'Underwater World' at Sentosa
on the Manta Blog
Jack the wild boar
on the ubin.sgkopi blog
Cycling to Pasir Ris
on the wonderful creation blog
Time Travel!
on Manoj Sugathan's Wlog
Chestnut-capped Laughingthrush eating an atlas moth
on the Bird Ecology Study Group blog
The Fishy Workshop
on the Leafmonkey Workshop blog and Life Between the Tides workshop
An oktoRIGINAL - Dining with Death
on the Raffles Museum News blog
Partial Solar Eclipse
on the Running with the Wind blog
William Choong, The Straits Times 28 Jan 09;
IN THE 1970s, Dr Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, campaigned against nuclear power, arguing that nuclear power plants, next to nuclear warheads, were the most dangerous devices created by man. Thirty years later, Dr Moore is singing an entirely different tune. He now argues that nuclear power can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and satisfy growing global demands for power.
Dr Moore has been disowned by Greenpeace, which alleges that he has revoked his green credentials and become a 'paid representative of corporate polluters'. But Dr Moore is not alone. He has been joined by other prominent environmentalists such as British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, and the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, Mr Stewart Brand.
Amid widespread concerns about energy security and climate change, an unlikely marriage has emerged between environmentalists and advocates of nuclear power. The strongest argument for nuclear power now is that it generates virtually no greenhouse gases. And compared to other non-carbon sources of power, such as hydro and solar, nuclear power is already available, still the only viable large-scale alternative to fossil fuels.
Growing demand for electricity means that nuclear power will play an increasingly important role in power generation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), global electricity demand will double by 2030. Nuclear power's contribution to electricity generation is projected to grow from 16 per cent now to 18 per cent.
The IPCC projects other non-carbon sources apart from hydro contributing 12 to 17 per cent of global electricity generation by 2030. But the World Nuclear Association - an industry group - argues that if renewable sources of energy fail to grow as much as expected, nuclear power could possibly contribute about 30 per cent of global electricity demand.
The numbers tell it all. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, more than 70 new nuclear power plants will be built in the next 15 years, with most of them being located in Asia.
One need only study developments in recent years to understand the strength of the nuclear revival. In 2006, the International Energy Agency (IEA) urged governments to build more nuclear plants to slow climate change and bolster energy security. It was the first time that the agency had backed nu-
clear power in such strong terms. And if Singapore is any indication, the revival still has some legs to run. Speaking at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that nuclear energy was out for Singapore because international standards required a 30km-wide safety zone around a nuclear plant (the island measures 40km from east to west). Last month, however, Mr Lee said that nuclear power for Singapore cannot be ruled out, given concerns about global warming and high energy prices.
Ms Sheri Ng, vice-president for strategy and marketing at Invensys Process Systems, says there is an 'amazing awakening' in Asia about nuclear power. Invensys, which supplies control systems to nuclear plants, has a big footprint in Asia. It recently won a US$250 million (S$375 million) contract to build control rooms for two nuclear reactors in China. 'Nuclear energy helps countries meet the twin challenges of energy security and environmental sustainability,' Ms Ng said in an interview.
This does not mean that the current nuclear renaissance is hitch-free.
Even with newer - and reportedly safer - nuclear power plants in the pipeline, fears about safety remain pressing. It has been only two decades since the meltdown of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986. Countries being able to process uranium into weapons-grade material is also a concern, if the actions of Iran and North Korea are anything to go by.
Cost overruns are another worry: In Finland, an advanced European Pressurised Reactor plant being built by Areva - the world's largest nuclear power supplier - is three years behind schedule and an estimated ¥1.5 billion (S$3 billion) over its initial budget of ¥3 billion.
More importantly, the current push towards nuclear power may be threatened if oil prices stay below US$100 per barrel - generally seen as the level where non-carbon fuel sources become viable.
Greenpeace continues to push for a non-nuclear future centred on renewable sources of energy. 'Nuclear power belongs in the dustbin of history,' it says. 'It is a target for terrorists, and a source of nuclear weapons. The future can be nuclear-free.'
Greenpeace's argument is not without merit. According to a lower-carbon scenario in the IEA's 2008 World Energy Outlook, renewable energy sources could see their contribution go up from 20 per cent currently to 30 per cent of global electricity generation in 2030. But Greenpeace's assertion that the nuclear power industry is dying is questionable, given current plans for new nuclear plants across the world.
What environmental groups like Greenpeace find hard to accept is that nuclear power - together with other renewable sources of energy - will become vital components of a concerted and global move towards a lower-carbon future.
The sooner we re-embrace the atom, the better.
Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 28 Jan 09
The government has promised to open criminal investigations into a forestry company and a group of local farmers accused of using illegal slash-and-burn methods to clear land, causing widespread forest fires across Riau province.
“Our team has found evidence that forest fires in Palelawan regency, Riau, were not caused by natural phenomenon, but were deliberately set by a company and group of local farmers clearing some land,” Illyas Asaad, a deputy environment minister, told The Jakarta Post on Tuesday.
However, he declined to identify the company in question.
Illyas, the deputy minister for environment compliance at the State Ministry for the Environment, said stern measures were in the works to help fight Indonesia’s international image as a “smoke exporter”, following massive forest fires that burn out of control each year, sending smoke as far away as neighboring Singapore and Malaysia.
“Because such practices occur every year, we have decided to take stern action as a deterrent for the public to stop setting fires in forests,” Illyas said.
He added his office was still investigating forest fires in Pelintung, also in Riau.
“Our team is still working to collect data and evidence on the fires in Pelintung, but it looks like the incident is also a man-made disaster,” he said.
The ministry will enforce a 1999 environmental law that authorizes civilian officials to investigate environmental violations.
The law’s Article 40 says civil investigation officials may examine people accused of crimes in relation to such violations.
Civilian investigators are also allowed to seek explanation and evidence from individuals
or legal bodies in connection with criminal violations of the environmental laws.
The results of the investigations can then be submitted to the police, who can then choose to arrest or detain suspects based on the investigations.
Under the law, violators can face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a Rp 500 million fine.
Data recorded by Singapore’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite show there were at least 142 hotspots in Riau on Thursday.
A hotspot is defined as a fire covering at least a hectare.
WWF Indonesia has detected 1,025 hotspots across the country as of Jan. 26, 2009, including 833 in Riau alone.
It said the forest fires in Riau reached their peak on Jan. 21, with some 172 hotspots detected that day.
WWF forest monitoring officer Dedi Hariri blamed several companies and local residents for deliberately setting fires to forest areas to open up tracts of land.
“The forest fires are a surprising accident because they come when most Indonesian areas are experiencing a rainy season,” he said.
“We suspect certain companies and groups of people have used the days without rain to clear land for plantations and farming.”
He added the WWF had not detected any further hotspots in Riau over the last two days, amid scattered rainfall in some parts of the province.
Forest fires are an annual incident across the country during the dry season. In 2006, 145,000 hotspots were detected, making it the second worst season since 1997.
The government had to apologize in 2006 to Singapore and Malaysia for the record air pollution levels in those countries caused by the haze.
Will growing global demand outstrip supply in 5 years?
The New Paper 28 Jan 09;
BEFORE Viagra, there was Tongkat Ali.
But by 2014, man would have used up all the cultivated Tongkat Ali in the country, bringing an end to the best-selling herb in Malaysia, reported NST.
It is the most used herb in the country but unplanned commercial harvesting and increasing demand may force people to stop relying on it.
Datuk Dr Abdul Rashid Ab Malik, deputy director-general of Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM), said the sustainable supply of Tongkat Ali is a huge concern that needs immediate attention.
He added: 'The Tongkat Ali plant takes five to seven years to mature. The sustainable supply of Tongkat Ali is about 100 tonnes a year from the government and the private sector.
'The government has 167ha of this plant and the private sector about 29ha, mainly in Kelantan, Pahang, Selangor and Negri Sembilan.'
'The problem is that our future needs will be larger and we need bigger players to sustain the current demand.'
This should be an immediate concern to Malaysian men as Tongkat Ali has penetrated the Japanese market, bringing in about RM3.8 billion ($1.6 billion) a year.
'The Japanese demand is expected to increase and Tongkat Ali exports to Japan are expected to be worth RM8 billion next year.'
Even without the Japanese factor, there will be a shortage in four to five years as there are no big players who are continuously planting the tree that will be producing the herb, he said.
Dr Rashid knows because FRIM monitors the commercial planting of Tongkat Ali.
The price of this plant, he said, might also not be as affordable as it is now. 'When there are no more natural sources of Tongkat Ali, the price is going to go up.'
Increasing demand from other countries is also causing prices to skyrocket, said Dr Rashid.
'On a trip to the United States, I found Tongkat Ali products on the shelves. The extract is sent overseas and packaged there. In one store, our famous herb is called 'Long Jack'.
'Tongkat Ali has male enhancing properties, like a form of steroid, but is safe and natural.
Health products
'The most popular Tongkat Ali products in the market are health drinks, tablets and food supplements.
'But there's also a new demand for this herb in the fitness arena. The demand keeps increasing with every research and development study. It was recently found that Tongkat Ali is good for body-builders.'
Dr Rashid said a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine showed that Tongkat Ali can increase muscle strength.
'There are so many uses for this herb, even in the medical line. Tongkat Ali is also shown to prevent lung and breast cancer.
'Tongkat Ali has properties similar to ginseng and red ginseng. Malaysia should take advantage of this, like the Koreans who are harvesting it commercially on a large scale.'
In the meantime, FRIM has been looking at ways of cultivating Tongkat Ali in the fastest and most cost-effective way possible.
'We have started using hairy root culture as an alternative way of growing Tongkat Ali. The controlled environment has proved to be very effective,' said Dr Rashid.
'We are now ready to move to the pre-commercial phase which will take two more years. By 2011, we hope to commercialise the hairy root production of this much-loved plant.'
Yahoo News 27 Jan 09;
PARIS (AFP) – Mountain gorillas living in a war-torn region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have increased in number despite the bloody conflict, according to a new count released Tuesday.
The census -- the first since specialised rangers were expelled by rebel forces from the Virunga National Park 16 months ago -- showed a sub-population of gorillas used to humans had gone up from 72 to 81.
These so-called "habituated" gorillas are most at risk of being killed because they do not fear people.
They also inhabit regions strewn with snares laid to trap other forest fauna for food.
"We are relieved to see that instead of fewer gorillas, which we had feared, there are actually several more animals," said Marc Languy of the WWF's Eastern Africa Regional Problem.
Fifteen months passed without park rangers being able to monitor the gorillas.
But in December forces loyal to Congolese ex-general Laurent Nkunda -- arrested last week by Rwandan forces -- allowed the rangers to enter the Mikeno sector to resume monitoring.
While on patrol, they found more than 400 snares set by poachers targetting small forest antelope.
"This clearly indicates that conservation efforts must continue to save mountain gorillas which remain threatened, despite the good news brought by the latest count," Languy said.
Experts estimate that the total population of mountain gorillas in the park at just under 400.
News last week from the only other natural habitat of the highly social primates, meanwhile, was not so good.
A new survey of gorillas living in Uganda's Bwindi Impenetrable National Park found 10 percent fewer -- 302 rather than 336 -- than previous estimates.
This could mean that the gorilla population in the park is not growing, as previously assumed.
"Now we really don't know what is happening with this population," said Katerina Guschanski of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.
"Probably the safest thing is to assume that the population is stable, but we will need to wait for another four of five years to assess how it is changing," Guschanski told New Scientist magazine.
The latest census used a new method based on identifying unique genetic signatures, found in dung piles.
Many experts fear that the gorilla is facing extinction. The total population of mountain gorillas in the Great Lakes region of central Africa hovers around 700, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.
The last decade has also seen a steep drop from 17,000 to 5,000 in the population of eastern lowland gorillas in the DRC.
Yahoo News 27 Jan 09;
REYKJAVIK (AFP) – Iceland's government unveiled Tuesday a steep rise in its disputed commercial whale hunt, a sixfold increase allowing the killing of 150 fin whales and up to 150 minke whales a year.
Iceland, which pulled out of an international whaling moratorium in 2006 after observing it for 16 years, had a quota of nine fin whales and 40 minke whales per year.
But outgoing Fisheries Minister Einar Gudfinnsson said the government would follow the recommendations of the Marine Research Institute, which suggested a quota of 150 fin whales and 100 to 150 minke whales a year over the next five years.
"I think that whalers will be satisfied by this quota," Gudfinnsson told AFP.
Gudfinnsson is a member of the centre-right Independence Party, whose coalition government with the left-leaning Social Democrats collapsed on Monday following protests over its handling of the economic crisis.
The Social Democrats and Left Greens, who oppose whaling, have been asked by President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to form a new minority coalition after the one led by Prime Minister Geir Haarde, of the Independence Party, resigned.
Foreign Minister Ingibjoerg Solrun Gisladottir, the Social Democratic leader, had blasted Gudfinnsson in May for authorising whale hunting again this year.
Conservationists blasted the new quota.
"I hope that the minister who will replace Einar (Gudfinnsson) will have the courage to recall this decision," said Arni Finnsson, of the Icelandic Natural Conservation.
Iceland and Norway are the only two countries in the world that authorise commercial whaling. Japan officially hunts whales for scientific purposes, although the whale meat is sold for consumption.
Iceland Says To Allow Whaling For Another 5 Years
Omar R. Valdimarsson, PlanetArk 27 Jan 09
REYKJAVIK - Iceland said Tuesday it would allow whaling of fin and minke whales -- a practice opposed by conservationists -- for another five years.
Iceland, in crisis after its ruling coalition collapsed, ended a 20-year ban on commercial whaling in August 2006, issuing quotas that ran through August 2007. After a temporary halt, the country resumed whaling in May last year.
"Today the Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture published a regulation setting a quota for the next five years," the fisheries and agriculture ministry said in a statement.
The ministry said the total allowable takes would be according to recommendations of the Marine Research Institute.
Iceland is in crisis after the collapse of its ruling coalition and the resignation of its prime minister due to the effects of the global credit crunch. Talks are under way to form a new government.
Many countries and environmental groups oppose whaling, saying stocks are low after decades of over-hunting that only ended with the 1986 moratorium by the International Whaling Commission.
Icelandic supporters of whaling have said they seek to cultivate tradition in a responsible way.
Conservationists have argued that the whale-watching industry is equally, if not more, lucrative than hunting the animals.
(Editing by Elizabeth Piper)
Iceland sets major whaling quota
Richard Black, BBC News 27 Jan 09;
Iceland's fisheries ministry has issued whaling quotas substantially enlarged from those in previous years, as the government prepares to leave office.
The quotas would allow catching of 100 minke whales and 150 fin whales annually for the next five years.
The incoming interim administration is likely to be led by parties opposed to whaling, and may cancel the move.
The move comes just after details emerged of an eventual possible deal between pro- and anti-whaling nations.
Environmental groups swiftly condemned the announcement by fisheries minister Einar Gudfinnsson.
"This is basically an act of sabotage, an act of bitterness, against the incoming government," said Arni Finnsson from the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA).
Mr Finnsson said he would urge the incoming administration, likely to be led by the avowedly anti-whaling Social Democrats and Greens, to overturn it.
Green MP Kolbrun Halldorsdottir, tipped as a possible environment minister in the new regime, indicated she would favour this, though cautioning that the new government will have a lot of other issues to deal with.
"In my opinion, it's extremely foolish of the minister, and I can promise you that if my party can form this interim government then we will at least discuss it and find out what we can do about it," she told BBC News.
Last year, ex-foreign minister Ingibjorg Solrun Gisladottir, who is likely to lead the interim government, said that whaling risked damaging Iceland's long-term interests.
Big fins
The fin whale quota particularly angers conservationists. Internationally it is listed as an endangered species, and the quota of 150 is a major escalation on the total of seven that have been caught over the last three seasons.
The outgoing Icelandic government had previously said it would issue quotas only where there was a market - but fin meat is not eaten in Iceland.
Last year the single company hunting fin whales, Hvalur hf, exported a consignment of meat to Japan. After delays in customs, it entered the country and has reportedly been sold.
Hvalur CEO Kristjan Loftsson indicated that the export had persuaded the government that there was a market.
"They were just listening to me on this one," he said.
"We exported whalemeat to Japan, and it's gone through customs and there is no hindrance there."
Mr Loftsson said he planned major exports from this year's hunt, assuming the quota was not revoked.
The minke quota is more than doubled to 100, the size that companies have lobbied for in recent years. Minke meat is sold and eaten in Iceland.
Minke and fin catches would stay within limits set by Icelandic scientists, a measure designed to ensure the hunts are sustainable.
European rules
Some observers believe that Hvalur hf and the outgoing government are using whaling as a way to lobby against Iceland joining the EU.
EU membership is widely seen as the most feasible way for the country to weather its financial crisis.
Fishing magnates, including Mr Loftsson, fear the EU's Common Fisheries Policy would be introduced, to the detriment of both fish stocks and fishermen.
"We don't see any point to have that to manage our fisheries - we can do it here better ourselves," he said.
He also said that an annual catch of 150 fin whales could generate seasonal employment for up to 200 people.
The EU would be likely to demand an end to whaling as a condition of membership.
But Mr Finnsson of the Iceland Nature Conservation Association said it was not in Iceland's interests to provoke the EU.
"Even if we don't join this year, it's obvious that we need close relations and we can't step on one another's toes," he said.
Iceland's is the smallest annual catch of the three countries with whaling programmes that are not intended to satisfy the subsistence needs of aboriginal peoples - the other two being Norway and Japan.
At the weekend, delegates from six countries met in Hawaii to discuss a possible "compromise package" between Japan, the most politically assertive of the three, and the anti-whaling lobby.
The wording of draft proposals, seen by BBC News, has angered conservation groups which see it as giving too much ground to Japan.
Trade was not covered in the proposals.
William Laurance BBC Green Room 27 Jan 09;
Some researchers have suggested that tropical forests' biodiversity may be more resilient than previously thought, says Dr William Laurance. However, in this week's Green Room, he warns against thinking that many tropical species can survive the current levels of deforestation.
We all know tropical rainforests are the world's biologically richest ecosystems and are rapidly disappearing.
If rapid forest loss continues at the current rate, some believe, we could soon face a mass extinction event; a loss of life so devastating it might rival the catastrophic disappearance of dinosaurs and other species 65 million years ago.
However, others disagree, such as my fellow Smithsonian colleague, Joseph Wright. He says tropical deforestation will be less severe than many believe, and species extinctions far fewer.
Dr Wright's views have kicked off one of the most heated scientific controversies in the past decade, and were the subject of a recent major public debate at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC.
In a nutshell, he suggests that, as part of a global trend toward increasing urbanisation, many slash-and-burn farmers in tropical countries will leave the forest frontier and move to cities, where economic opportunities are greater.
This, he argues, will alleviate pressures on forests by slowing the loss of old-growth forest and allowing secondary forests to regenerate on abandoned farmland.
Such trends will reduce species extinctions, Dr Wright believes, because less old-growth forest will disappear and because some endangered species will survive in secondary forests.
Rose-tinted rainforests
For some, his outlook is too optimistic.
While few dispute that urbanisation is occurring, it may not lead to much forest recovery.
This is because large-scale corporations - industrial logging, agribusiness, biofuels, and oil and gas industries - and globalisation are increasingly causing more forests to be lost.
Indeed, a single bulldozer can clear as much forest as dozens of machete-wielding farmers, so rates of forest loss may accelerate in the future, not slow down, even if rural populations should decline.
In addition, many question Joseph Wright's assumption that endangered species can survive in secondary forests.
In regions such as the Amazon, the average age of secondary forests is just six to seven years.
Young secondary forests are scrubby and sparse, differing dramatically from old-growth rainforest, which has towering canopy trees, a uniquely dark and moist microclimate, and literally thousands of plant and animal species per hectare.
Typically, young regrowth forests sustain many generalist and weedy species, few of which are likely to be endangered.
Future threats
Finally, tropical species face perils above and beyond habitat destruction.
Many, including apes, monkeys, and forest elephants, are being killed off by rampant overhunting and the commercial bushmeat trade.
Others are being driven to extinction from exotic pathogens, such as the deadly chytrid fungus, that has wiped out hundreds of tropical amphibians.
Rainforests are also being degraded by selective logging, habitat fragmentation, and surface fires, all of which harm disturbance-sensitive species.
And global warming could be a far greater peril to the tropics than many realise; indeed, Dr Wright himself has begun to emphasise the importance of global warming.
In the tropics, where temperatures are nearly constant throughout the year, many species are thermal specialists.
Those living in the hot lowlands may already be dangerously close to their thermal maximum, whereas those in the cooler mountains will have nowhere to go as conditions get hotter.
Hence, habitat destruction and climate change are both dire threats to rainforest species.
What are the implications of our Smithonian debate?
Firstly, the controversy has highlighted a need for more research in a variety of areas.
For instance, we need to know which species will survive in secondary forests, and how different environmental factors such as habitat loss and global warming will interact to threaten species.
Even Dr Wright's staunchest critics credit him with bringing new perspectives to tropical conservation.
Secondly, we need to promote international carbon trading to slow deforestation and promote forest regeneration.
At the moment, landowners in tropical nations usually receive nothing for conserving their forests, which perform vital ecosystem services that benefit us all - such as storing carbon, helping to regulate the global climate, and conserving biodiversity.
Carbon trading provides a mechanism whereby wealthy nations can bear some of the costs of forest protection, a vital goal given that tropical deforestation produces a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions today.
Lastly, we direly need the US to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (or a similar international framework) to limit its carbon emissions.
This will not only slow global warming but it will greatly increase the demand for carbon credits, some of which can be used to help slow deforestation.
Reducing deforestation will not only help our battered climate, but it will preserve some of the most imperiled species and ecosystems on earth.
Our debate in Washington occurred just days before the inauguration of President Obama.
With many Washington insiders and political staffers in our audience, we are hopeful our message was heard in high places.
Like many others, we are counting on the Obama administration to have more forest- and biodiversity-friendly policies than we've seen in recent years.
Dr William Laurance is a scientist for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
David Shukman, BBC News 27 Jan 09;
Dumped in landfill, or stockpiled unwanted: the fate of our recycling has triggered a wave of negative reports and doubts among the public.
The nagging question: is the effort of sorting our rubbish worth it?
In an effort to attempt to find an answer, I have travelled over the past few weeks to the less savoury corners of a world that most of us never see.
My journey took me from an ice-cold warehouse brimming with bundles of paper and plastic to conveyor belts laden with waste in Essex, to the stench of a vast shredding machine in Leicester.
My impression is of a young industry, occasionally faltering, often unpopular, but emerging as a normal - and generally useful - part of our lives.
Conversations in a suburb of Durham, on a drizzly collection day, revealed mixed feelings among householders: supportive of the principle of recycling but irritated, even angry, at the idea that their efforts may not be doing any good.
The worst suspicion? That a lot of carefully sorted recycling ends up in landfill.
Some does get dumped, no question, but I'm told it's only a small percentage and usually because it's contaminated, which means that it has not been cleaned properly or it's the wrong stuff.
And some is stockpiled. Indeed, just up the road in an old television factory on the edge of Durham was a small mountain of papers, plastic and tin; huge bales of recycling towering towards the ceiling. Some newspapers were dated from last October or even September.
Late last year, local recycling contractor Greencycle had found that the usual market for its material, China, was suddenly closed, and prices were tumbling.
Week after week, as at dozens of other sites around the country, the firm was gathering more recycling but could not shift it, so stockpiling was the only option.
Only now is the stuff being moved.
So does this mean the system is failing? Well, talking to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Environment Agency, government recycling agency Wrap, and several of the largest waste companies, it's clear the market slump has been a bad blow but the process as a whole is still functioning.
The long run
At the Shanks recycling centre in Barking, Essex, an intricate network of conveyor belts streamed out paper, plastic and metal.
Director Paul Dumpleton admitted that prices for material were poor but insisted that they were "in this for the long-term".
Companies like Shanks have invested huge sums in the machinery required for transporting and sorting recycling, and they expect to be busy with this task for decades.
So if it's a viable business for the contractors, or at least many of them, how do the economics stack up?
Wrap has figures ready to make the case:
• Recycled newsprint typically costs around £40 per tonne compared to fresh material at £450.
• Old plastic bottles cost £60 per tonne while raw plastic can cost £1,100.
That does not mean that in every part of the country all recycling makes financial sense.
Off the record, experts will admit that in the rush to meet targets for reducing landfill, the true costs are not always known.
That's particularly the case with the impact on greenhouse gases, one of the original points of recycling. The rotting mass of organic waste in landfill sites emits vast amounts of methane.
Wrap says recycling in 2006 saved 18 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of taking five million cars off the road.
Muck and brass
But one of the industry's most respected figures is not convinced that a proper assessment has been done.
Peter Jones, a former director of waste firm Biffa and now an adviser to Defra and the London councils, outlined his concerns.
"We haven't really in retrospect made sure that we're making the right decisions at the right time," he told me.
"Therefore, we've got to urgently get a grip on how this material is flowing through the system - whether we're actually adding to or reducing the overall impact in terms of global warming potential in this process."
He favours a thorough study of the financial and environmental costs and benefits of all the options, including making a big push into using waste as energy.
In Leicestershire, Biffa has a system for turning rubbish into electricity, via a process known as called anaerobic digestion.
Anything organic in the city's rubbish - old pizza boxes, food scraps, dirty paper - gets pulverised in a deafening, dark and smelly hall.
The resulting material - powdery and steaming - sits in giant vats for 18 days where it releases methane, which is trapped and then burned in generators.
It's not cheap but director David Savory forecasts that this represents a glimpse of the future.
Biffa will eventually switch from earning 40% of its revenue from landfill to making half its money from turning waste into power.
So rubbish is becoming a resource. And like any commodity, its value is volatile.
The conclusion? Financially, if you take a long view, it is worthwhile. Environmentally, it's more than likely to be positive.
Which leaves an ethical question: how to handle waste that we create? Well, everyone I met was agreed on one thing: just sticking it in the ground as landfill is a thing of the past.
Yahoo News 27 Jan 09;
PARIS (AFP) – Humans adjusting to water shortages caused by global warming could help a dengue fever-carrying mosquito expand into new parts of Australia, according to a study released Tuesday.
People hoarding water in ever-more parched swathes of the country already affected by climate change inadvertently create perfect breeding grounds for the potentially deadly insects, the study found.
Once confined to Africa, Aedes aegypti also carries viruses that cause yellow fever and the painful joint inflammation called chikungunya, and is today found throughout the tropics.
Its closely-related cousin, Aedes albopictus, spreads the same diseases, and has recently been found in southern Europe, finding new habitat in warmer climes.
A. aegypti first showed up in Australia in the 19th century. By the 1960s, eradication efforts reduced its range to the continent's northeastern state of Queensland.
Concerned about the potential impact of climate change on the species, a team of researchers led by Michael Kearney of the University of Melbourne designed a computer model to simulate its potential spread.
They looked at two habitats -- a 3,600-litre (9,500 gallons) water tank, and a 20-litre (five-gallon) bucket -- in different temperature conditions, one with near-total shade and another with very little.
Slight increases in average temperature would not by themselves expand the range in which the mosquitoes could easily survive, they found.
But when changes in human behaviour spurred by global warming were taken into account, the danger was suddenly multiplied many times over.
"In many Australian cities and towns, a major impact of climate change is reduced rainfall, resulting in a dramatic increase in domestic rainwater storage and other forms of water hoarding," explained Kearney in a press statement.
The still or stagnant water in such open-air containers provide an ideal spot for mosquitoes to lay eggs, the most vulnerable stage of their life cycle.
If conditions are too cold or too dry, the eggs will not develop into larvae.
"This indirect effect of climate change via human adaptation could dramatically re-expand the mosquito's current range," said Kearney.
The study, published in Functional Ecology, a journal of the British Ecological Society (BES), also factored in the capacity of the mosquitoes to evolve, a variable not previously included in such models.
Based on earlier research on fruit flies and other insects, the scientists conclude that A. aegypti would adapt through the process of natural selection, accelerating its spread into new areas where it cannot survive today.
"Evolution happens all the time in nature and can be very rapid, taking only a few generations to influence the fitness of populations," said co-author Ary Hoffmann, a professor of genetics at the University of Melbourne.
"Our results show that evolution can make a very large difference when predicting changes in species ranges under climate change."
The study recommended water hygiene education campaigns be set up in the regions most at risk.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gathering top scientists, warned in a landmark report in 2007 that climate change could spur the spread of mosquito-borne diseases, especially malaria and dengue.
Martin Roberts, PlanetArk 28 Jan 09;
MADRID - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on Tuesday said rich nations had to do more to prevent the economic crisis from adding to an already intolerable 1 billion people going hungry in the world.
Food prices had come down for the time being but the number of hungry people was set to rise again, Ban told the High Level Meeting on Food Security for All in Madrid.
"Continuing hunger is a deep stain on our world. The time has come to remove it forever. We have the wealth and know-how to do so," Ban said.
"We worked hard to bring food assistance to those who needed it in 2008. I expect we will need to work harder in 2009, this year of recession," he said.
The two-day Madrid meeting sponsored by the United Nations and other international organizations such as the World Bank followed a summit held in Rome last year at which donors pledged $22 billion in agriculture and food aid.
Aid groups say few of the promised funds have been disbursed. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization head Jacques Diouf told Reuters about $2 billion had been received to date, but more was due in coming years.
"A billion people are suffering from extreme hunger, so it's obvious the currently existing systems aren't doing their job," said Oxfam spokesman Alexander Woollcombe. "There needs to be demonstrative progress for these meetings to have any meaning."
Conference host and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said his government would spend 1 billion euros in farm aid and food security over the next five years.
The FAO said the number of hungry people increased by 40 million last year but investing $30 billion a year in infrastructure and agricultural production could eliminate the root causes of hunger by 2025.
FAO's Diouf noted at the meeting that $30 billion was just eight percent of the support to agriculture by OECD countries, and dwarfed by financial stimulus packages and world military spending of some $1.2 trillion a year.
Diouf has asked U.S. President Barack Obama to host a summit meeting this year to find ways and means of raising the money.
The FAO estimates 30-40 percent of food production is lost in many poor countries due to lack of storage facilities. Bad or non-existent roads also prevent food from reaching people.
Crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa are also low because just four percent of arable land is irrigated, compared with 38 percent in Asia. Similarly, just three percent of renewable water reserves are used in Africa, far below 18 percent in Asia.
(Editing by Jon Boyle)
UN warns of more food shortages without strong action
FAO 26 Jan 09;
Madrid meeting takes on global food, nutrition and agriculture problems
26 January 2009, Madrid - Chiefs of key international agencies pledged today to step up commitments against hunger and malnutrition, at the opening of a Madrid meeting on Food Security for All.
The meeting is hosted and organized by the Spanish Government and co-sponsored by the United Nations. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Prime Minister Rodriguez Zapatero will co-chair tomorrow´s plenary.
Participating are UN officials and representatives of international agencies belonging to the Secretary-General's High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis, along with leaders of think tanks, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The objectives of the meeting are to raise the political profile of hunger and food security, develop new partnerships and increase resources.
"With an expected increase of 40 million in 2008, the world today has reached 963 million people who are malnourished," said Jacques Diouf, Task Force vice-chairman and FAO Director-General, at the opening session. "This signifies that right now there are almost one billion who are hungry, out of the 6.5 billion who make up the world population."
The FAO Director-General called for an investment of $30 billion per year in agriculture of developing countries to double food production by 2050 and ensure the basic right to food for all people.
"I welcome Prime Minister Zapatero's timely initiative to call this meeting to address the crucial issue of food security," said Lennart Båge, President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
"Prices have fallen from their peaks in 2008, but the food crisis has not gone away. Nearly one billion people go hungry everyday and the underlying trends show that global agricultural production cannot keep up with rising demand. The world's 450 million smallholder farms can increase production, lifting millions of poor farm families out of poverty, while helping to feed the world, if they get the support and investment they need. I believe that a global partnership for agriculture and food security can help to ensure that they get it," Båge said.
"When the food crisis hit last year," said Josette Sheeran, Executive Director of the World Food Programme, "the world came together in the largest emergency response to hunger and malnutrition in human history. Now, as the financial crisis hits the hungry even harder, we must sustain these unprecedented efforts to meet the urgent food and nutritional needs of the most vulnerable people, while promoting smallholder farmers and agriculture."
She added that the WFP needs $5.2 billion in 2009 to provide food and nutrition assistance and safety net support to almost 100 million people, including smallholder farmers and 20 million children in school feeding programs.
"The risks for the world´s poor cannot be under-estimated," said Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Managing Director of the World Bank. "Food prices are highly volatile. Millions are malnourished. We need to draw on the experience of governments of the countries concerned, who have been dealing with the realities on the ground throughout. We have solutions and results, but funds are needed for scaling them up, to ensure that those who are most vulnerable get the assistance they need."
The High-Level Meeting on Food Security for All follows through on the June 2008 Food Summit in Rome. In the 5 June Rome Declaration, 181 States and the European Community pledged to alleviate the suffering caused by soaring food prices, stimulate agricultural development, food and smallholder farmer production and address obstacles to food access and adequate nutrition.
Posts
visitors since Nov 07