the University of Oxford's silk research group.
One of the many challenges scientists face is in their understanding of the molecular structure of silk.
Silks are large proteins made from repeating sequences of amino acids flanked by specific side chains that determine the protein's chemical behaviour. Making the correct side chains in synthetic silks is essential to capture the properties of the natural fibre.
Another mystery is how silk protein stays fluid at high concentrations inside the glands of spinning animals. At similar concentrations on the outside, many of the proteins aggregate, coming out of solution to form a gooey mess.
Though the future looks bright for silk-based technologies, it may be some time before silkworms can weave their cocoons in peace.
Cian O'Luanaighguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Shell could pursue BP for Gulf damages
Shell refuses to rule out action against BP over losses caused by the deepwater drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico
Shell today refused to rule out pursuing damages claims against BP and other companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico disaster.
The company took a $56m (£36m) hit after it was forced to stand down seven rigs and platforms because of the moratorium on drilling in the US imposed in the wake of the disaster.
The Anglo-Dutch firm, which has long been a fierce rival of BP, said it would take another hit in the next quarter if the moratorium continues.
One of the projects affected is Perdido, Shell's deepest deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico, at just under 8,000ft. Shell has had to delay plans for one or two new wells scheduled during the six-month drilling ban. In total, production was down by 8,000 barrels a day.
Shell's chief executive, Peter Voser, said "no comment" when asked directly if the firm would seek compensation from the companies responsible.
The owners of the rigs are taking the lion's share of the losses, after Shell negotiated 60-70% reductions in the cost of hiring them.
BP is likely to resist any attempt to pay compensation to companies like Shell affected by the moratorium as it seeks to try to limit its liabilities. It tried to resist pressure from the US government to pay damages to rig workers who had lost their jobs, but was eventually forced to create a $100m compensation fund for them.
Voser also disagreed with some US politicians who want to force oil companies to drill a costly second well alongside exploration wells which could then be used to cap a leak in the event of an accident. BP's relief well – which should finally seal the BP spill in the gulf next month – will have taken more than three months to complete.
"I would not say that it is a solution," Voser said. "We have to concentrate on prevention first, where global standards already play a major role. Then we look at containment." Forcing companies to drill an extra well would increase the cost of exploration, and some executives have claimed that drilling in two places would increase the risk of accidents.
Shell also said that it was confident that it would get the go-ahead for drilling in a virgin region in the Arctic which was supposed to have begun this summer but has been blocked by the US government.
Shell produces 500,000 barrels of oil a day from deepwater sites, a third of which comes from the Gulf of Mexico, out of total production of just over 3m barrels of oil and gas. Voser said that the industry needed to learn lessons from the disaster, but that deepwater drilling would continue.
"We have never had a significant offshore incident or spill in the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "You are not in a position to say an accident will never happen. Accidents happen everywhere, not just in the oil industry, but on the road. The key is to improve safety standards."
Shell said that profits in the second quarter increased by a third to £2.7bn. This was thanks to higher oil and gas prices, a 5% increase in production and faster than expected progress in cutting £2.2bn of costs.
Tim Webbguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
UN withdraws Galápagos from world heritage danger list
Improved efforts to protect Ecuador archipelago's biodiversity leads to Unesco vote
The UN has withdrawn the Galápagos Islands from its world heritage danger list, citing improved efforts by Ecuador to protect the archipelago's unique biodiversity.
The world heritage committee of the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) voted 15 to four to remove the islands from the list of sites endangered by environmental threats or overuse.
"It's important to recognise the effort made by the Ecuadorean government to preserve this heritage," said Luiz Fernando de Almeida, head of the Brazilian delegation, which proposed the motion at the meeting in Brasilia.
Ecuador's government will welcome the decision, which reversed Unesco's listing in 2007, but some conservationists expressed alarm.
President Rafael Correa's administration had tackled serious problems in the archipelago but it was too soon to declare victory, said Johannah Barry, head of Galápagos Conservancy, a Virginia-based research group.
"The growing human presence in Galápagos, both through tourism and residents, has put biodiversity at risk. Introduction of disease, alien and invasive plants and animals are all factors which must be addressed immediately and aggressively. I believe the decision is premature and I hope it does not signal a relaxation of vigilant management and conservation efforts."
The chain of volcanic islands 600 miles off Ecuador's Pacific coast are home to endogenous species, such as giant tortoises and boobies, which helped inspire Charles Darwin's theories on evolution and natural selection.
A permanent human population which doubled to about 30,000 in the past decade, swollen by more than 190,000 tourists annually, triggered concern about pollution, fuel spills and poaching.
Human settlers have also brought invasive species such as insects, cats, rats, cattle and fire ants threatening a habitat which evolved in isolation over millennia.
Ecuador's government has tried to balance conservation and tourism with the demands of residents and migrant workers from mainland South America. Authorities have tried to cap the number of new arrivals and deported illegal migrants. Nevertheless rubbish dumps and new housing developments continue to sprout on some islands.
A Unesco team recently inspected the archipelago. The panel listened to Ecuador's environment minister, Marcela Aguinaga, before voting. She said controls on migration and the introduction of invasive species had been tightened.
The same meeting added Uganda's tombs of Buganda kings at Kasubi (Uganda) to the list of endangered sites. Unesco's complete and amended list of heritage sites was published today
The list allows the UN to allocate immediate assistance to sites from the World Heritage fund and puts pressure on local authorities to act.
Rory Carrollguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Climate campaigns down the pan
Apologies issued by two campaign groups, WWF and Oxfam, may or may not bring to a close one of the more bizarre yet telling episodes that have materialised within the UN climate convention.
At the convention's annual two-week session in June in Bonn, activists removed the nameplate of the Saudi Arabian delegation from the conference hall, broke it, put it inside a toilet bowl and took a bunch of souvenir photographs.
The nameplate is what sits in front of delegations in the conference hall and what identifies them to the chair and everyone else; in symbolic terms, you can also view it as a totem of the country and its sovereignty.
The episode started with a proposal put forward to the conference by some small developing countries.
They were requesting that a technical analysis be prepared of options that the global community would have to consider taking should it be decided that the rise in average global temperatures since pre-industrial times should be limited to 1.5C.
The existence of such a document could influence wording put into draft treaties that might be drawn up in future.
And this was something that Saudi Arabia - supported by Kuwait, Qatar and Venezuela - did not want to permit, even in the teeth of some unusually frank criticism from their habitual allies in the developing country bloc.
The Saudis, in particular, have regularly been accused down the years of trying to stymie progress within the climate convention and other forums in an attempt to protect their oil industries.
Put this history together with their opposition to the 1.5C proposal, and you have the reason why the activists did what they did.
From a reporters' point of view, it led to a surreal morning in the corridors outside the meeting rooms.
Representatives of campaign groups who are usually only too happy to give journalists information or pictures suddenly clammed up.
The pictures clearly existed - but mysteriously, no-one seemed to know who had taken them or where they might be. Organisations that usually complain bitterly about lack of openness and transparency in the UN process became markedly less open and transparent themselves.
The Saudis were incensed by the act, seeing it as an insult to their nation, and their protests were backed by other national delegations, keen to preserve good order in the diplomatic ranks. The secretariat of the UN climate convention was asked to mount an investigation.
It was a dicey situation for the campaign groups involved - and at that stage, we didn't know who they were - because such an event could mean they would lose the right to attend UN climate talks, and in principle, other UN bodies as well.
Well, now WWF and Oxfam have 'fessed up.
"The incident was gravely offensive to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to the meeting as a whole,"... said WWF, whose delegate appears to have actually taken the plate and put it in the toilet bowl. (There are stories that both male and female toilets were involved, but these waters are far from clear.)
"The act itself was offensive, inexcusable and inappropriate. It broke UN rules that govern NGO behaviour,"... said Oxfam International's executive director Jeremy Hobbs.
Oxfam's delegate was in the room when the decision to remove the nameplate was taken, but didn't actually carry it to the can.
The WWF person involved doesn't work for them anymore; the Oxfam employee has been suspended. Both have been barred from future UN climate meetings; and WWF is drawing up a code of conduct for its campaigners.
Clearly, part of both organisations' strategies in issuing such fulsome public apologies is to ensure that the damage stops there, and that the groups' influence in the climate arena doesn't disappear down the pan.
They're planning to apologise again to the full meeting of the climate convention when negotiations re-open next week.
Whether this will be the end of the affair isn't certain, but it looks likely.
I haven't yet received a reply to an e-mail I sent asking whether Saudi Arabia considers the matter closed; but even if it doesn't, there's unlikely to be wider support for stronger measures such as the suspension of either organisation.
Both have done and continue to do a lot of research and analysis on climate change, sometimes working with governments, and often valued by them.
Many governments in the rich and poor worlds alike are likely to have more sympathy for these groups in private than for the Saudis.
Within the wider community of environmental groups and other organisations campaigning on the issue, there's a general recognition that the toilet incident was unwise at the very least and damnably stupid at the worst.
As well as risking the banning of the groups involved, the wider community sees its credibility diminished in some peoples' eyes; and the arguments that some countries make for keeping civil society organisations out of intergovernmental processes receive new ammunition.
But some are asking a different question: who is the real villain here?
Is putting a nameplate under water, albeit in the unpleasant context of a toilet bowl, more or less serious than blocking a proposal that could help prevent some small island states and heavily-populated coastal zones from disappearing under the sea?
After all, Saudi Arabia signed up to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment, so logically the government accepts its projections as at least credible.
At the end of the June meeting, the diplomatic noise over the toilet episode obscured this wider concern; and that's another reason why activists generally appear to think it was a stupid thing to do.
But that one incident doesn't turn everything the NGOs are saying into a busted flush; and once the waters subside, the bigger concerns will still be there.
Farmland bird numbers in England fall to record low
Bird numbers plunge to 44-year low after dramatic habitat loss and harsh winter
Populations of breeding birds on farmland in England are at their lowest levels since formal attempts to monitor them began in 1966, the government said today. The figures suggest overall populations have fallen by more than half in the past 44 years.
Although the most recent annual decline of 5% might be down to a cold winter and recent changes to farming practice, experts believe the long-term trends caused by continuing pressure on habitats mean most of the 19 species surveyed are in trouble. Figures for the last five years suggest a 10% decline and since the most recent ones are based on 2009 observations, the cold 2010 winter weather may bring further bad news next year.
The significant falls last year included kestrels (down 27%) lapwings (12%), grey partridge (23%), skylarks (5%) and starlings (20%). Relatively small percentage falls may still have huge impact because of low numbers in the first place.
The figures for England are based on the annual breeding birds survey by the British Trust for Ornithology, in which volunteers check 3,200 randomly selected 1km squares around the UK twice each year. But other data is included in the index published by environment department Defra, which makes figures for species decline slightly different. These figures are not yet online.
Twelve of the 19 species monitored had falling populations. The 2009 index is the first since the European Union stopped ordering crop farmers not to use part of their land for agriculture, a measure first introduced in the 1990s to stop over-production but suspended because of high grain prices. Although UK farmers are still encouraged to seek subsidies to "green" their land through the UK's entry and higher level environmental stewardship schemes, there are fears these may fall victim to the looming austerity cuts.
David Noble, a principal ecologist with the trust, said the latest index published by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), "shows that two-thirds of farmland bird species are continuing to decline, and although the latest drop may be in part due to a relatively harsh winter in 2008-09, there is certainly no evidence yet that (farming) initiatives such as environmental stewardship have succceded in reversing national population declines."
Mark Avery, director of conservation at the RSPB, said: "It's difficult to draw any hard and fast conclusions from a short one-year time span, but this certainly makes for some depressing reading."
The winter before last had been " a moderately cold one" which could have impacted on birds' ability to find food. The loss of set-aside had also removed valuable foraging and nesting habitats for wild birds, he said.
"Lapwings … are particularly vulnerable and their populations have been steadily falling for more than 30 years, so a decline of 12% in one year across England is really bad news."
Cuts in evironmental stewardship could be "disastrous", he warned, even though some schemes were not working as well as they should. The charity is meeting government experts to discuss the problem tomorrow.
A Defra spokesman said: "We are looking into the reasons for this and working with farmers through environmental stewardship schemes that encourage them to do all they can to support birdlife on their farms."
On Monday Defra launched a discussion paper that will lead to a white paper on the natural environment in spring 2011. "We encourage anyone with a view on how we can improve our wildlife to contribute their ideas.'
James Meikleguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Galápagos Islands taken off threat list
A United Nations panel has voted to remove Ecuador's Galápagos Islands from its list of endangered sites
Cheetahs to return to India
Eighteen cheetahs to be imported from Iran, Namibia and South Africa more than 60 years after the species was hunted to extinction
The cheetah is to return to India, more than 60 years after the last three were shot dead by hunters on the subcontinent.
Indian minister for the environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh, has picked three sites for the reintroduction of the animal within a year. Eighteen cheetahs are to be brought from Iran, Namibia and South Africa. A budget of over £500,000 has been made available to prepare the sites for their release.
"It is important to bring the cheetah back as it will help restore the grasslands of India," Ramesh said. "The way the tiger restores forest ecosystems, the snow leopard restores mountain ecosystems, and the Gangetic dolphin restores waters in the rivers, in the same way the cheetah will restore our grasslands."
India's wildlife has struggled in recent decades. The country's world famous population of tigers has shrunk from more than 3,600 in 2002 to around 1,400 now. Successive government initiatives have foundered on corruption; conflicts between often extremely poor local communities and the animals; the power of organised criminal smuggling networks which supply tiger parts to east Asia, and simple administrative inertia. The population of snow leopards now numbers between 100 and 200, possibly less than a third of the total a decade ago. The Gangetic dolphin remains endangered, although the number of Asiatic lions has recently increased.
India's last wild cheetahs are thought to have been shot by the Maharajah of Surguja in 1947.
"Nature has given us something that we did not know how to keep. Why do we think we can recreate it? Why do we think we will be able to keep it better now?," Dr Ali Sher, cheetah expert at the Indian Institute of Immunology told the Guardian.
Many experts believe that with the herds of deer and antelopes that once provided the cheetahs' diet also long gone, the project is bound to fail.
The objections were rejected by Ramesh, the minister.
"Reintroduction is matter of national importance, as cheetah is the only mammal to [become] extinct from India. " he said.
The three sites recommended by scientists for the project (pdf) are the Kuno-Palpur Wildlife Sanctuary and Nauradehi Wildlife Sanctuary in the central state of Madhya Pradesh and Shahgarh in the desert near Jaisalmer in Rajasthan.
Eventually it is hoped the three reserves will sustain a population of over 100 cheetahs, creating a thriving tourist business which will benefit local communities.
"The return of the cheetah would make India the only country in the world to host six of the world's eight large cats and the only one to have all the large cats of Asia," MK Ranjitsinh of Wildlife Trust of India told the Press Trust of India news agency.
Jason Burkeguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Lydd Airport expansion: RSPB reserve threatened
Increased numbers of flights and larger aircraft will threaten birds
Name of project
Lydd Airport Expansion
Describe the site currently, including details of protected or threatened habitat or species
Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and Dungeness SAC- unique shingle habitats threatened by excessive nitrogen deposition from aircraft. Airport adjacent to RSPB Dungeness reserve with many bird species that would be threatened by bird-strike control methods.
What development is proposed?
"Expansion of Lydd Airport, Romney Marsh Kent. Two planning applications were submitted to Shepway District Council in December 2006 for a new terminal building and an extended runway. The airport currently handles a few hundred passengers a year with light aircraft and occasional services to Le Touquet. Phase 1 (this application) is to make the airport suitable for 737 aircraft to allow up to 500,000 passengers a year. Phase 2 is further improvements to increase capacity to 2 million passengers a year.
The applications were approved by Shepway Council by has been called in for public inquiry early next year."
What one thing would help you or your group protect this site?
"CPRE Protect Kent (the Kent Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England) will be fighting this application, alongside our partnersm including RSPB, at public inquiry next year. The more members we have, the greater our mandate at that inquiry.
Natural England is facing cuts of 800 of its 2100 staff over the next year or so. We can't leave it to them alone.
Join via http://www.cpre.org.uk/support/joinus/join and select 'Kent' branch.
Any specialist knowledge or experience from other regional airport public inquiries would also be really helpful."
Exact location
50.955818, 0.935748
Developer
London Ashford Airport, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent, TN29 9QL
Planning authority, and reference number of planning application
Shepway District Council (Y06/1648/SH , Y06/1647/SH)
• If you are the developer and would like to respond to this campaign, please email piece.by.piece@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Where next for the wrecked US climate bill?
There is a chance build on the rubble of the Senate's failure to cap carbon emissions, says Eric Pooley
Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, "Who killed you?"
That usually got the victim's attention, along with an I'm-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, "You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it."
As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. The politicians and climate campaigners would assure me that they were still alive — passage of a carbon cap was inevitable, they'd say — and I'd remind myself that they had survived countless near-death experiences.
But what happened last week, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not even try to bring a compromise climate bill to the Senate floor, was not just another setback. Sometimes dead really is dead — and for this Congress, barring a miracle, climate action is finished. With an ugly election looming in November, it may be years before we get another chance to debate a bill that prices carbon. And the consensus approach to federal climate action — the idea that cap-and-trade was the most politically viable policy — may well be dead, too.
This is a time to take stock. The first question is whether this was a failure of policy; a failure of politics, message, and messenger; or both? Second, is there a Plan B around which the climate campaign should now unify? And third, what needs to be done to allow a better outcome when the next opportunity finally does appear?
No one who follows climate politics could have been very surprised by Reid's move. The bigger shock was his decision to remove from the bill a mandate that utilities must generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. (Proponents hope to offer it as a floor amendment.) It was if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we're not going to do.
When Reid pulled the plug, I thought back to a snowy afternoon in Copenhagen last December. Sitting with Al Gore in an empty hotel café, I asked him to contemplate this very moment. "If the United States doesn't act," he replied, "if the Senate defeats the legislation or waters it down to a point where it is not even worth having a bill, that is an event horizon beyond which it is difficult to see."
He parsed the same issues then that climate campaigners are parsing now: "It may mean there is a fundamental flaw in the international political approach, but I'm not sure there is a good alternative. The reality is so dire that a new plan would have to emerge — but just now I can't imagine what it would be."
Gore had a point. When the goal is emissions reduction, there aren't many alternatives: You've got to reduce emissions. The Plan B options now being offered by various advocates should be vigorously debated, but all of them seem vulnerable to the same polluted politics that killed the cap. Advocates of the carbon tax are ready to take a run at their goal, and Godspeed — but it is hard to see how politicians who were terrified to support a cap (because opponents labeled it a tax) will suddenly become bold enough to support a carbon tax. Policy groups such as the Breakthrough Institute argue that instead of making dirty fuels more expensive, it's time for intensive energy research and development to make clean fuels cheaper. That sounds reasonable, but without the revenue stream that a cap or tax would provide — and in an era of budget cutbacks — it is hard to see government supplying the massive, long-term funding their plan requires.
Is the cap so fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned forever? I don't think so. I believe it needs to be liberated from legislative bloat and rehabilitated as a modest first step: a tool for regulating power sector emissions, the job it performed so successfully in the 1990s, when America tamed acid rain. It's worth remembering that while climate politics were bogging down, climate policy mechanisms were being improved. Clever wonks found ways to cushion consumers and high-carbon industries from the price impact of the cap, while preserving a price signal for generators. Trading restrictions were added to keep speculators out of the carbon game. Though the term cap-and-trade has been demonized, the cap itself isn't broken.
Some will argue that this latest setback is proof that the U.S. will never cap carbon. I reject that view. All we can say for sure is that the U.S. will never cap or price carbon until the politics of the issue change — so the first order of business must be to begin improving the political atmosphere. During the three years I worked on The Climate War, a narrative of the campaign to pass a carbon cap, I came to realize I was writing a political thriller, a whodunit with multiple culprits. Let's look for lessons by considering some of the culprits, starting with the most obvious.
1. The Professional Deniers. Gore and environmental leaders made a tactical error several years ago when they declared the science "settled" and refused to engage the forces of denial and delay. The basic science was indeed settled, but the resulting message vacuum was the perfect medium for those who sow doubt and confusion about global climate change. It shouldn't be surprising that so many Americans remain skeptical about global warming. For 20 years, this loose network of PR pros, working for industry associations and anti-tax think tanks, has spread doubt about climate science and fear about climate economics, claiming that any attempt to cap CO2 would wreck the American economy. Their disinformation, amplified via the Internet, helped poison the debate. To counter the deniers' campaign, President Obama needs to speak out forcefully, and champions of the clean energy economy must point to the new jobs that are already being created by the renewable energy economy and show Americans precisely where they fit into it.
2. Senate Republicans. Most climate campaigners understand the folly of trying to remake the American energy system without bipartisan support. But it's hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there's a problem and vilifying the solutions. A scaled-back approach, one that can be sold as a modest, incremental step and not a new industrial revolution, might fare better.
There was a time — 2007 and 2008, to be precise — when some Republicans were moving away from deny-and-delay tactics. (In 2007, briefly, Newt Gingrich supported the carbon cap.) More recently, opposition to climate action has become a litmus test in the GOP. Arizona
It's hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there's a problem.
Republican John McCain, who sponsored the Senate's first serious climate bills but now faces a primary challenge from the right, recently called a successor bill "a farce." His mantle of Republican climate courage passed to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who took so much heat from his own party that he withdrew from the climate bill he helped write. Graham's position has been incoherent since then, but he has signaled support for a cap on the power sector. That could be something to build on.
3. Senate Democrats. After Reid pulled the plug, Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for obstruction. But what about the obstructionists within the Democratic ranks? Harry Reid didn't have the clout to force action on this issue because a dozen or more centrist Democrats — from states that either mine coal or produce much of their electricity from it — were dug in against it. It is impossible to tell if the senators were truly concerned about what the cap would do to their state economies — nonpartisan studies suggest its impact would be minimal — or just worried about what attack ads would do to them. Again, a more modest first step could change the dynamic. The crucial thing is to get started.
4. The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal: An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off timid legislators.
The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became clear, in late 2009, that it was unachievable in the Senate. Only recently did
The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with nothing.
environmental leaders try to negotiate a compromise cap on electric power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions. Passing a utility cap would have been a great first step, but the talks got started too late. The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with nothing.
5. The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts.
Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund, regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It isn't possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that pay electricity bills. That doesn't mean, however, that the politicians should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing in action.
6. The President. Barack Obama chose not to lead on this issue. His decision to address health care reform before energy and climate change doomed the latter. With advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod whispering that climate was a losing proposition (a self-fulfilling prophesy, to be sure), Obama never threw himself behind a particular climate bill. He left it to the Senate, the Green Group, and the power bosses — all of whom were sorely in need of adult supervision.
The real grownups in this tale were Rep. Henry Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last year surprised the Obama Administration by taking a comprehensive climate bill to the House floor. The White House had no choice but to help whip the vote, and it passed. Then Obama stopped trying, and the Senate refused to take up the legislation. It was a colossal failure of nerve, and a decision that likely destroyed any chance of achieving climate action in Obama's first term.
Since the president and his political advisers thought an economy-wide cap was too heavy a lift, Obama should have led a tactical retreat to what, in the past several months, became the last-ditch compromise position: the cap on the electric power sector. Had negotiations focused on this months ago instead of weeks ago, and had the president thrown his weight behind it then, we might today be celebrating a step forward instead of mourning another failure. Only Obama had the authority to call this audible early. The environmental NGOs and their allies were too invested in the economy-wide approach; they needed Obama to lead them.
He refused. To the bitter end, the White House pursued what his aides called a "stealth strategy" that deployed the president only sparingly. As a result, he failed to take advantage of the BP oil spill. When its terrible scope became apparent, in June, Obama began talking about the need to
Welcome to the 'glorious mess' — the tangle of regulation and litigation that follow when Congress fails to act.
cap carbon and accelerate the transition to clean energy. But it was a fleeting moment. Many climate campaigners knew the climate bill was dead on June 15, when Obama gave his long-awaited Oval Office address on the oil spill. Instead of making an explicit connection to the climate bill — and explaining that by capping carbon the U.S. could speed its transition to clean energy and help break its addiction to fossil fuels — Obama whiffed. He had a road map but didn't try to share it with the people. "We don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there," he said. Today, with that map in shreds, we surely don't.
As climate campaigners wait however long it takes to get another shot at legislation, there is important work to be done. Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have been dropping — and not just because of the recession. The task is to build on this trend during the economic recovery. Changes in our energy infrastructure are making this possible. In Texas, our highest-emitting state and a bastion of climate skepticism, carbon emissions have been declining since 2004 thanks in part to a renewable energy standard — signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush — that accelerated the installation of wind power and created thousands of jobs along the way.
The Department of Energy now has 7,000 clean energy projects across the country — projects that save money, create jobs, and reduce emissions. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we'll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes.
Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories.
Welcome to the "glorious mess" — Michigan Rep. John Dingell's phrase for the tangle of regulation and litigation that will follow when Congress fails to act. We are about to experience precisely the sort of costly, protracted, plant-by-plant trench warfare the cap was intended to avoid. Since the utilities and the manufacturers weren't willing to cut a deal, this is what they get. The fragile period of compromise and cooperation between environmentalists and big business may now be coming to an end. Green groups that have invested time and money into the legislative process are now putting on their war paint and returning to the courts, with a renewed focus on stopping new coal-fired power plants and shutting down the oldest and dirtiest ones.
Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses' appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules.
In effect, the Senate will be saying that Congress alone should have the power to act — so that it can then not exercise that power. Obama's aides say the president will be fully engaged in the battle to save EPA authority over carbon. It is a fight that he can't possibly duck, because it is our last line of defense. As Gore reminded me in Copenhagen, "The fact that this is extremely hard doesn't mean we should quit."
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
The spill is gone? | Michael Tomasky
Time magazine's Michael Grunwald, a fine environmental reporter who knows the region well, writes that it's turning out that the damage from the BP spill may not be as great as (nearly) everyone feared:
Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year...
...The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and degradable, which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped. Second, the Gulf of Mexico, unlike Prince William Sound, is balmy at more than 85 degrees, which also helps bacteria break down oil. Third, heavy flows of Mississippi River water helped keep the oil away from the coast, where it can do much more damage. Finally, Mother Nature can be incredibly resilient. Van Heerden's assessment team showed me around Casse-tete Island in Timbalier Bay, where new shoots of spartina grasses were sprouting in oiled marshes, and new leaves were growing on the first black mangroves I had ever seen that were actually black.
This doesn't seem so improbable to me. That is to say, while I'm some distance from being an environmental scientist, those four reasons given in the second graf above sound plausible.
As Grunwald notes elsewhere, there is still the economic and psychic damage to consider, and those are immense. Just this morning NPR ran an interview with a shrimp fisherman who basically hasn't been out on the waters all summer and is apparently living on the settlement he got from BP. Many billions in economic activity have surely been lost.
But this is nevertheless an interesting point. If true, what might the political fallout be? Hard to say. The alarm was pretty bipartisan, including the president and the Louisiana governor, including the state's politicians of both parties. I guess right-wing talk-radio cranks probably downplayed it. But they downplay everything that happens that might demonstrate that liberals have a point about anything. So they finally hit the dartboard once, big deal.
It probably helps Obama a little to the extent that if the damage were massive it would hurt him. But in the longer term, if Grunwald is right, the fact that the spill didn't live up to the hype will be used by the free marketers as basis for arguing for more deregulation.
This is itself ahistorical, because in fact there is wide agreement that significant environmental damage has been done to Louisiana's coastline and marshes in recent years by all the oil and gas industry dredging that has taken place - to build networks of pipelines and canals to ferry men and materiel. This short piece from May by two environmental advocates (and yes, it opens with some BP alarmism) describes some of the history.
So in sum: a year or two or five from now, the right will have ensured that it will be a firmly established meme that the BP spill didn't do much damage; therefore, the koo-koo environmentalists are wrong as usual; therefore, dredge baby dredge and drill baby drill.
The actual truth, that dredging has done loads of damage, spill or no spill, will be buried, and the Democrats and progressive groups will do their usual bumbling job of getting that information out and defending that position. Am I wrong?
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Vegetarianism is not contrary to Arab culture | Joseph Mayton
Meat is important in Middle East religious and social culture but giving it up could solve economic and environmental concerns
When the Jordanian activist Amina Tariq took to the streets of Amman clad in lettuce leaves, she captured the attention of the Middle East's media. With a sign in Arabic that read "Let vegetarianism grow on you", she was trying to spark interest in a diet without animal products.
Jordan was the final stop on a tour of the region by the global animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), and the lettuce leaf demonstration was arguably its most successful attempt yet to get Arabs thinking about a vegetarian diet.
The case for vegetarianism rarely gets a sympathetic hearing in the region. Many Arab intellectuals and even animal welfare campaigners believe it is not a readily accessible concept. One activist who is not vegetarian was angered at Peta's plans earlier this month to hold a demonstration promoting vegetarianism in Egypt. "Egypt is not ready for such a lifestyle and there are other aspects dealing with animals that should be looked at first," he said.
Although Jason Baker, Peta's Asia-Pacific director, pointed out that by removing meat from the diet "you are doing more for animals", the idea didn't go down well. In conversations I had with activists here in Cairo, the sense was that vegetarianism is "too foreign" a concept to take hold in the near future – and they are probably right.
With Ramadan on the horizon, followed by the Eid al-Adha holiday, including the sacrificial slaughter of sheep by millions of Muslims worldwide, it is important not to underestimate the importance meat has, and has had, in Arab/Islamic culture. The ancient Egyptians, for instance, kept cows in one of the first massive domestication efforts.
Another aspect of meat culture in the Arab world is social class. Meat is eaten daily by upper-class families, and so the poor see this as something to aspire to.
Carnivorous journalists and academics also argue that humans evolved to eat meat and need certain by-products from animals in order to survive. Certainly, humans evolved to eat meat and it has been a major staple in our diet historically, but have we not evolved to a position where we can choose a lifestyle that is sensible and that does not destroy our environment or force millions to go hungry?
The question we should be asking, instead of looking at evolution and history, is how we want to live in the coming decades. Research shows that one of the easiest methods of combating climate change is through a plant-based diet.
The UN has said that raising animals for food (whether on factory or traditional farms) "is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global … [Animal agriculture] should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale".
In other words, even if you are not convinced of the moral case for vegetarianism, if you care about the future of our planet it makes sense to stop eating animals – both in environmental and economic terms.
In Egypt, for example, we see that hundreds of thousands of cattle are imported into the country for slaughter; lentils, wheat and other staples of the Egyptian diet are also imported. That all costs money.
If Egypt were to promote and incorporate vegetarianism into its economic policy, the millions of Egyptians who struggle and complain about the rising costs of meat could be fed. It takes around 16kg of animal feed to produce one kilo of meat for consumption. That's a lot of money and food that could serve the hungry population.
According to Hossam Gamal, a researcher at the Egyptian agriculture ministry, "the exact amount of money that could be saved by reducing meat production is unknown, but I have estimated it to be in the billions [of dollars]".
Elsewhere across the region, Gamal continues, "we could increase the health and living situation for millions of people if we didn't have to spend so much on maintaining the desire to eat meat".
He points to what other experts, such as John Vidal in the Observer, say about the reduction of land for planting as a result of animal farming. "Nearly 30% of the available ice-free surface area of the planet is now used by livestock, or for growing food for those animals," Vidal writes.
Gamal says that as Egyptians consume more and more meat, the need for factory farming is increasing. According to him, more than 50% of all animal products consumed in the Middle East come from factory farming. By reducing the need for meat, he argues, "we could, simultaneously, increase health of people, feed more and increase our local economies through the use of farmland for crops that we are currently importing, such as lentils and beans".
Gamal says he is one of only a handful of vegetarians at the ministry and this has left a stigma that is hard to overcome. "I get heckled because I don't eat meat," he says, "but if these people, who are ardently against the idea, would look at the reality, economically and environmentally, they would see that it is something to think about."
Joseph Maytonguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Greenpeace exposes Indonesian palm oil firm's 'broken' rainforest pledge
New evidence shows country's largest palm and pulp group is breaking its environmental commitments by destroying critical habitats
Greenpeace said today it had fresh evidence that palm oil firms linked to Indonesian agribusiness giant Sinar Mas have bulldozed rainforest and destroyed endangered orang-utan habitats in Kalimantan.
The charges were denied by palm oil firm PT SMART Tbk, part of Sinar Mas, which has already said it would stop clearing critical forests.
The accusations, levelled by Greenpeace in a new report, are the latest chapter in a long and bitter dispute between the conservationists and a key player in one of Indonesia's biggest industries, palm oil.
The high-stakes battle has already led to top palm oil-buyers Unilever and Nestle dropping PT SMART as a supplier. Earlier this month, HSBC sold its shares in Sinar Mas.
Industry giant Cargill today reiterated that it may also delist the Indonesian producer if the allegations of wrongdoing are borne out in an audit due to be released next month.
It also has implications for Indonesia, which competes fiercely with neighbouring Malaysia for dominance of the lucrative palm oil market, and which is also under intense international pressure to curb deforestation, seen as fuelling dangerous climate change.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has promised to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 by as much as 41% from business-as-usual levels, and agreed to a moratorium starting in 2011 on issuance of new permits to clear primary forest.
The ban is part of a $1bn climate deal signed with Norway earlier this year.
SMART has already promised to stop clearing high conservation value (HCV) forests, which refers to forests that shelter endangered species or provide valuable natural services such as trapping climate-warming greenhouse gases.
It said it will publish an audit of its operations on 10 August.
SMART manages Indonesian palm oil firms PT Agro Lestari Mandiri (ALM) and PT Bangun Nusa Mandiri (BNM). The parent company for SMART, ALM and BNM is Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources, which is part-owned and led by the Widjaja family that controls Sinar Mas.
Greenpeace said in a report released on Thursday that aerial photographs taken in July by their own photographers, as well as by a Reuters photographer, showed that ALM was still clearing carbon-rich peatland forests in Ketapang district, in Indonesia's West Kalimantan province.
"What we found was that, despite their commitment, high carbon destruction is still going on,"said Greenpeace forest campaigner, Bustar Maitar. "This is still happening, even while their auditor is writing the report."
Greenpeace also published photographs (pdf) which it said showed BNM clearing in an area in Ketapang that was identified by the United Nations Environment Programme as habitat for highly endangered orang-utans.
SMART released a press statement saying the firm did not clear virgin or primary forest and that it complied with Indonesian laws and regulations.
"We are not responsible for clearing primary forests, which are the natural habitats for orang-utans. On the contrary, all our concession areas do not contain primary forests and we conserve high conservation value areas, creating sanctuaries that will continue to preserve biodiversity," said Daud Dharsono, PT SMART's president director. Areas of untouched greenery in the aerial shots were proof that parts of their concession areas are being set aside for preservation, the statement said.
Enormous amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted when peatland forests are cleared and drained. Their preservation is seen as crucial to preventing runaway climate change.
SMART's spokesman, Fajar Reksoprodjo, told Reuters that in the past, aerial photographs that appeared to show clearing in peatlands had been misinterpreted and showed mineral soil.
SMART initially planned to release its audit in July but delayed it to August 10 because it was not yet finished.
The auditors are paid by SMART and were selected in collaboration with Unilever, which chairs the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), an industry body made up of producers, consumers and non-government organisations.
The Greenpeace report also called on fast food chains Pizza Hut – a unit of Yum Brands Inc – and Burger King to stop buying palm oil from firms linked to Sinar Mas.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Saving the great yellow bumblebee
Ben Darvill and Bob Dawson of the Bumblebee Conservation Trust on the importance of conserving Britain's declining bumblebee population
Response to George Monbiot: Why 'Amazongate' matters
George Monbiot should be calling the IPCC to account for its unreferenced rainforest claims, rather than attacking its critics
• George Monbiot: Who's to blame for 'Amazongate' story?
• Sunday Times apologises for false climate story in a 'correction'
• Forests expert officially complains about 'distorted' Sunday Times article
In what has become the long-running saga of the unsubstantiated claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the potential effects of global warming on the Amazon rainforest, the fact that George Monbiot has weighed in so heavily to the "Amazongate" issue is perhaps a measure of its importance.
One cannot help but enjoy the irony of Monbiot's apology for troubling his readers over an issue which he claims is "trivial", then spending so much time and effort exploring it.
But the one thing Monbiot has not told us, in his torrent of excoriating verbiage, is quite why "Amazongate" – the name given to the "outing" of the IPCC - is so important. In his rush to condemn those who pointed out the error of the IPCC's ways, and me in particular, he somehow glosses over this essential point.
And that essential point is that the IPCC got it wrong, not once but in several different ways, in making a key assertion about the Amazon rainforests which, when the chips are down, is entirely without foundation. Let us count the errors of its ways.
Firstly, we have the offending claim, which asserts that up to 40% of the entire rainforest could turn to savannah, given even a slight reduction in rainfall (which we can assume is the result of climate change).
For such a startling assertion, one would of course expect the IPCC to have good evidence and, in the very essential nature of its report, to cite that evidence to support its claim. This is the very basis on any reputable reporting – the fundamental requirement to disclose the sources. So what do we have?
Well, the referenced source of the claim is a review, the lead publisher of which is the advocacy group the WWF. The lead author is an unqualified freelance journalist and green activist. He relies, we are told by the WWF, on a claim made by the "respected" Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM - The Amazon Institute of Environmental Research).
By some error, we are told by the WWF, the reference to the work of the "respected" institute is missing from the review. But, we are assured, the original does make the claim, and it is "supported" by peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Come what may, this is enough to support the charge against the IPCC. It has referenced an important claim to so-called "grey" literature which is not the originator of the work on which the claim is supposedly based. That work in turn has omitted the reference. Then, through the writing process and the three-layer review process, which assures quality control, the IPCC has failed to notice this error and correct it.
Already, this is more than a referencing problem, as some assert. It is a major system failure on the part of the IPCC, a real failure in quality control.
But it does not stop there. While the WWF refers to this mysterious IPAM "report", it does not supply the missing reference. And somehow it has omitted to tell us that the source is actually an educational website entry, put up by the Brazilian institute in 1999 and removed in 2003.
Thus is the final source of the IPCC claim. It is not even a report. It is not a research document. The author is not identified. It is neither referenced nor peer-reviewed. And neither, as Monbiot later admits, is there peer-reviewed scientific literature which supports the specific claim.
That he claims that there is research which supports the general thesis, is not the point. Apart from the fact that its meaning and value is arguable, the fact is that Working Group II of the IPCC did not refer to this work and did not call it in aid of its claim
By any measure, my original assertion that the IPCC claim is unsubstantiated stands up. Yet Monbiot, rather than follow the trail of evidence, chooses to use the inexplicable and unexplained retraction of the "Amazongate" story in the Sunday Times as evidence that the IPCC has been vindicated.
And, on that slender basis, he asserts that its accusers – "North first among them" – are exposed for "peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood."
It is a fascinating reflection of the mindset of Monbiot that, when the Sunday Times first printed the story in January, it is somehow not credible. Yet, when the newspaper retracts the story, it acquires such great authority that this one action is taken to vindicate the IPCC. The source, it seems, it is not the issue. It is whether the source says what Monbiot want to hear.
However, the fact is that the IPCC has been caught out. And instead of admitting its error – by no means the first, as we know from its claims on Himalayan glaciers –it retreats behind a wall of bluster and obfuscation.
That is really why "Amazongate" matters. We have in the IPCC an organisation which purports to offer the best that science has to offer on the state of the climate. To err is human, and it is not surprising that there are errors in its report – although the basic nature of this system failure should raise eyebrows. But a failure to investigate and then to correct its errors is unpardonable.
An honest commentator would be joining us to ensure that the unsubstantiated claim by the IPCC is removed. But Mr Monbiot has instead resorted to ad hominem abuse which he – or his employers – justify as "fair comment".
Rather, he should be concerned, even if for entirely different reasons, that the response of the IPCC to a proven and egregious error has not been healthy. And an organisation which cannot admit error and deal with it is one that cannot be trusted.
The same might also be said of its supporters who, instead of dealing with the entirely justified criticisms, seek to attack the critics. By their deeds shall we know them and, in respect of his particular deeds in relation to "Amazongate", we have come to know Monbiot quite well.
We are not enriched by the experience.
• Richard North is a writer who blogs at EU Referendum
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Upper Thames Reservoir: Wildlife habitats under threat
Protected species displaced would include water voles, bats and hedgehogs and, in addition, 94 per cent of bird species presently found there would go
Name of project
Upper Thames Reservoir
Describe the site currently, including details of protected or threatened habitat or species
The four square mile development site is currently occupied by prime agricultural land, 70 per cent of which is very high quality productive farmland which is protected by national planning policy.
Some studies have shown that Thames Water's proposals for the reservoir could create great environmental damage and habitat destruction on and around the reservoir site.
A report by Dr Clive Spinage, who has studied in close detail the area of the proposed reservoir, highlights the scale of destruction of wildlife habitats over this huge area. Protected species displaced would include water voles, bats and hedgehogs and, in addition, 94 per cent of bird species presently found there would go, leading to a further decline in some of the rare birds which nest there, including Lapwing and Golden Plover.
What development is proposed?
Thames Water is proposing to build a £1 billion mega reservoir near Abingdon, Oxfordshire with the £1bn construction cost set to be passed on to consumers across London and the southeast in higher water bills.
Group Against Reservoir Development (GARD) is fighting the proposals at a make-or-break Public Inquiry into Thames Water's future development plans, set out in its 25 year Water Resources Management Plan.
The inquiry started on 15 June and is expected to last for five weeks, after which time the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Caroline Spelman MP, will determine whether the plans get the go-ahead or whether Thames Water will be forced to reconsider its plans in the light of evidence from GARD, CPRE and the Environment Agency. The campaign groups argue that:
1. There is no need for a reservoir that would cost consumers a billion pounds in higher water bills. The reservoir could provide 60 million gallons of water each day - Thames Water's own forecasts show that the daily projected shortage in 2035 will be just 13 million gallons. The cost will be borne by consumers.
2. There are cheaper and more sustainable alternatives. Thames Water has rejected more cost effective schemes such as the Severn-Thames transfer scheme that could provide just as much water at half the cost.
3. The building of the reservoir could come at a huge environmental cost. It could destroy 5,000 acres of productive farmland, increase flood risk and increase carbon emissions. It could involve a ten year construction programme, devastating some four square miles of rural Oxfordshire.
What one thing would help you or your group protect this site?
Readers could do one (or more!) of the following by going to www.abingdonreservoir.org.uk
1 Join our e-newsletter – Please fill in this form and join our campaign to stop Thames Water's plans. Sign-up for our e-newsletter to keep up to date with our progress.
2 Sign our petition – Please sign our petition to stop Thames Water's plans! We will also keep you informed with our campaign progress.
3 Follow us on Twitter – Keep up to date with our progress by following the GARD Campaign on Twitter.
4 Find us on Facebook – Show your support by joining our Facebook group and keep up to date with our campaign.
Exact location
OX13 6AP
Developer
Thames Water, Swindon
Planning authority, and reference number of planning application
The project will not reach the planning stage unless the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs approves Thames Water's Water Asset Management Plan.
• If you are the developer and would like to respond to this campaign, please email piece.by.piece@guardian.co.uk
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Squirrel meat flies off supermarket's shelves
Owner of north London Budgens store defends sale, saying squirrel is a sustainable meat and tastes lovely
The owner of a local Budgens supermarket has defended selling squirrel meat as a sustainable way of feeding people and says it has a "lovely" taste.
Andrew Thornton, started selling the meat about five months ago after requests from customers at his Budgens store in Crouch End, north London.
"There are too many squirrels around, we might as well eat them rather than cull them and dispose of them," he said.
Thornton sells up to 15 squirrels a week when they are in stock.
The animal welfare group Viva accused Budgens of profiting from a "wildlife massacre".
Its founder and director, Juliet Gellatley, said: "If this store is attempting to stand out from the crowd by selling squirrel, the only message they are giving out is that they are happy to have the blood of a beautiful wild animal on their hands for the sake of a few quid."
Thornton rejected the claim: "That's not the case at all. If we are selling 10 or 15 a week I don't think that falls into the definition of a massacre."
He predicted more people would eat squirrel in the future.
"I think it's lovely. It's bit like rabbit. I think there will be a lot of fuss about this now, but in a few years it will become accepted practice that we eat squirrels. People don't bat an eyelid now about eating rabbit," he said.
Thornton buys the meat from a game supplier in Suffolk, the Wild Meat Company, but said he hadn't stocked it for several weeks because the firm had run out of squirrel while it focused on other game products.
"We would like to get it back on shelves as soon as we can. We are a mainstream supermarket but we take a very strong sustainability stance," he said.
"We got into it because we had requests from customers. There are a lot of people who understand sustainability issues around here."
Thornton claimed that squirrel meat is more sustainable than beef. "It takes about 15 tonnes of grain to produce one tonne of beef, which is not sustainable.
"Squirrels will be culled anyway. You have two choices. Either you dispose of them or you eat them."
The actor and Viva patron Jenny Seagrove said selling squirrel meat was "unbelievable".
"Anyone who cares about wildlife, as I do, should be appalled at Budgens for allowing this," she said.
A spokesman for Musgrave, which operates Budgens, told the Daily Mail: "As our retailers are independent, they therefore have the right and ability to secure products that Budgens do not offer for sale, within their individually owned stores."
Matthew Weaverguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Wildlife conservation projects do more harm than good, says expert
New book claims western-style schemes to protect animals damage the environment and criminalise local people
Ecotourism and western-style conservation projects are harming wildlife, damaging the environment, and displacing and criminalising local people, according to a controversial new book.
The pristine beaches and wildlife tours demanded by overseas tourists has led to developments that do not benefit wildlife, such as beaches being built, mangroves stripped out, waterholes drilled and forests cleared, says Rosaleen Duffy, a world expert on the ethical dimensions of wildlife conservation and management.
These picture-perfect images all too often hide a "darker history", she adds. Her new book, Nature Crime: How We're Getting Conservation Wrong, which draws on 15 years of research, 300 interviews with conservation professionals, local communities, tour operators and government officials, is published today.
When wildlife reserves are established, Duffy says, local communities can suddenly find that their everyday subsistence activities, such as hunting and collecting wood, have been outlawed.
At the same time, well-intentioned attempts to protect the habitats of animal species on the edge of extinction lead to the creation of wild, "people-free" areas. This approach has led to the displacement of millions of people across the world.
"Conservation does not constitute neat win-win scenarios. Schemes come with rules and regulations that criminalise communities, dressed up in the language of partnership and participation, coupled with promises of new jobs in the tourism industry," claims Duffy, professor of international politics at Manchester University.
A key failure of the western-style conservation approach is the assumption that people are the enemies of wildlife conservation – that they are the illegal traders, the poachers, the hunters and the habitat destroyers. Equally flawed, she says, is the belief that those engaged in conservation are "wildlife saviours".
Such images, she argues, are oversimplifications. "The inability to negotiate these conflicts and work with people on the ground is where conservation often sows the seeds of its own doom," she adds.
"Why do some attempts to conserve wildlife end up pitting local communities against conservationists?" she asks. "It is because they are regarded as unjust impositions, despite their good intentions. This is vital because failing to tackle such injustices damages wildlife conservation in the long run."
Duffy stresses that her intention is not to persuade people to stop supporting conservation schemes. "Wildlife is under threat and we need to act urgently," she acknowledges. Instead, she says, she wants to encourage environmentalists to examine what the real costs and benefits of conservation are, so that better practices for people and for animals can be developed.
"The assumption that the ends justify the means results in a situation where the international conservation movement and their supporters around the world assume they are making ethical and environmentally sound decisions to save wildlife," she says. "In fact, they are supporting practices that have counterproductive, unethical and highly unjust outcomes."
Duffy focuses on what she says is the fallacious belief that ecotourism is a solution to the problem of delivering economic development in an environmentally sustainable way.
This is, she says, a "bewitchingly simple argument" but the assumption that such tourism necessarily translates into the kinds of development that benefits wildlife is far too simplistic.
"Holiday makers are mostly unaware of how their tourist paradises have been produced," she says. "They assume that the picture-perfect landscape or the silver Caribbean beach is a natural feature. This is very far from the truth. Tourist playgrounds are manufactured environments, usually cleared of people. Similarly, hotel construction in tropical areas can result in clearing ecologically important mangroves or beach building which harms coral reefs."
But the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, one of the four biggest environmental NGOs in the world, maintains that the loss of wildlife is one of the most important challenges facing our planet. As such, a powerful focus on conservation is necessary: "Conservation is essential so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater," says a WWF-UK spokesman. "There are examples out there where ecotourism is working and has thrown a lifeline to communities in terms of economics and social benefits, as well as added biodiversity benefits.
"Let's have more of those projects that are working for everybody and everything," he adds. "There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to ecotourism and conservation."
- Conservation
- Wildlife
- Animals
- Ethical holidays
- Ethical and green living
- Endangered species
- Endangered habitats
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Wildlife conservation projects do more harm than good, says expert
New book claims western-style schemes to protect animals damage the environment and criminalise local people
Ecotourism and western-style conservation projects are harming wildlife, damaging the environment, and displacing and criminalising local people, according to a controversial new book.
The pristine beaches and wildlife tours demanded by overseas tourists has led to developments that do not benefit wildlife, such as beaches being built, mangroves stripped out, waterholes drilled and forests cleared, says Rosaleen Duffy, a world expert on the ethical dimensions of wildlife conservation and management.
These picture-perfect images all too often hide a "darker history", she adds. Her new book, Nature Crime: How We're Getting Conservation Wrong, which draws on 15 years of research, 300 interviews with conservation professionals, local communities, tour operators and government officials, is published today.
When wildlife reserves are established, Duffy says, local communities can suddenly find that their everyday subsistence activities, such as hunting and collecting wood, have been outlawed.
At the same time, well-intentioned attempts to protect the habitats of animal species on the edge of extinction lead to the creation of wild, "people-free" areas. This approach has led to the displacement of millions of people across the world.
"Conservation does not constitute neat win-win scenarios. Schemes come with rules and regulations that criminalise communities, dressed up in the language of partnership and participation, coupled with promises of new jobs in the tourism industry," claims Duffy, professor of international politics at Manchester University.
A key failure of the western-style conservation approach is the assumption that people are the enemies of wildlife conservation – that they are the illegal traders, the poachers, the hunters and the habitat destroyers. Equally flawed, she says, is the belief that those engaged in conservation are "wildlife saviours".
Such images, she argues, are oversimplifications. "The inability to negotiate these conflicts and work with people on the ground is where conservation often sows the seeds of its own doom," she adds.
"Why do some attempts to conserve wildlife end up pitting local communities against conservationists?" she asks. "It is because they are regarded as unjust impositions, despite their good intentions. This is vital because failing to tackle such injustices damages wildlife conservation in the long run."
Duffy stresses that her intention is not to persuade people to stop supporting conservation schemes. "Wildlife is under threat and we need to act urgently," she acknowledges. Instead, she says, she wants to encourage environmentalists to examine what the real costs and benefits of conservation are, so that better practices for people and for animals can be developed.
"The assumption that the ends justify the means results in a situation where the international conservation movement and their supporters around the world assume they are making ethical and environmentally sound decisions to save wildlife," she says. "In fact, they are supporting practices that have counterproductive, unethical and highly unjust outcomes."
Duffy focuses on what she says is the fallacious belief that ecotourism is a solution to the problem of delivering economic development in an environmentally sustainable way.
This is, she says, a "bewitchingly simple argument" but the assumption that such tourism necessarily translates into the kinds of development that benefits wildlife is far too simplistic.
"Holiday makers are mostly unaware of how their tourist paradises have been produced," she says. "They assume that the picture-perfect landscape or the silver Caribbean beach is a natural feature. This is very far from the truth. Tourist playgrounds are manufactured environments, usually cleared of people. Similarly, hotel construction in tropical areas can result in clearing ecologically important mangroves or beach building which harms coral reefs."
But the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, one of the four biggest environmental NGOs in the world, maintains that the loss of wildlife is one of the most important challenges facing our planet. As such, a powerful focus on conservation is necessary: "Conservation is essential so let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater," says a WWF-UK spokesman. "There are examples out there where ecotourism is working and has thrown a lifeline to communities in terms of economics and social benefits, as well as added biodiversity benefits.
"Let's have more of those projects that are working for everybody and everything," he adds. "There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to ecotourism and conservation."
- Conservation
- Wildlife
- Animals
- Ethical holidays
- Ethical and green living
- Endangered species
- Endangered habitats
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Are vertical farms the future of urban food?
With more mouths to feed and increasing demands on land, Duncan Graham-Rowe looks to see if high rise city blocks will be the source of tomorrow's supper
The vaults rose up as high as the city walls, bearing reeds richly bedded in bitumen and gypsum. The layered galleries peered each beyond its neighbour to reach the sunlight, and water drawn from the river was pumped through conduits up to the highest level. The topsoil was thick enough to root even the largest trees...
These were the renowned Hanging Gardens of Babylon, as described by the Greek historians Diodorus and Callisthenes, and the earliest example of vertical farming – at least according to Dan Caiger-Smith. His company, Valcent, is taking the concept into the 21st century, recently launching the first farm of its kind at Paignton Zoo in Devon.
It's a beguilingly simple idea: make maximum use of a small amount of space by filling glass houses with plant beds stacked high one above the other.
Financial and environmental pressures on modern agriculture have sparked new interest in vertical farming. With global population expected to exceed 9 billion by 2050, competition for land to grow both food and energy crops will become increasingly fierce. Four-fifths of us will live in dense urban areas, and increasing awareness of the carbon and water footprints of well-travelled food will have pushed locally grown produce even further up the list of desirables.
So it's easy to see the appeal of a system which, its proponents insist, can surpass the productivity of existing agricultural spaces by up to 20 times, while using less water, cutting mileage and energy costs, and delivering food security.
"It answers so many of the big questions of the future", says Caiger-Smith.
Valcent's system requires about the same amount of energy as having a home computer on for ten hours a day. That's enough to produce half a million lettuces a year – and, the company claims, seven times less than is required to grow the same crop on a traditional farm.
The 100 square metre farm at Paignton Zoo grows leaf vegetables for animal feed. It applies a technique called hydroponics, where plants are grown in nutrient rich solutions instead of soil. Stacked in trays eight layers high, the crops are continually rotated to ensure that all have adequate access to air and sunlight. The system also allows nutrients that have not been directly taken up by the plants to be collected and recirculated, along with the water, reducing usage and minimising waste.
This is just the beginning, says Caiger-Smith. His company now has more than 150 clients around the world queuing up to see how hydroponics could meet the needs of human food production, too.
How indeed. Inspiring concepts and artists' impressions abound, but with none actually up and running yet, how can vertical farms meet the impressive efficiency and production claims being made for them?
By cutting lots of corners. For a start, they remove the need for tractors and other fuel-dependent equipment. Distances to ship the produce from grower to retailer to consumer are also slashed. As Jeanette Longfield, Co-ordinator of the food and farming non-profit group, Sustain, puts it: "Intensive agriculture is currently entirely dependent on fossil fuels, from its use of nitrogen-based fertilisers to mechanical equipment, transport and refrigeration – and so urban agriculture really makes a lot of sense". In particular, Longfield sees "great potential for perishables that don't travel well".
Moreover, the traditional dependence of yield on the weather is taken out of the equation, offering greater security to the full supply chain.
Proven business models are still a way off. "It takes a stock market to build a high-rise," says Natalie Jeremijenko, an aerospace engineer and environmental health professor at New York University. She doubts that the income from vertically farmed crops would be sufficient to recoup the rent. But this hasn't stemmed her interest. Instead, she's come up with two designs to sidestep the problem: one is a small hydroponic rooftop pod with a curved shape to maximise exposure to the sunlight. The other is a vertical farm designed around a fire escape on an occupied high rise.
Sustain has also set out to demonstrate that urban land doesn't always come at a premium. The organisation has launched the programme Capital Growth, which aims to create 2,012 new food growing spaces in London before the city hosts the Olympics that year. The search encompasses "all kinds of nooks and crannies" – from school grounds and the banks of canals to roof terraces.
The other option is to simply do things on an industrial scale. Dickson Despommier at Columbia University, author of The Vertical Farm: The World Grows Up, believes there is scope to take vertical farming to an entirely new level, quite literally. He wants to create a new type of skyscraper to pierce the Big Apple's skyline – vast multi-storey buildings dedicated to vertical farming. According to Despommier, a single 30-storey building could provide enough food for 10,000 people.
And he's not alone in thinking big. Belgian architect Vincent Callebaut has drawn up plans for a huge tower, also in New York, on the city's Roosevelt Island (see 'Weak signals: how to track a changing horzion'). Callebaut's vision, dubbed the Dragonfly, is to create buildings with lush, fertile interiors that function as self-contained, sustainable eco-systems, producing food for their residents.
It's not just a flight of fancy. Will Allen in Milwaukee has already demonstrated the concept with a community food aquaculture system he calls Growing Power. This symbiotic cultivation system relies on aquatic life, such as tilapia fish and yellow perch, to redistribute nutrients. Waste products from the fish fertilise plants, while vegetable waste and worms from the gardens feed the fish. Both the vegetables and the fish are sold to local businesses at a marked up price, so that local residents can buy the produce directly from the farm at a subsidised price.
If vertical food does prove cheaper to produce and consume, then it's unlikely to face much opposition. In years to come, "locally grown" may mean just a few blocks from home.
• Duncan Graham-Rowe is a former staff writer for the New Scientist and a regular contributor to The Economist and The Guardian.
• Additional material by Anna Simpson, Deputy Editor, Green Futures.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
3,000 chemical barrels washed into Chinese river
Water supplies cut to Jilin as floodwaters carry thousands of barrels from chemical plant down Songhua river
Water supplies were cut for a time to part of the north-eastern Chinese city of Jilin, after a flood washed thousands of barrels of a dangerous chemical from a factory into the area's main river, state media said today.
A "small quantity" of two pollutants produced by the plant were found in the Songhua river, and a reporter smelt a strange odour as he watched dozens of the metal containers float through downtown Jilin, the official Xinhua agency said.
It was not clear how well the barrels were sealed. But the environmental protection ministry said yesterday that tests showed nothing abnormal about the water quality. It would monitor the river closely, it said.
The latest spill was triggered when flood waters rushed through a chemical plant yesterday morning, carrying off barrels, including some of trimethyl chloro silicane, a colourless, flammable liquid with a pungent smell, Xinhua said.
Around 3,000 barrels contained 170kg (375lb) of chemicals, and another 4,000 were empty, Xinhua said, citing a government official speaking at a news conference in Jilin. That suggested as much as 500 tonnes could potentially contaminate the river.
Jilin, with a population of 4.5 million, saw panic buying of water. By this morning, however, water supplies had been restored to most districts. The Jilin government declined immediate comment.
Areas downstream could still be at risk, as emergency workers have so far fished only 400 barrels out of the river.
Jilin city suffered a major chemical spill in November 2005, when an explosion at a petrochemical plant released tonnes of hazardous chemicals into the river. That was covered up for over a week. In the face of widespread panic, officials were forced to cut water supplies to millions of people, including the city of Harbin.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
