US Environmentalists: Protect loggerhead sea turtles

H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press, Yahoo News 15 Nov 07;

Two environmental groups are asking the Interior Department to declare loggerhead sea turtles that inhabit the Atlantic coast officially endangered, maintaining that tens of thousands of the turtles are killed annually by commercial fishing and because of coastal development.

The loggerhead sea turtle already is classified as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act, but environmentalists say a higher level of protection is needed for the turtles that nest primarily along the southern Atlantic coast and to some extent off the Gulf coast of Florida.

Oceana, a sea life advocacy group, and the Center for Biological Diversity will file a petition with the Interior Department and National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on Thursday asking that the Western Atlantic Sea Turtle be declared a sub-specie and officially endangered.

The designation would provide the turtle and its habitat increased protection under the Endangered Species Act.

"Loggerhead sea turtles in the western Atlantic are in grave peril. ... Their numbers have plummeted to historic lows," says the petition, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press.

Elizabeth Griffin, a marine wildlife scientist at Oceana, said the biggest threat to the turtle comes from commercial and sport fishing as turtles often are caught in nets, fishing lines and other devices. The petition says turtles also are killed by ingesting refuse from plastic items to balloons.

Griffin said the turtles nest primarily along the Atlantic coast from Florida to the Carolinas but they migrate as far north as New England. It's uncertain how many turtles there are, but a recent government report said tens of thousands of them are killed every year when caught in fishery nets and lines.

Commercial fishing is the single greatest human threat to the turtles but they also have been harmed by coastal development, which has deprived them of beach habitat and disturbed their nesting, the petition says.

Among the disturbing trends cited by the environmental groups is that loggerhead nesting in South Florida has declined by 39.5 percent since 1998.

The loggerhead sea turtle can grow to as big as 3 1/2 feet in length and weigh 400 pounds and live 30 years or more. Its population has been in decline for decades. The turtle was declared "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act in 1978.

While its population has been declining, Griffin said the actual number of turtles along the Atlantic coast is unclear. "That's a huge problem," she said in an interview, adding that if the government doesn't know how many there are it can't set a number that it considers acceptable to be killed.

The environmental groups argue in their petition that climate change may put the loggerhead in yet more peril. If sea levels rise along coasts where there is development, beaches the turtles use for nesting may disappear and even a 1 degree temperature increase could significantly affect their reproduction, said Griffin.

"We need to ensure that there are robust and resilient populations of sea turtles that will be able to withstand the new and potentially deadly challenges of climate change," she said.

Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service both have jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act. Action on the turtle involves both agencies.

US Groups Seek Protection for Loggerhead Turtles
Jim Loney, PlanetArk 16 Nov 07

MIAMI - Loggerhead sea turtles in US Atlantic waters face extinction from commercial fishing and global warming and should be designated an endangered species, two environmental groups said on Thursday.

The ocean conservation group Oceana and the Center for Biological Diversity are petitioning the US government to win better protection for loggerhead habitats and nesting beaches along the US Eastern Seaboard.

The petition to be filed on Thursday with the US Commerce Department and the Department of the Interior serves as a warning that the groups could sue the US government if it fails to act to protect the species.

Loggerhead nest counts in Florida have dropped nearly 50 percent in the last decade, according to Florida's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute.

At the Archie Carr wildlife refuge, one of the key Florida loggerhead nesting areas, nest counts dropped from 15,645 in 2001 to 10,828 in 2006, and appear to be down again this year.

Under US law, an endangered species is "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," while a threatened species is "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future."

Of the six sea turtle species in US waters, the hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp's Ridley and green are listed as endangered and the Olive Ridley and loggerhead are threatened.

A recent five-year study by the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that the designation "threatened" should be maintained for the loggerhead.

Tens of thousands of loggerheads are killed yearly in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico by commercial fishermen, who snare turtles incidentally while going after other species, Oceana said.

"With 90 percent of the US nesting occurring in Florida and a 50 percent decline in nesting over the last decade, it's quite possible these populations will become extinct," said Elizabeth Griffin, a marine scientist at Oceana.

The loggerhead, which can live a century or more, is among the largest of the sea turtle species. They can grow to about 3 1/2 feet (1.07 metres) and weigh up to 400 pounds (181 kg).

Although loggerhead populations are being decimated by commercial fishing, scientists believe global warming is a greater ongoing threat to loggerheads, said Miyoko Sakashita of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Rising sea levels could destroy Florida nesting beaches, and rising temperatures could dramatically tilt the balance of male and female turtles, endangering the species' reproductive abilities.

"Turtles' gender is determined by temperature. In warmer weather there are fewer males born," she said. "The gender could be skewed toward females. With just a few extra degrees of temperature you get almost all females born." (Editing by Michael Christie and Eric Walsh)

Feds take step toward protecting turtles
David Briscoe, Associated Press, Yahoo News 17 Nov 07;

The federal government is considering listing loggerhead sea turtles that live along California's coast and off Hawaii as an endangered species and further protecting their habitat.

Loggerhead turtles everywhere are already classified as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act, but environmentalists say a higher level of protection is needed.

The decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to consider an upgraded definition for North Pacific loggerheads was published Friday in the Federal Registry.

A day earlier, two East Coast environmental groups petitioned the Interior Department and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to take a similar step with another variety of loggerhead sea turtles along the Atlantic Coast. Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service both have jurisdiction over the Endangered Species Act.

No action has been announced on that petition, which would declare the Western Atlantic Sea Turtle a subspecies. Environmentalists have used the federal act to protect specific threatened groups within the same species.

It's uncertain how many loggerheads there are, but advocates say tens of thousands are killed annually by commercial fishing and coastal development on both U.S. coasts.

Pacific fisheries managers, however, say great strides have been made in protecting Pacific loggerheads in recent years, both in the Pacific and on Japanese beaches where they nest. Besides California and Hawaii, the turtles also migrate to Mexico.

The Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network, which seek to increase turtle protection worldwide, petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service in July to consider the upgraded designation for Pacific loggerheads. The Federal Registry publication calls for public comments by Jan. 15.

The petitioners estimate loggerheads have declined by more than 80 percent, with fewer than 1,000 female loggerheads returning to nest each year.

"The survival of loggerheads will depend on preventing sea turtles from drowning in fishing gear," said Miyoko Sakashita, ocean program attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. "The decision to consider listing the loggerheads as endangered marks a first step toward heightened protections in the Pacific."

Eric Kingma, an environmental coordinator for the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, which oversees Pacific island fisheries from Honolulu, said he was "somewhat surprised" by the move because a five-year review of loggerheads was recently completed.

"We have significantly reduced sea turtle interactions in our fishery," Kingma said, adding that most of the destruction of sea turtles is off the coast of Mexico, where thousands of loggerheads have died.

Environmental groups have been working for years to grant special protection to the loggerheads. They blame longline fishing, which uses hook-laden fish lines as long as 60 miles through areas where the turtles swim. The target is swordfish or tuna, but thousands of turtles, seabirds, marine animals and sharks are snagged by the lines.

Turtles also are threatened by global warming, according to the environmental groups, with coastal erosion from rising seas threatening nesting beaches and skewing the ratio of females and males. More females hatch when temperatures increase, they say.

Recent articles

Florida loggerhead turtle nests drop in 2007
Yahoo News 6 Nov 07;

Oceana: http://www.oceana.org
Center for Biological Diversity: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/

Read more!

Captive born seahorses released into wild

Nick Squires, The Telegraph 14 Nov 07;

A world-first experiment to assess whether captive-bred baby seahorses can survive in the wild is underway in Australia.

Thirty juvenile White's seahorses were released into a sheltered bay in Sydney Harbour this week and will be regularly checked by divers for the next two years.

The success or failure of the experiment will have implications for the reintroduction of endangered seahorse species around the world.

The animals are under threat globally, particularly in Asia where they are prized as a traditional Chinese medicine.

At least 25 million seahorses are traded each year, many after being caught as "by-catch" by Asian fishing fleets.

Dried and crushed into a powder, the Chinese believe they are effective in treating everything from asthma to impotence, despite little scientific evidence of their medicinal benefit.

White's seahorses (Hippocampus whitei) are found only along the coast of New South Wales but are locally abundant and not considered endangered.

They live in seagrass meadows and around sponges and soft coral. They also favour the shark-proof nets which protect popular swimming beaches.

The 30 juveniles, aged six months and barely an inch long, were released into the water at Manly Cove in Sydney Harbour by seahorse researcher David Harasti from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, in conjunction with the conservation group Project Seahorse.

The 18 males and 12 females were transferred to the sea from their tank at Sydney Aquarium. Scientists injected them with tiny traces of fluorescent green dye so that they can be distinguished from their wild-born counterparts.

"It's a pilot study to see if captive-bred animals will survive in the wild," said Mr Harasti.

"If we do see high survival rates, we may be able in the future to reintroduce other seahorse species in areas where they've disappeared. This is the first time internationally that a project has been developed to look at survival rates."

Wild seahorses are preyed on by a range of animals, including fish and octopus. The researchers hope that at least 25 per cent of the released animals will still be alive by Christmas.

Divers will count them on Saturday and then on a weekly basis for the next two years.

The animals are highly territorial and are unlikely to stray more than 15ft from where they were first released. If the project is successful, another 100 seahorses will be released next year.

Worldwide there are around 40 known species of seahorse, many of them threatened by habitat destruction and their popularity as aquarium pets.

"New species are being found all the time, for example in countries like Papua New Guinea," said Mr Harasti.

White's seahorse was named after John White, the surgeon general of the First Fleet of British convicts which sailed into Sydney Harbour in 1788. He was a keen amateur naturalist and collector.

Seahorses are unique in that the female deposits her eggs into the male's pouch for gestation. Male seahorses give birth to up to 100 offspring four times a year.

Read more!

Greenhouse gases rising faster than UN forecasts: report

Yahoo News 15 Nov 07;

Greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than worst-case predictions by the United Nations' top climate change body, said a new Australian report issued Thursday.

The report by the independent Climate Institute found emissions were rising faster than forecast by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with possibly devastating effects.

"Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than the worst-case IPCC scenarios," it said.

The UN body may be "underestimating the risks of adverse impacts due to increased warming during this century," it said, meaning events previously considered relatively unlikely were now more likely.

A recent assessment by the IPCC used material published up to mid-2006, it said, but many important new observations had been published since.

These included the fact that decreases in ice cover in the Arctic Ocean were taking place 30 years earlier than predicted by scientific models, it said, with a new summer minimum for Arctic sea ice set in 2007.

At this rate an ice-free Arctic Ocean could exist earlier than dates previously forecast by the models, which see it as a possibility some time between 2050 and 2100, it said.

It warned that sea level rises could reach up to 1.4 metres by the end of the century, much higher than forecast by the UN.

The ability of the land and oceans to absorb carbon dioxide was declining, and although the UN had anticipated this, the observed changes were faster than predicted, the report said.

"This paper suggests that there exists evidence that the IPCC process may have led to an underestimation of the risk of greater warming and that the impacts of climate change are occurring more rapidly than previously projected," the report added.

The report was prepared by Graeme Pearman, the former head of atmospheric research at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO).

Links

Climate change panel esteemed but flawed
Arthur Max, Associated Press, Yahoo News 14 Nov 07

Read more!

TV makers urged to offer safer disposal: "Paying people to recycle doesn't work"

Matt Slagle, Associated Press Yahoo News 15 Nov 07;

A national recycling coalition says television manufacturers need to make it easier for American consumers to safely dispose of aging TVs, which can seep lead and other hazardous chemicals into the soil around dumps, often in China, Nigeria and other countries.

Just 12.5 percent of electronics waste in the United States is offered for recycling each year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

And at least half of that amount, or more than 160,000 tons, is exported and dumped overseas, said Robin Schneider, vice chair of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and executive director of the Texas Campaign for the Environment, in Austin.

A new campaign to be announced Thursday by the Electronics TakeBack Coalition includes a Web site where consumers can e-mail the heads of the world's largest TV makers, including Sharp Electronics Corp. and Panasonic Consumer Electronics Co., and request free recycling programs.

"Programs that require you to pay money to recycle don't work," said Schneider.

She called electronic waste from TVs a "crisis in the making" because of skyrocketing consumer demand for high-definition sets. A Feb. 17, 2009, federal deadline will make millions of older analog sets obsolete, she added.

"It used to be people would take their old TV and put it in another room," she said. "But when these new technologies come in, we're going to be dumping a lot of these old ones."


The group says only Sony Corp. has so far agreed to recycle all of its electronic products at no cost to consumers through a national network of 75 pickup locations. Sony has agreed to expand that number to 150 locations by next year.

"If Sony can do that, other TV makers can too," she said.

So far, nine states including California, Maine and Maryland have laws requiring electronics recycling. There are no national laws about recycling so-called e-waste.

The Electronics TakeBack Coalition, formerly called Computer TakeBack Coalition, has for years pressured computer makers to offer free programs to help consumers recycle electronic waste.

___

On the Net:

Electronics TakeBack Coalition: http://www.electronicstakeback.com

Read more!

Learn how much YOUR power plant pollutes

H. Josef Hebert,
Yahoo News 15 Nov 07;

There's growing worry about global warming, but how much of it is the work of that power plant just outside town? And if Congress limits heat-trapping greenhouse gases, will it affect utility and electric bills? And who's the biggest corporate culprit when it comes to climate change?

Answers to these questions may be only a couple of computer clicks away.

A new interactive online database unveiled Wednesday provides maps, color-coded categories and detailed information about who is putting 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually from power plants around the world — about a fourth of it from the United States.

The Web site, which includes information from 4,000 utilities and 50,000 plants, shows not only the biggest CO2 emitters, but also the facilities and companies that are most green, releasing little if any carbon.

(wildnews comment: the CARMA database includes an entry for Singapore: we have 50 power plants of which 19 are rated red)




"We're trying to provide complete, balanced information. It's an open site," said David Wheeler, a senior researcher at the Center for Global Development, where he directed the creation of the massive database.

Using an array of information filters, a user can find out how much CO2 comes from electricity plants in a particular city or county, in a congressional district, from a specific company, or an individual plant.

Dubbed the Carbon Monitoring for Action database, or CARMA (http://www.carma.org), it proclaims itself as "the world's best place for power-plant voyeurism."

And there is a bundle of interesting information.

Australians produce 11 tons of CO2 for each of its people from their power plants — the highest anywhere — compared to 9 tons per person in the United States and 2 tons per person in China.

But the United States has the most CO2 emissions (2.79 billion tons), followed by China (2.66 billion tons). China, which soon is expected to pass the United States, is home to three of the world's five most CO2-polluting utilities.

China's Huaneng Power International leads all of the world's power companies, releasing nearly 292 million tons of CO2 annually. That's far more than Southern Co. and American Electric Power, the two biggest U.S. carbon emitters that each account for about 170 million tons a year, ranking sixth and seventh in the world.

Such information provides a "a vivid illustration that rich countries and developing countries must work together to overcome the challenge of climate change," said Wheeler, an expert on environmental economics.

Wheeler said in an interview that the interactive database should be of interest not only to individual citizens, but also to investors, insurers and corporate executives as Congress moves closer to imposing limits on carbon emissions to address global warming.

"Never before has this kind of detailed information been made available on a global scale," said Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, a think tank that examines how rich nations interact with developing countries.

While the federal government keeps annual statistics on U.S. CO2 emissions, CARMA seeks to provide its Web site visitors more complete, worldwide data by expanding on the government's numbers through independent research and extrapolations based on fuel use and electricity production.

The database also strives to be consumer friendly.

With a click of the computer mouse, one can see a map showing the top CO2 producers in the world and then move in closer to find information about the individual utility bringing electricity into your home.

Each emitter has a color code from green (the cleanest) to blue, yellow, orange and finally red (most polluting). The icons become larger the more CO2 a plant or company produces. A large red icon shows a plant producing a lot of electricity and a lot of carbon. A green one shows little if any carbon, often a nuclear power plant.

Click on American Electric Power, the Ohio-based utility that owns 25 coal-burning power plants, and one sees a large red icon. It is the country's second largest emitter of CO2 at 169,000 tons a year. Southern Co., based in Atlanta, releases a little more CO2, but its code is a mix of red and orange because of its use of nuclear energy along with CO2-producing coal. Duke Energy, 12th on the list of worldwide CO2 emitters, nevertheless gets an orange icon, also reflecting its ownership of nuclear power plants.

But of most interest to consumers may be the "digging deeper" option that displays CO2 emissions by plants or companies in a region, state, congressional district, town or by ZIP code. The Ohio Valley, the Southeast and Texas rank high in CO2 emissions, reflecting heavy fossil fuel use, while the West Coast, where nuclear and hydroelectric power are in heavy use, has comparatively little CO2 pollution from power plants.

Texas power plants account for the most CO2 (290 million tons) of any state, and Vermont the least (437,000 tons).

Carbon Monitoring for Action: http://www.carma.org
Center for Global Development: http://www.cgdev.org

Links to earlier stories

Australians named worst emitters
BBC News 14 Nov 07
Greenpeace protests as Australia caned over power emissions
Yahoo News 15 Nov 07

Read more!

Best of our wild blogs: 15 Nov 07

The Prime Minister and TeamSeagrass
YES, and he asked about Chek Jawa, on the teamseagrass blog

Happy Anniversary Urban Forest Blog
It's been a year and nearly 100 fascinating posts on the urban forest blog

Horseshoe Crab Rescue
More about this on-going effort and up-coming Rescue on 24 Nov
on the brand-new cyber dino blog

Sleeping nocturnal beauties
and the ethical approach to these daytime sleepers on the bird ecology blog

OSMOSE-The conservation of unique birdlife in Cambodia
on the wildasia blog

Wild clip: Octopus versus Moray
and other links on the budak blog

Daily Green Actions: Birthday edition
on the leafmonkey blog

Read more!

Four ways to save our planet

Letter from Tang Shangjun Straits Times Forum 15 Nov 07

I HAVE been reading with great interest recent articles and letters in the local press talking about the importance of protecting our planet. It is with this in mind that I offer four doable suggestions that can be implemented for the better of our planet.



1. Charge for plastic bags

It is an absolute embarrassment that we need a foreign Swedish company in Ikea to teach us how to save plastic bags. Ikea has for some time now levied a charge for each plastic bag it gives out. Each weekend, we see its store still packed with shoppers. This effectively dispels the myth that charging for bags would turn customers away.

Supermarkets like NTUC FairPrice, Cold Storage, Sheng Siong, Carrefour and Giant, among others, should follow suit. Charge 50 cents a bag. Make us pay and donate all proceeds to charity. If all of them do it together, there would not be a fear of customers leaving one supermarket chain for another. I also urge the Government to look into this issue and to encourage supermarkets to do so.

2. Allow diesel-powered cars

At first blush, the word 'diesel' brings to mind black fumes and soot from pickups and buses. But with modern technology, this is no longer the case. New Euro IV compliant engines are as clean as petrol engines. Better still, diesel cars are much more fuel-efficient than their petrol counterparts.

3. Tax petrol-only cars more, hybrids less

Hybrid vehicle technology has progressed much. Models like the Honda Hybrid, Toyota Prius and Lexus RX400h are gaining popularity. However, the take-up rate is still low on these highly fuel-efficient cars because of their high production cost, and hence high price.

It is suggested that the Government reduce the tax on hybrid cars further still to make them competitive with the everyday makes like the Corollas and the Sunnys. Then raise the tax on petrol-only cars so as to encourage manufacturers to produce more hybrids.

4. Change all lightbulbs

And lastly, let us all change our tungsten lightbulbs to Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (CFL). Manufacturers like Philips and Panasonic already have a range of such CFLs sold in our local stores. Such bulbs use one-fifth of the energy of a typical tungsten bulb and last for a few thousand hours.

If the previous three suggestions are not doable, I am sure this fourth one is for all Singaporeans.

It is my hope that these are just small steps that we as Singaporeans can to continue to develop a conservationist mindset so as to make efforts to protect our earth for generations to come.

Read more!

Are Albizias 'killer' trees?

Sharon Lee Siew Kiang, Today Online 15 Nov 07;

Residents sad that those in park got the chop

The Government's move to set aside $700 million to develop new parks and enhance existing ones, such as East Coast Park and the Botanic Gardens, should be applauded. While this initiative targets mostly large parks, the need to preserve the greenery in smaller parks should not be overlooked.

Over the weekend, I was shocked to find workers chopping down several mature trees (picture) in the small park at the junction of Bishan and Braddell roads.

When I called the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council, I was told the trees that had been chopped down were Albizia trees. These were the same species as the one that had fallen on a woman at Bukit Batok Nature Park in May and a contractor the Town Council had engaged, recommended the trees be felled.

While I am saddened by the woman's death, I wonder if that unfortunate incident, which is a rare occurrence, makes it necessary to chop down all the trees of that species.

These trees have been in the park for more than 30 years. They help to block noise and dust from vehicles that use the neighbouring Braddell flyover, and provide shelter for residents from the afternoon sun.

What's even more puzzling is the fact that the Town Council intends to build a family park in this area, and called a meeting with the residents on July 21 to discuss its plan.

During the meeting, new plans for the park were unveiled which showed that the existing trees would be conserved.

This was done after the residents had voiced their opposition to having most of the trees removed, as called for in the original plan.

I would understand perfectly if the trees had been removed if they were diseased or infested with termites.

However, chopping down healthy mature trees because of the possible risk they present displays a blatant disregard for residents' wishes and the need to save the environment.

I hope the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council and the National Parks Board can provide some answers. Couldn't they have taken some preventive measures to save or transplant the trees instead of chopping them down?

Why cut down big trees to build family park?
Letter from Lai Yoke Kwai (Miss), Straits Times Forum 17 Nov 07

AMID the call for a clean and green Singapore, we are felling big, beautiful and healthy trees to build a family park so that we can play basketball, skate, jog, etc, among man-made nature.

The proposed park is located along Braddell Road, next to the junction of Braddell Road and Bishan Road.

After some residents objected strongly to destroying the greenery, the project was scaled down and the town council promised to plant 10 trees for every one that is felled. However, this is little consolation because the trees felled were more than 20 years old (they were already fully grown when we moved in in 1988) and it takes more than 10 years for the new saplings to grow to considerable size.

Though I do not know the names of the birds that are living in the area or come resting at different times of the year, I have spotted at least nine types among the trees, and squirrels running on the branches.

It is ironic to destroy beautiful, fully-grown trees to build a park. I am quite sure the new plants will be lined in straight rows and stand X metres apart. Singaporeans just can't leave trees and plants standing haphazardly.

A number of the old trees were cut down last Saturday. Is there something someone can do to stop further destruction?

Trees felled only as a last resort
Today Online 15 Nov 07
Letter from Suhana Kharudin
Manager, Media Relations, Land Transport Authority

We refer to the letters, "Whither the trees" by Albano Daminato and Lisa Garris (Nov 6) and "Where once there was greenery ..." by Carlyn Law (Nov 8), on the trees around Cross Street.

We share the writers' concerns for our greenery and would like to assure them that the Land Transport Authority (LTA) makes every effort to preserve trees. Where possible, trees that have to be cut will be replaced by new ones.

The trees mentioned by the writers are directly affected by the construction of the Downtown Line Cross Street Station.

Prior to felling these trees, the LTA explored whether there was any alternative to their being felled. This is a standard process for all cases of roadside trees affected by development projects.

In this case however, there was no alternative given site constraints at Cross Street.

Work on the underground station has to be conducted within the space of the existing five-lane road. The road had to be diverted to the planting strip to improve safety and enable the continued smooth flow of traffic. There was no other space left in the area to replant the trees and shrubs.

Once construction is completed new trees and shrubs will be planted around Cross Street.

We thank the writers for their feedback.


Trees cut down infested by insects
Reply from the Town Council, Straits Times Forum 17 Nov 07;

I REFER to Miss Lai Yoke Kwai's letter, 'Why cut down big trees to build family park?' (ST, Nov 17).

Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council would like to emphasise that the recent felling of trees at the park is not related to the construction of Bishan East Family Park.

The affected trees were of the Albiza species. The Albiza tree, classified as soft wood, is brittle in nature and has shallow roots. It is very prone to infestation by wood-boring insects. Once the wood has been infested, the tree will be weakened and has to be removed.

Our horticulture specialist discovered during an inspection that termites and other wood-boring insects had attacked the trees in the area mentioned. In the interest of our residents' safety, we decided to remove the affected trees.

Lee Boon Leng
Executive Manager
(Corporate Services)
Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council


Links

Why were trees cut down?
Letter from Albano Daminato and Lisa Garris, Today Online 6 Nov 07;
and LTA's response to this letter

Read more!

Island Nations Plan for Rising Seas, Mass Migration; Singapore rep "We are reclaiming land and expanding"

Ajay Makan, PlanetArk 15 Nov 07

Hazri Hassan, of Singapore's environment ministry, told Reuters private developers were required to raise land levels by 125 cm (four feet) above sea level, higher than the most dire UN predictions for sea level rises over the next century.

"We are reclaiming land and expanding," Mr Hassan said. "In Singapore it is more cost effective to adapt than retreat."

MALE, Maldives - Countries usually evacuate their citizens because of war or a sudden and catastrophic natural disaster.

For the Pacific island state of Kiribati, the climate change disaster facing the nation is no less dramatic but on a slower time scale and means preparing its 100,000 inhabitants for lives in nations less vulnerable to wild weather and rising seas.

"The breakup of our nation is a possibility," Environment Minister Tetabo Nakara told Reuters on Wednesday on the sidelines of an international meeting of small island states in the Maldives capital Male.

Nakara said two villages had already been evacuated because of rising seas since 2000. A government programme aims to give every adult in the archipelago a trade marketable in neighbouring developed countries within five years.

At the Male meeting, representatives of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) want to present a resolution at a UN climate change conference in Bali next month.

"It is time to put people back at the heart of climate change diplomacy," Maldives President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom told the conference on Tuesday.



Delegates are expected to agree a declaration that climate change threatens the fundamental right to a safe, secure and sustainable environment, forcing developed countries to view rising seas through the prism of human rights.

With a combined population of less than 15 million people and six members who lack UN membership, the 43-strong alliance is a small player in the international community.

But delegates hope to exercise moral authority in Bali by showcasing examples of how climate change is already impacting on individual livelihoods.

"We don't want to give up on our culture and civilisation," Nakara told Reuters. "But we don't want our people to end up as second-class citizens in another country either."

Like the Maldives, St Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean lies just two metres (seven feet) above sea level.


SWALLOWED BY THE SEA

Forced land purchases to build an international airport in 2006 provided the first evidence of major coastal erosion.

"We had owners coming to the government with deeds for five acres (two hectares), but when we surveyed the area, there were only three left," the country's ambassador to the UN explained.

Property records in the country date back no more than a century, showing the speed and scale of erosion. Family estates have been stripped of value overnight, "directly violating an individual's right to property," according to ambassador Camillo Gonsalves.

Insurance companies borne some of the losses, but Gonsalves fears they might introduce an environmental jeopardy clause to exclude coastal erosion in the future.

Island states have also highlighted the limits of international assistance. The St Vincent's government has had to apply to separate funds to construct its international airport and adapt it to rising sea levels.

"We are effectively building the airport and then retrofitting the adaptations at increased costs and with a time lag," Gonsalves says.

Of the AOSIS states, only wealthy Singapore has integrated climate change adaptation into private-sector projects.

Hazri Hassan, of Singapore's environment ministry, told Reuters private developers were required to raise land levels by 125 cm (four feet) above sea level, higher than the most dire UN predictions for sea level rises over the next century.

"We are reclaiming land and expanding," Mr Hassan said. "In Singapore it is more cost effective to adapt than retreat."

But the private sector is more wary about other states experiencing climate change.

OASIS chair Angus Friday is leading negotiations with the World Bank and International Finance Corporation to secure finance for adaptation. "Private sector involvement is a priority," he said. (Editing by David Fogarty)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071114/wl_sthasia_afp/environmentclimatemaldivessummit_071114164415&printer=1;_ylt=AiHsOLSat9l2nGR3P5vmumHQOrgF
Island states plead for action against rising seas

by Mel GunasekeraWed Nov 14, 12:39 PM ET

Dozens of the world's small island nations appealed Wednesday for rapid international action against climate change, fearing it is only a matter of time before they are submerged.

Delegates from 26 low-lying nations, including Tuvalu, Micronesia, Kiribati and Palau, ended two-days of talks in this Maldives tourist by closing ranks ahead of a global climate change meeting in Bali in December.

"We are the most affected. We deserve more support to protect our countries, our communities, from rising sea levels... our voices, our concerns must be heard and taken note of," Maldivian Environment Minister Ahmed Abdualla said.

He said low-lying nations urged the United Nations to include the human dimension of global climate change -- in other words the very survival of low-lying islanders -- on the agenda at Bali.

More than 100 ministers are expected to attend the Bali meeting, which aims to secure the agreement of nations to negotiate a new regime to combat climate change when the current phase of Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012.

"We hope leaders who attend the Bali summit will take our concerns seriously," said a representative of the Comoros Permanent Mission to the United Nations, El-Marouf Mohamed.

Small nations feel the human element will give a new dimension to their fight to persuade bigger nations to cut back on the greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.

"We are using a different lever, to remind bigger countries of their moral obligations to honour their promises," Grenada's permanent representative to the UN, Angus Friday, told reporters.

Experts have warned that global warming will melt glaciers and polar ice caps, leading to a sharp increase in sea levels before the end of the 21st century.

A United Nations climate panel recently said world sea levels are likely to rise up to 59 centimetres (23 inches) by 2100.

"We are seeing unusual rises in sea water levels, it's affecting our crops, homes, it's threatening our livelihoods," Fiji's Environment Minister Bernadette Rounds Ganilau said.

"Time is running out."

Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom also warned that a one-metre rise in sea levels would herald the "death of a nation."

Scientific opinion is divided on how soon that could happen, with estimates ranging from 30 to 100 years.

He told delegates that the tidal surges experienced on 80 of the Maldives' 200 inhabited islands earlier this year were "a grim reminder of the devastating tsunami of 2004 and a clear warning of future disasters."

Strengthening sea defences around 50 of the inhabited islands in the Maldives will cost about 1.5 billion dollars, officials here have said.

Home to 330,000 Sunni Muslims, Maldives is a top destination for well-heeled tourists and celebrities attracted to the white, palm-fringed beaches, where holiday bungalows are built on stilts over turquoise lagoons.

Tourism and fishing together account for two-thirds of the country's economy of just under a billion dollars, and have made it one of the richest nations in South Asia with a per capita annual income of 2,700 dollars.

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45328/story.htm

Island States Urge UN to Study Rights, Climate Link
Story by Ajay Makan
MALDIVES: November 15, 2007


MALE, Maldives - Small island states called on the United Nations on Wednesday to assess whether a link exists between failure to tackle climate change, which threatens to wipe their countries off the map, and human rights.


But the 26 nations from around the globe failed to agree on an resolution backing a human rights agenda meant to take on big greenhouse gas polluters at a UN climate change summit in Bali, Indonesia next month.

The Maldives and other vocal island states blame the United States and other big polluters for climate change and say their inaction to curb greenhouse gas emissions will destroy their economies through rising seas and wild weather.

The Alliance of Small Island States used the two-day meeting to highlight what it said was a human right "to live in a safe and sustaining environment". It said "climate change directly and fundamentally undermines that right".

But Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda were cautious, delegates said, that an explicit recognition of human rights would boost pressure on their own governments to improve political rights.

The Alliance represents 43 countries with a population of fewer than 15 million people, ranging from wealthy Singapore in Southeast Asia, Fiji, Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific and Caribbean nations.

Alliance delegates will meet international lawyers and civil society groups to develop a common agenda ahead of the Bali summit, which aims to kick-off negotiations for global pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Alliance Chair Angus Friday expressed optimism the group could still adopt a common platform at the Bali summit. He also hailed the resolution as a first step towards an international recognition of the link between climate change and human rights.

"We have to be realistic about the timescale, but we have started a process today," he told reporters.

The resolution at the end of the meeting called for a UN study into linkages between human rights and climate change and a March 2009 debate at the UN Human Rights Council.

"The right to life as we know it is threatened. My people survive by praying," Tuvalu's ambassador to the UN told Reuters.

Delegates met at one of the Maldives' flagship deluxe resorts, refurbished following the 2004 tsunami, a reminder of the country's vulnerability to rising seas. (Editing by David Fogarty and Michael Winfrey)

Read more!

Bangladesh delta is key buffer against global warming, says study

Yahoo News 14 Nov 07

The Bay of Bengal is an unexpected weapon against global warming as it helps store vast quantities of terrestrial carbon brought down by the Ganges-Brahmaputra river systems, a study says.

Rivers bring down to the sea carbon in the form of soil and vegetal debris, washed down from slopes, fields and banks. But little is known about what happens to this carbon-rich sediment once it reaches the river's mouth.

Some research -- conducted in the churning waters of the Amazon basin -- has suggested that 70 percent of this river-borne organic carbon returns to the atmosphere as gas, thus adding to the greenhouse effect from fossil fuels.

But research published on Thursday in the British science journal Nature says the picture is more complex.

A team led by Valier Galy of France's Nancy University estimates that around 70-85 percent of the terrestrial carbon that sweeps down the Ganges-Brahmaputra systems from the Himalayas settles to the sea floor rather than escapes to the atmosphere.

The reason: high rates of erosion in the Himalayas cause high rates of sedimentation in the so-called Bengal Fan in the Bay of Bengal. Between a billion and two billion tonnes of sediment are transported each year from the Himalayas to the Bengal coast.

As a result -- unlike at the mouths of the Amazon -- the thick, fast-growing sediments are not exposed to much oxygen, and this starves microbes of the fuel they need to biodegrade the organic matter.

Eventually, powerful currents transfer the sediments to deeper water, where they settle on the ocean bed, safely storing the carbon for potentially millions of years.

The finding sheds light on a previously unknown "sink," the term for a natural phenomenon that stores greenhouse gas rather than let it be released into the atmosphere. Sinks thus help cool Earth's surface.

By some estimates, around a third of the carbon that falls to the ocean floor is of terrestrial origin (the bulk of the remainder comes from dead plankton).

According to Galy's estimates, the Bengal basin is such an efficient burier of carbon that it could account for between 10 and 20 percent of the total terrestrial carbon stored on the ocean bed.

In two separate studies, released online by Nature on Wednesday, researchers in the Netherlands and New Zealand say they have identified two hardy species of methane-gobbling bacteria that could also play the role of a "sink."

The bugs, which live in the roasting-hot environment of mud volcanoes, were identified at a fumarole near Naples and at Tikitere, or Hell's Gate, in New Zealand.

The specialised "methanotrophic" germs, named Acidimethylosilex fumarolicum and Methylokorus infernorum respectively, could play a useful role in mopping up some of the methane burped from Earth's crust, say the authors.

Methane is the second biggest greenhouse gas by volume after CO2 but is many times more efficient than CO2 in trapping solar heat.

Read more!

Australians named worst emitters

BBC News 14 Nov 07

A study of the world's power stations has shown the extent to which developed countries produce more carbon dioxide per head than emerging economies.

Australians were found to be the world's worst polluters per capita, producing five times as much carbon from generating power as China.

The US came second with eight tonnes of carbon per head - 16 times more than that produced by India.

The US also produced the most carbon in total, followed by China.

The Carbon Monitoring for Action (Carma) website is the first global inventory of emissions and looks at 50,000 power stations.

Its data was compiled by the Center for Global Development, a US think-tank.

Least efficient stations

Carma points out that while US power plants emit the most CO2, releasing 2.5bn tonnes into the atmosphere each year, Australian power stations are the least efficient on a per capita basis, with emissions of 10 tonnes, compared with the US's 8.2 tonnes.

China's power sector emits the second-highest total amount of carbon dioxide, pumping 2.4bn tonnes of the gas into the atmosphere annually.

However, its emissions are only one fifth of Australia's when measured on a per capita basis.

The UK's 192 million tonnes make it the ninth highest emitter, with per capita CO2 emissions of 3.2 tonnes.

The nation's largest power station, the coal-fired Drax plant, is deemed to be the 23rd most polluting power station in the world.

Powering change

Kevin Ummel, a research assistant at the Center for Global Development, hoped the online inventory would help the push towards a low carbon future.

"The experience of people in the environmental field has been that supplying the public and markets with information that they did not have has often led to improvements in environmental quality," he told BBC News.

"There is no reason why this could not happen for carbon emissions."

He said that the data for power stations in the US, Canada, Europe and India came from official, verified reports.

For the power plants that did not have robust reports, Mr Ummel said a model was used to calculate the volume of emissions.

The figure is derived by taking factors such as fuel type, size, age and various other technical specifications in account.

"It turns out that if you have this information then you can predict emissions from the plants with a high degree of certainty," he said.

"Carma is built from a massive database provided by private sector (organisations). It includes every type of fuel and it includes power plants of almost any size.

"Not only do we have the massive plants, like Drax in the UK, but everything down to the solar panels on the local high school.

"We feel quite confident that no-one else has information in such detail."

The philosophy behind the website is to provide people with information that they currently do not have.

"In this website, we do not push a particular agenda or outcome," explained Mr Ummel.

"In fact, we are very interested to see how people choose to use the data."

CO2 EMISSIONS PER CAPITA
Australia - 10.0 tonnes
US - 8.2 tonnes
UK - 3.2 tonnes
China - 1.8 tonnes
India - 0.5 tonnes
(Source: Carma/CGD)

TOP 10 EMITTERS
National power sector emissions (in tonnes of CO2):
US - 2,530 million
China - 2,430 million
Russia - 600 million
India - 529 million
Japan - 363 million
Germany - 323 million
Australia - 205 million
South Africa - 201 million
UK - 192 million
South Korea - 168 million
(Source: Carma/CGD)

Greenpeace protests as Australia caned over power emissions
Yahoo News 15 Nov 07

Greenpeace protesters stormed an Australian power plant on Thursday, police said, after a US report condemned Australian electricity plants as some of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases.

Fifteen protesters were arrested after they chained themselves to conveyor belts at the Munmorah power plant on the central coast of New South Wales state, police said.

It followed a report by the US-based Centre for Global Development, which showed Australia's power stations are the world's highest per capita producers of carbon dioxide.

According to the report, Australia came seventh on a list of the top 50 countries by carbon dioxide emitting power sectors, with 226 million tons, ahead of many countries with larger populations, including the United Kingdom, which came in ninth.

"On a per capita basis, Australians are some of the largest CO2 emitters in the world, producing more than 11 tons of power sector CO2 emissions per person per year," the report said.

This put Australia ahead even of the United States, the world's largest CO2 emitter, where more than nine tons are emitted per person per year, it said.

Charges of trespass and malicious damage were expected to be laid against the seven men and eight women involved in the protest, after riot squad officers were called to the plant.

The organisers described the stunt as non-violent.

"We demonstrated what this country needs to do -- close those coal-fired power stations and use cleaner energy," organiser Stephen Campbell said.

The plant's operators said power generation was not affected.

The CO2 emissions of 50,000 power plants worldwide have been compiled into a new database, called Carbon Monitoring for Action, which is to be regularly updated by the US body.

Read more!

Suzhou Park: A high-tech, eco-friendly magnet

Channel NewsAsia Today Online 15 Nov 07
Suzhou Park eyes lion's share of investment flowing into China

A high-tech zone that is also environmentally friendly — this is how the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) is being promoted to foreign companies.

The intelligent township is a showcase of how it can also become a "green park" at the same time, said officials of the China-Singapore Suzhou Park Development.

The park also houses the Suzhou Science Hub, which Singapore's Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong opened yesterday.

Aimed at attracting a lion's share of the foreign investment coming into China, the hub occupies 4 sq km and costs close to US$229 million ($331 million) to build.

Mr Goh Tien Jin, deputy chairman of the China-Suzhou Industrial Park Development, said: "We are developing it into a high-tech living environment, taking advantage of the eco-city concept and a lot of energy-saving activities.

"But more importantly, there's also another component, and that's the residential and commercial activities. This is what we intend to auction to public developers to build based on market demand."

Although the whole project is expected to be completed in three years, the hub has already attracted six companies from the United States, China and Singapore.

Speaking during the Senior Minister's visit, Suzhou's Deputy Party Secretary Wang Jinhua said that the China-Singapore development had posted a US$28-million profit this year.

This is expected to give a boost to the planned Initial Public Offering of the SIP in mid-2009.

In his meeting with Shanghai Party Secretary Yu Zhengsheng, the Senior Minister congratulated Mr Yu on his recent appointment as a member of the Politburo of the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee and secretary of the CPC Hubei Provincial Committee. Mr Yu applauded Mr Goh on a great job in the SIP, saying he looked forward to greater progress there.

Mr Goh said he was amazed at the changes in Shanghai while Mr Yu expressed his interest in learning more about Singapore's shipping, financial and housing reforms.

Both men also discussed the common challenges they faced and agreed to strengthen cooperation.

SM Goh visits SIP, opens science hub
Channel NewsAsia 15 Nov 07

SUZHOU, CHINA: A high-tech zone which is also environmentally-friendly - this is how the Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) in China is being promoted to foreign companies.

The intelligent township is a showcase of how a high-tech zone can also become a "green park" at the same time, according to the China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park Development Co (CSSD).

On Wednesday, Singapore's Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong visited the SIP and officiated at the opening of the Suzhou Industrial Park Science Hub, which was developed by CSSD.

Built on an extra plot of 4 square kilometres in the SIP, the science hub aims to attract a lion's share of the foreign investment coming into China.

Befitting its status as a high-tech sustainable development project, the hub - which costs close to US$230 million - boasts of environmentally-friendly features.

Goh Tien Jin, deputy chairman of China-Suzhou Industrial Park Development, said: "We develop (the science hub) into a high-tech living environment, take advantage of the eco-city concept... a lot of energy-saving activities... but more importantly there's also another component and that's the residential and commercial activities... we intend to auction (the space at the hub) to the public developers."

Although the whole project is expected to be completed in three years, the science hub has already attracted six companies from the US, China and Singapore to set up shop.

Mr Goh was also given a tour of a new exhibition displaying SIP's energy-saving methods. The emitting intensity of the zone accounts for only one twentieth of the average national level.

Speaking at the visit, Suzhou's deputy party secretary, Wang Jinhua, also announced that the CSSD has posted profits of US$28 million this year. This is expected to give a boost to the planned initial public offer of the SIP in mid-2009.

Mr Goh also visited Shanghai, where he met Shanghai Party Secretary Yu Zhengsheng. Mr Goh congratulated Mr Yu on his recent appointment during the 17th Party Congress.

Mr Yu, in turn, applauded Mr Goh on a great job done in the SIP and said that he looked forward to new progress there.

Mr Goh said he was amazed at the changes in Shanghai, while Mr Yu expressed his interest in learning more about Singapore's shipping, financial and housing reforms.

Both men also discussed the common challenges faced by Singapore and Shanghai and agreed to strengthen cooperation. - CNA/ir

Wen visit could result in eco-city pact
Clarissa Oon, Straits Times 15 Nov 07

BEIJING - SINGAPORE and China will finalise an agreement on the 'eco-city' project when Premier Wen Jiabao visits Singapore this weekend.

A Chinese Foreign Ministry official said yesterday that 'several agreements' will be inked between the two sides during Mr Wen's state visit, and The Straits Times understands that they are linked to the much-anticipated project.

When asked what agreements would be signed and if the 'eco-city' project was among them, China's Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei did not give many details, but hinted at a pact on the project by describing it as a 'new beacon of cooperation between the two countries'.

During a briefing on Premier Wen's visit, Mr He further hinted at the imminent agreement when he said that Singapore has 'a lot of good experiences we can draw lessons from' in sustainable development and environmental protection.

He added that 'prospects are bright for cooperation in this area'.

The 'eco-city' project, which aims to combine economic growth with environmental protection, was first broached at a meeting between Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong and Mr Wen in Beijing in April this year.

It is seen as a model to help China balance rapid economic growth with sustainable development.

After seven months of study, the 'eco-city' site has been narrowed down to either the northern port city of Tianjin or Tangshan city in northern Hebei province, Mr Goh, who was visiting China this week, told reporters on Tuesday.

Yesterday, Mr He also said that during Mr Wen's visit, both countries hope to 'strengthen friendly cooperation in all areas, have a deep exchange of views, take friendship to a new level and realise mutual benefit'.

Mr Wen will hold talks with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong during his two-day visit - the first by a Chinese premier to Singapore in eight years - which begins on Sunday.

Mr Wen will also meet President S R Nathan, Mr Goh and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. He will also give a speech at the National University of Singapore.

Apart from bilateral matters, he will also discuss regional and international issues of common interest with Singapore leaders.

Following his state visit, Mr Wen will attend a series of high-level regional summits hosted by Singapore, including the 11th Asean Plus Three Summit next Tuesday.

The political turmoil in Myanmar, an Asean member country that is close to China, is expected to be discussed at bilateral talks and at regional meetings related to the 13th Asean Summit.

This year's summit marks the 40th anniversary of the the founding of Asean. China, Japan and South Korea have regular exchanges with Asean under the Asean Plus Three framework.

Read more!

China's 'giant toilet bowl'

Today Online 15 Nov 07;

BEIJING — A record 30.5 billion tons of waste was dumped last year into China's Yangtze River, state media said.

The quantity was twice as much as two decades ago and an increase of 900 million tons, or 3.1 per cent, from that of the previous year, the Xinhua news agency reported on Tuesday.

The widespread dumping of industrial, agricultural and domestic waste has seriously polluted the Yangtze. Some ecologists warn this will be worsened by the massive Three Gorges dam, which they say will create a "giant toilet bowl" of trapped sewage behind it.



The Three Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydro-electric project, was built partly to control flooding along the Yangtze.

Xinhua also reported that 600 people died because of floods and other disasters in the Yangtze River basin during this year's rainy season from May to October. The disasters affected about 90 million people and destroyed 440,000 houses.

The Asian Development Bank last month warned that water pollution in China, driven by rapid industrialisation and urbanisation, had reached "alarming" levels.

Xinhua, quoting a study by the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission, said 2006 was the first year sewage dumping had increased by less than 5 per cent. A joint Swiss-Chinese report said earlier this month that Yangtze pollution was "enormous" but added the ecological damage could be reversed if the government took aggressive steps.

Numerous unique species have been driven to the brink of extinction in the river, including the white-fin dolphin and Yangtze River sturgeon.

Officials have reported frequent landslides along the Yangtze's banks, believed to be caused by the growing reservoir behind The Three Gorges Dam. — AGENCIES

China Pumps Record Sewage Into Longest River
PlanetArk 15 Nov 07

BEIJING - China, where water shortages are compounded by pollution, pumped a record 30.5 billion tonnes of sewage and industrial waste into the Yangtze, its longest river, last year, state media said on Wednesday.


Decades of heavy industrialisation have made water from some of China's lakes and rivers so polluted it is no longer usable, with untreated waste pumped directly into water sources.

The amount of sewage discharged into the river was an increase of 900 million tonnes or 3.1 percent over 2005, Hu Jiajun, a spokesman for the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission, was quoted by Xinhua news agency as saying.

Sewage discharged into the river had risen from 15 billion tonnes at the end of the 1980s and 24 billion tonnes in 2000, the agency said. (Reporting by Nick Macfie; editing by Jerry Norton)

Links

As China's mega dam rises, so do strains and fear
Chris Buckley, Yahoo News 14 Nov 07;

Read more!

Get paid for recycling your old notebook

Cheow Xin Yi, Today Online 15 Nov 07

To mark its commitment to the environment, Hewlett- Packard (HP) is giving $10 shopping vouchers for every used HP notebook received on Nov 24, the National Environment Agency's Recycling Day.

The public exercise at Ang Mo Kio will accept only HP hardware and supplies.

The drive is part of HP's larger recycling programme across five South-east Asian countries to be held from Nov 19 to 23 — when the company's employees are encouraged to bring in any brand of hardware for environmentally-responsible disposal.

HP has been taking part in recycling programmes for the past 20 years. But the firm said this is its first effort to take in technology hardware — regardless of the brand name — used for non-commercial purposes across South-east Asia.



"Internal recycling initiatives like these reinforce HP's commitment to environment responsibility in the region," said Mr Jean-Claude Vanderstraeten, environmental director for Asia-Pacific and Japan.

HP said it recycled more than 75,000 metric tons of hardware worldwide last year — the equivalent of the weight of 600 jumbo jet.

Read more!

Recycling: Changing mindsets better than taking punitive action

Letter from Ong Wooi-Chin, Straits Times Forum 15 Nov 07;

THE punitive fine Mr Muhammad Hazique Salahudin advocates in 'Make recycling a must, fine those who don't' (ST, Nov 9) short-changes the real impact of recycling.

The claim that imposing fines on those who do not recycle would over time create the desired behaviours gives too much credit to punitive solutions. It misplaces the burden of change on consumers.

It certainly does not mean that consumers do not need to change their mindset towards recycling; rather, the most effective way to elicit this change is to educate consumers and to create a user-friendly structure to recycle.



Many corporate distributors are requiring that manufacturers incorporate the notion of 'recycling' into the design stage of the products. In 1991, when Germany shifts responsibility of the entire life cycle of material to the manufacturer, it also provides consumers with a structure and incentive to recycle.

At the same time, the government enforced 'take back' laws where companies must have a system of accepting used products for recycling.

The concept is 'cradle to cradle', from the manufacturing to disposing of a product, there is to be zero waste. That really got the attention of both manufacturers and consumers.

I am sure punitive measures will work, but it's going to take much longer to change the behaviour of consumers without providing them with a system and incentive to recycle.


All shopping malls, condos and landed estates should have recycling bins
Letter from Choo Ooi Weng Straits Times Forum 15 Nov 07

I AM glad to read the letter, 'Make recycling a must, fine those who don't' (ST, Nov 9), which shows that there are many who keenly support the recycling movement.

It is not just about saving the Earth, but an overall mindset of gracious communal living.

We complain about air pollution, dirty water and loss of green habitats to bring our children to, but making a bit of effort to be less wasteful generally and recycle what we can is often beyond our comfort zone. We need to set good examples to our children as the situation is only going to get worse in their lifetimes.

While I think imposing fines may be a step too far, the Government does need to do more to promote the habit of recycling.

My wife is an ardent recycler and collects most of our recyclable trash in bundles in our car boot, and we will make weekly trips to the recycling bins in the HDB void decks or Suntec mall.

There simply needs to be more recycling facilities/bins everywhere. All shopping malls should have them, and I am not talking about the tiny little bins that can barely fit three soft drink bottles.

Extend the bins to private condos and landed estates as well. The East Coast Park has plenty of recreation and eating areas, but no recycling bins. Certainly more can and must be done.

Read more!

Would Gardens by the Bay pay for itself?

Letter from Syu Ying Kwok, Straits Times Forum 15 Nov 07;

AS AN avid gardener, I was thrilled by the unveiling of Gardens by the Bay by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan. At $900 million and 54ha, it is a lot of public money and a lot of space for the first phase, especially in land-scarce Singapore.

Dr Tan Wee Kiat, National Parks Board adviser and project director of Gardens by the Bay, promised that it would be a garden for the entire family, and would include indoor event spaces and retail and F&B outlets.

To maximise resources, we should not only try to incorporate as many functions and uses into public space and gardens, but also ensure that such public facilities are financially independent.



The $900 million price tag will look small, compared to the lifetime maintenance cost of the gigantic park. The only way for a public garden to be financially independent is to have a five-star management team running it.

The management must be able to constantly generate enough interest to pull in a large crowd, which in turn would support the large number of retail and F&B outlets. Revenue from these commercial tenants will go into maintaining and rejuvenating the garden. This is easier said than done as top talents in events, F&B, tourism and retail are needed in the management in order to pull it off.

To help fund the project, the sports and fitness facilities in the garden could be sponsored or co-sponsored by big-name sports companies.

Our local Qian Hu could sponsor the fishes for the ponds. The 'Super Trees' could be sponsored by banks and insurance companies to signify growth. Pharmaceutical companies could sponsor the conservatories with underground labs researching tropical plants. Small plots could be rented out to property developers to put up showrooms of their condos.

Thus my question: Would Gardens by the Bay be financially independent? Would the rental revenue be able to cover its maintenance? Are we going to have a top management team running the facility?

As we move forward to be globally competitive, the receipts from taxes will continue to come down. Thus the Government must be able to constantly think up different strategies to help run and fund public facilities. If we are unable to do so, at the end of the day the task of maintaining such public facilities would fall back on taxpayers.


Sustainable business plan for the Gardens
Straits Times 21 Nov 07

I REFER to the letters, 'Would Gardens by the Bay pay for itself?' (ST, Nov 15) by Mr Syu Ying Kwok and 'Qian Hu ready to play a part in Gardens by the Bay' (ST, Nov 17) by Mr Kenny Yap.

Gardens by the Bay is an important and strategic part of Singapore's plan to build a vibrant new downtown at Marina Bay. When completed, the Gardens is expected to attract 2.7 million tourists annually, and contribute approximately $1 billion in incremental value to the economy over 10 years.

It will also enhance the value of the surrounding properties by an estimated $8 billion.

However, the value that the Gardens will bring to Singapore should not be measured just in dollars and cents. It will be a green oasis in the heart of our city that all Singaporeans can enjoy with their families and loved ones.

It will introduce a new dimension to enhance the experiences that our parks and gardens offer to Singaporeans, and set us apart from and place us ahead of aspiring garden cities in the world as we transform Singapore into a 'City-in-a-Garden'.

We appreciate Mr Syu's interest in the project and agree with him on the need to be innovative and efficient to keep ahead of our competitors in this globalised, competitive world.

We also agree that for this to happen, we must find partners and/or sponsors to work with. To this end, the National Parks Board (NParks) has been in discussions with various potential partners and sponsors.

We are also working out a sustainable business plan for the Gardens, while mindful that we need to keep it accessible to all Singaporeans. For example, to defray the running cost, commercial spaces have been set aside for retail and food-and-beverage outlets, as well as events.

NParks has put in place an experienced and dedicated team to oversee the development and management of the Gardens. We are confident that it will be a well-managed, world-class development.

We thank Mr Syu and Mr Yap for their comments and interest in the project. When the Gardens' Visitor Centre opens in January next year, we welcome enquiries and group bookings, via our website, for a tour of the centre.

In the meantime, we invite interested members of the public to log on to the Gardens' website at www.gardensbythebay.org.sg for more information.

Kenneth Er
General Manager
Gardens by the Bay
National Parks Board

Read more!

China turns to biotech to feed its people

Andy Mukerjee, Business Times 15 Nov 07;
It's only a matter of time before Chinese food goes transgenic in a big way

DIVERSION of food crops to biofuels has finally caught the attention of policymakers in China. Even as the country seeks to use 10 million tons of bio-ethanol and two million tons of bio-diesel annually by 2020 to cut its reliance on petroleum, planners are also aware that they have 1.3 billion mouths to feed.

So the new strategy, unveiled in a July plan issued by the ministry of agriculture and reiterated recently by Chen Deming, a vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission in Beijing, is for most of the biofuel to come from non-grain sources, such as sweet sorghum, sugarcane and cassava.

Officially, China has four factories making one million tons of ethanol a year, mostly from corn. In reality, there are hundreds of small, unregulated units converting grain into fuel, in the process making it costlier for farmers to feed pigs.

Pork prices have soared this year, causing Chinese inflation to accelerate to its quickest pace in a decade in July.

Consumer prices probably rose at a faster pace in August than the 5.6 per cent rate recorded in July, says Bi Jingquan, Mr Chen's colleague at the top planning agency.

It makes sense for China to limit competition between food and fuel for the same scarce resources: arable land and water.



However, this alone won't be enough in meeting China's longer-term challenge of ensuring food security.

Rising incomes are spurring higher protein consumption. More than two-fifths of the 55 per cent increase in the world's meat consumption between 1997 and 2020 is expected to occur in China, according to the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.

China will have to find ways to boost utilisation of its farm resources, and technology will play a crucial role.

Out of the 102 million hectares of land that is planted with genetically modified seeds worldwide, China's share is 3.5 million hectares. The nation's entire effort is concentrated in cotton, though late last year a virus-resistant papaya was also recommended by the government for commercial use.

GM rice, which accounts for a 10th of the money the Chinese government spends on biotechnology research, was widely expected to go commercial in 2005. That schedule went haywire after Greenpeace International investigators claimed to have found unapproved transgenic rice in Hubei province.

Still, it's only a matter of time before Chinese food goes transgenic in a big way.

China has invested heavily in biotechnology: As far back as 1999, China allocated 9 per cent of its national crop research budget to plant biotechnology, compared with the 2 per cent to 5 per cent that was being invested by other developing countries, according to Jikun Huang, director of the Center for Agricultural Policy at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, and other researchers.

Biotech involves more than gene modification. The other area that holds a lot of promise is plant-tissue culture, which doesn't involve changes in the genetic composition of plants but can nonetheless be used to develop varieties that help meet specific public-policy goals.

By altering the structure of poplar tree cells, scientists at Guangzhao Industrial Forest Biotechnology Group have developed a salt-tolerant variant, which can breathe life into half - or about 30 million hectares - of China's saline wastelands, says Song Xuemeng, the chief executive of the company.

The modified cells of the poplar allow the tree to soak in salt from the ground and deposit it in the leaves, with no damage to the timber. Keep burning the leaves, and after 10 years the land will become arable, Mr Song says.

As China faces up to the onerous task of feeding a fifth of the world's population with less than a 10th of global farmland, food production and environmental protection are going to be its two key challenges.

The two may be linked, Mr Song says. He started the poplar business after witnessing the floods of 1998 when the Yangtze River breached its banks, submerging 12 million hectares of farmland and forcing the government to crack down on logging in the upper catchments. 'I thought then, why don't we plant trees here that would grow fast?' he says.

Collaborating with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Mr Song's company designed a tissue-culture process to grow a 16m poplar in half the usual time.

A fir tree, developed by the company with support from the Shanghai municipality, has begun to be used in coastal-protection programmes. China will need more than 100 million such trees in the next 10 years to protect 10,000km of its coastline from typhoons, Mr Song says.

Technology that helps China expand its limited farm resources - and protects them from environmental degradation - will be in great demand in the years to come.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Robert Fraley, the chief technology officer of Monsanto & Co, the world's largest seed producer, said he expects keen competition from local companies in China and India. It's easy to see why. -- Bloomberg

Andy Mukherjee is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own

Read more!

Go nuclear? No sense or profit in it

Andy Ho, Straits Times 15 Nov 07;

TRADE and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang said in Parliament this week that competitive markets, which have kept power prices low, will remain a cornerstone of Singapore's energy policy.

But with skyrocketing oil prices, should we go nuclear? Nuclear plants generate huge amounts of power using relatively small plots of land and tiny amounts of a plentiful natural resource, uranium.

This mineral is found in 21 countries, with Australia and Canada making up half of the world's output. With no other major civilian use for uranium, its price depends only on the nuclear industry's needs and does not fluctuate much.

In addition, over the whole life cycle from uranium mining to plant construction, the amount of carbon emitted is 20 to 75 times less than the natural-gas equivalent, the cleanest fossil fuel. Once installed and powered up, nuclear plants also emit no carbon.

Yet, no investors are proposing to build nuclear plants here. Why?



Because in a liberalised electricity market, there are no long-term contracts to buy power from any provider, so nuclear plants must be as good an investment risk as the most economical option right now, which is the combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT).

Investors will want a power project to be short-term and flexible - like CCGTs which, being modular plants, can be put up in small units from about 300MW upwards.

By contrast, to minimise overall costs with nuclear power generation, several identical reactors must be built. For example, British Energy, the UK's privatised nuclear power provider, argues that a programme of at least 10 new reactors of 1,000MW each (or 10,000MW) would be needed to become economically feasible.

However, peak demand in Singapore is only 5,000MW. Anyway, a 10,000MW programme would likely crowd out private sector investment in power generation.

The construction costs of CCGTs are not only much smaller but also fixed and contractually guaranteed. Moreover, they can be constructed rapidly, so investors see returns on investment quickly.

Industry experience in the United States suggests that it takes about seven years to construct a nuclear plant compared with two for a CCGT, thus postponing returns to investors.

Clearly, a nuclear project cannot match the cost and performance guarantees that investors routinely get with CCGTs, so investors will demand a much higher rate of return, which will then drive up its capital costs even more.

Nuclear plants cost a lot to design and actually build. Not including interest accrued while construction is ongoing, current nuclear plants already incur capital costs four times those of CCGTs, according to a 2003 OECD study. Also, because capital costs are financed, there are interest charges to be spread out or amortised over 20 to 25 years which, in turn, get factored into generation costs.

According to the study, capital costs account for 60 to 75 per cent of total costs to generate nuclear power compared with just 25 per cent for CCGTs. Thus any delays - whether technical or political in nature - in construction and commissioning will raise interest charges more for nuclear plants than for CCGTs - and thus the prices they need to charge electricity users - just to break even.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, there is another even more important component to capital costs at the end of a nuclear plant's life. These are the costs to decommission the plant when it is eventually shut down and to manage the waste it has produced. Waste management must continue over the subsequent decades as the plant remains radioactive for a long time. So funds must be set aside upfront - over the plant's active years - to carry out these activities in the future.

These costs represent probably the biggest economic liabilities for nuclear power providers in a competitive electricity market. For example, liberalising the United Kingdom electricity market saw power prices fall from 2001. Mr James Hewlett of the Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, says that, by 2003, British Energy had to be rescued by the UK government to the tune of £3.5 billion (S$10.5 billion) since revenues could not meet its financial commitments for end-of-life costs.

Finally, consider operating costs. The bulk of these with CCGTs is made up of fuel costs. However, only 20 per cent of a nuclear plant's operating costs come from uranium costs, according to the 2003 OECD study.

By contrast, the bulk of a nuclear plant's operating costs are fixed, which means they are incurred whether the plant is generating power or not because its safety systems must be maintained even when it is not active.

Since its operating costs are largely fixed, a nuclear plant's profits depend directly on the power prices it can charge users, where a $1 price hike means almost a $1 rise in profits. But so too with a $1 price drop. This means that, in a liberalised market like Singapore, how profitable it can be will depend on the price its competitors charge, which turns on the prices of natural gas and fuel oil used in CCGTs (and interest rates).

For all these reasons, even as oil nudges up to and even beyond US$100 (S$144) a barrel, investors are unlikely to pile into nuclear power just yet. At some astronomical oil price - and provided the Government is willing to act as insurer of last resort for decommissioning and waste management liabilities - perhaps nuclear power might make economic sense.

Even then, political viability would be a different matter altogether. I don't want a nuclear plant in my backward.

Why nuclear power is viable, sensible and profitable
Letter from Paul Chan Poh Hoi, Straits Times Forum 22 Nov 07

'GO NUCLEAR? No sense or profit in it,' says senior writer Dr Andy Ho (ST, Nov 15). I beg to differ and wish to share my views why nuclear power electricity generation in Singapore is viable.

We are totally dependent on fossil fuel import and should not lose fragile grip on reality with regard to price and supply. Going nuclear makes better sense for posterity.

Just look at the sensitivity analysis of impacts on electricity-generation costs - investment, fuel, interest-rate changes and economic lifetime. The economic lifetime of modern nuclear plants has increased to 60 years with proper maintenance programmes while that of coal, gas and oil-fired generators is less than 25 years.

It may cost US$2 million to build a one-megawatt nuclear plant facility. Good returns justify the huge investments. Currently there are 30 nuclear power plants (NPPs) under construction and 70 more are waiting for construction approval.

According to Professor Risto Tarjanne in his presentation on baseload electricity in Finland, he cited Olkiluoto NPP as a case study. The Finnish company decided to add one 1,600-MW reactor at the cost of three billion euros purely on economic considerations.

The return on investments is more than 18 per cent based on electricity sold at the same price as coal-generated plants. The payback period is less than 20 years if oil and gas prices increased further.

The electricity-generation cost calculated from the historical records of the Olkiluoto NPP amounts to 18 euros/MWh (equivalent to 3.8 Singapore cent/kWh) as a constant price during the past operating period of 1981 to 1999. The investment has been highly profitable.

It is not inconceivable that Singapore could install the nuclear power plant in the middle of the sea if space is a constraint and safety is a concern. The proposition to go nuclear is viable, sensible and profitable.

The beauty is that nuclear electricity cost is quite insensitive to fuel price changes. The nuclear choice would make a major contribution to achieving in 2010 the greenhouse gas emission level in accordance with the Kyoto protocol.

Read more!

'Heed the warnings by planetary doctors'

Arti Mulchand, Straits Times 15 Nov 07
Govts need to act on alerts about earth's fragile state, says climate expert

YOU don't argue with your cardiologist when he says you need a bypass.

In the same way, governments need to heed warnings by 'planetary physicians' about the earth's fragile state and what needs to be done, says a climate expert.

'You don't yell at your doctor and say medical science is incomplete...If you wait for that heart attack, it will involve even more risk and expense,'' said Professor Richard Somerville.

A distinguished professor emeritus from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the United States, he is here to speak on climate change under the Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor programme.



He hopes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report, now being finalised in Spain, will put significant pressure on governments when they negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

This takes place in Bali next month, at the United Nations Framework Convention Climate Change meetings.

Prof Somerville is a coordinating lead author of the report, which sums up the scientific consensus on global warming, and pins the blame on human activities. It also calls for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to stem the impact.

The Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, obliges 36 industrial nations to cut their combined emissions by about 5 per cent below levels measured in 1990. But the world's two biggest emitters, the US and China, have refused to take on mandatory emission curbs.

What makes the situation 'politically difficult' is that investing in the environment now may not have an immediate payoff, he said.

Still, there is much that prosperous countries, including the US, can do, he said. 'But I can say that because I'm not running for office,'' he deadpanned.

The key could lie in public pressure, and he is encouraged by heightened awareness over the issues.

Some of the science behind the IPCC report is now accepted as 'settled', and the 'aura' of Mr Al Gore, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC, has given environmental issues a higher profile, he said.

Recent 'spectacular weather phenomena', like the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the devastating Hurricane Katrina in the US in 2005 and the melting of the Arctic sea ice, have also made the problem seem much more immediate, he added.

He rubbishes talk by 'contrarians' that the issue of climate change has been overstated, and likens it to the lobby by the tobacco industry decades ago denying that smoking had implications for health.

'Some of the same techniques are being used here. I believe their slogan was 'Doubt is our product'...

'There is increased scientific certainty and we are seeing changes in climate. It's not simply speculation any more. There are different ways to behave and they have consequences.'

Prof Somerville, the 59th Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor, will deliver his final public lecture on the IPCC tomorrow at 6pm, at Lecture Theatre 2 at Nanyang Technological University.

Read more!

Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Richard Black, BBC News 14 Nov 07;

Of all the accusations made by the vociferous community of climate sceptics, surely the most damaging is that science itself is biased against them.

That was a view I put forward nearly a year ago now in another article for the BBC News website, and nothing has changed my mind since.

The year seems to have brought no diminution of the accusations flying around the blogosphere.

"The research itself is biased," as one recent blog entry put it.

"Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government."

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did; which made me wonder whether there was any evidence.

Drought or deluge?

In that earlier article, I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias.

For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims.

Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge.



I anticipated drowning in a torrent of accusations of research grants turned down, membership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) denied, scientific papers refused by journals, job applications refused, and invitations to speak at conferences drying up.

I anticipated having to spend days, weeks, months even, sifting the wheat from the chaff, going backwards and forwards between journal editors, heads of department, conference organisers, funding bodies and the original plaintiffs.

I envisaged major headaches materialising as I tried to sort out the chains of events, attempting to decipher whether claims had any validity, or were just part of the normal rough and tumble of a scientist's life - especially in the context of scientific publishing, where the top journals only publish about 10% of the papers submitted to them.

The reality was rather different.

Paper trail

I received emails from well over 100 people; some had read my original article, others had seen the idea passed around in blogs and newsgroups.

Four people said they had had problems getting research published, and three sent me the papers in question.

The other said he did not want to disclose details as he was preparing his paper for submission to another journal.

Of the three papers I did receive, one was far from complete, and another was a review article from an author who endorsed the IPCC position and said the bias was against scientists "supporting man-made climate change".

The third was from Reid Bryson, a US meteorologist and climatologist whose team at the University of Wisconsin has developed its own method of looking at historical climate change.

He said he had had problems getting research published on the extent to which he believes volcanoes drive climate change. But he had not kept his rejection letters, so it was impossible to investigate specifically.

A fifth correspondent said magazines had turned down letters for publication; but letters are not research, and magazines are not journals, which perform a vital role in the formal processes of science.

In terms of first-hand claims of bias, that was it.

At second hand

Other correspondents referred to two well-known cases involving the top-line journals Science and Nature.

Nature's refusal to publish a re-analysis by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of the famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) "hockey stick" graph has been so well documented elsewhere, not least in hearings instigated by US congressmen, that there is really nothing new to say.

The Science issue involved its decision not to publish a response by UK academic Benny Peiser to a paper by Stanford University's Naomi Oreskes, in which she had claimed to find more or less unanimous support for man-made climate change among published scientific papers.

This saga has also been so well documented, not least on Dr Peiser's website, that again there is little new to say; except that Dr Peiser now says he is glad Science decided not to publish his research because "my critique of Oreskes' flawed study was later found to be partially flawed itself".

Another correspondent raised an apparently similar issue, where Japan-based researcher James Annan had repeatedly been rejected in his bid to publish a comment article on "climate sensitivity", a term widely used to mean the temperature rise seen in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

It is a key figure, because it basically tells you how fast the Earth warms as CO2 levels rise.

Last year the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) published a paper from Dr Annan's group using historical data to indicate a value probably between about 2C and 4C.

If this is correct, it rules out both the lower estimates of about 1C favoured by some climate sceptics, and the higher values of about 6C which some scientists believe could swiftly bring catastrophic impacts.

Later, the researchers wrote a comment piece emphasising that values above 4.5C were very unlikely. GRL and one other journal have collectively turned it down a total of five times.

"I think it does count as bias to some extent," Dr Annan told me.

"But it's not really a 'sceptical' or 'alarmist' bias; it's more a political thing to do with not wanting to offend the wrong people. It's a bit of gentlemen's club."

He also pointed out that while the emphasis of his comment piece was on ruling out high "catastrophist" scenarios, the data itself was the same as in his earlier paper, which had been published in a prestigious journal.

The rest of the emails contained a mixture of positive and negative comments on the worth of this exercise, links to newspaper articles and blog entries that typically contained accusations of bias but no evidence, links to scientific papers which the writers said challenged anthropogenic warming, tirades against the media, and several suggestions that for an authoritative exposition of bias in climate science I should read Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear.

Known and boring

Several people who wrote to me argued that my original definition of bias was insufficiently subtle.

"Scientific bias occurs the same way that any bias is created, when people say 'I have already figured this out, so I do not need to revisit it'," said Forrest Baker.

Others said that with billions of dollars spent each year on climate research, no-one would risk "rocking the boat" by performing, or publishing, work that could refute humankind's carbon emissions as the cause.

Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who is something of an anti-hero to sceptics' groups as he believes IPCC projections of sea-level rise are far too conservative, had heard this argument before, and he wrote in telling me it was far from convincing.

"How likely is it that my funding would suffer if I found a good alternative explanation for the observed global warming, or that I would have trouble publishing it (assuming it would be methodologically sound, of course)?" he asked.

"Quite the contrary, I would see it as a path to certain fame! Scientists always strive to find something radically new and different - just reconfirming what is already quite well-known is boring, and certainly will not get you the Nobel Prize.

"In many countries, including my own, scientific funding is a lot less competitive than in the US - I'm a professor for life, my institute has a solid base funding for doing its research, and basically I can do what I want without risk that this is taken away from me. I don't need to get new grants all the time."

And some research groups are investigating ideas which could challenge anthropogenic warming. For example, several teams have published work within the last three years on the Sun's possible role as a driver of modern-day warming.

One is Henrik Svensmark's group from the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), which published results of laboratory work in the journal Proceedings A of the Royal Society last year - work which they claimed showed the Sun, rather than greenhouse gases, as the chief actor.

"As editor, I can't have a position on publishing any scientific paper other than that it should be peer-reviewed," commented the journal's editor-in-chief Professor Sir Michael Berry when I asked him whether there was a climate bias in scientific publishing.

"I wouldn't pay any attention at all to whether it's 'sceptical' or not."

Proof negative?

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

If there is an anti-sceptic bias running through the institutions of science, it is evidently keeping itself well hidden.

Whether this exercise has conclusively disproved a bias is not for me to say - I am sure others will find plenty to say, doubtless in the courteous and gracious language that typifies climate discourse nowadays.

But I will say this; if someone persistently claims to be a great football player, and yet fails to find the net when you put him in front of an open goal, you cannot do other than doubt his claim.

Andres Millan, who wrote to me on the subject from Mexico, offered another explanation for why scientific journals, research grants, conference agendas and the IPCC itself are dominated by research that backs or assumes the reality of modern-day greenhouse warming.

"Most global warming sceptics have no productive alternatives; they say it is a hoax, or that it will cause severe social problems, or that we should allocate resources elsewhere," he wrote.

"Scientifically, they have not put forward a compelling, rich, and variegated theory.

"And until that happens, to expect the government, or any source of scientific funding, to give as much money, attention, or room within academic journals to the alternatives, seems completely misguided."

This week, ahead of the launch of the IPCC's synthesis report for 2007, the BBC News website is looking at various aspects of "climate scepticism" and "catastrophism". If you have something novel to say on climate change, please let us know - we will be publishing a selection of your comments on Friday.

Read more!