Best of our wild blogs: 28 Jun 09

Tanah Merah - making babies
from Singapore Nature

Chek Jawa
from teamseagrass

Checking out the Chek Jawa coral rubble area
from wild shores of singapore

Great Day @ Cyrene Reef
from Colourful Clouds

The Tigers Roams Again
from Garden Voices

Yellow-vented Bulbul: Fledging moment
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Pollution at Sungei Pandan wreck lovely scenery
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales and Api Api River is now too polluted for fishing

Endangered Indian star tortoise 'murdered' at Labrador Park
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Living Shores of Semakau
from Where Discovery Begins

Barnacles are hermaphrodites and other Sungei Buloh tales
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Rare sight of weaver bird nests in Bt Batok
from The Lazy Lizard's Tales

Storm’s Stork at Kinabatangan Jungle Camp
from Bird Ecology Study Group

Winged Beauties@ Endau Rompin (Selai) Part 1
from Beauty of Fauna and Flora in Nature and Part 2

Read more!

Be kind to animals

Even if you don't like dogs, surely you wouldn't throw a live one away in a plastic bag in East Coast Park?
Sumiko Tan, Sunday Times 28 Jun 09;

Somewhere out there in Singapore lives a wicked person.

Earlier this month, he - or she - decided to get rid of an old, injured dog.

Maybe the dog had outlived its purpose, maybe the person had simply grown tired of it, or maybe the man's car had hit the dog in an accident - I don't know.

But I do know he has a wicked heart because, instead of taking it to a vet or even placing it with the SPCA, he stuffed the pomeranian into a red plastic bag and threw it next to a rubbish bin in East Coast Park.

Clearly, he was banking on a garbage truck picking up the bag the next morning and sending it - and the dog inside - to the incinerator.

But some dog lovers stumbled on the bag. They were shocked to discover the animal inside and thought it was dead. But touching it, they realised that beneath the tangled fur, her - it's a female - little heart was still beating.

She was dazed, frightfully thin, had ticks and was weak and shivering. She tried to stand but couldn't.

A kind young woman and her husband agreed to house the dog. They fed her and cleaned her. That first night, she whined whenever the couple left her alone. They took turns to stroke her to sleep.

The next day, they took her to a vet who said that her central nervous system had been damaged. They also took her to a groomer who shaved her hair which was matted with pee and poo.

Over the next few weeks, the couple and other dog lovers who knew about the case took the dog swimming to strengthen her legs. People donated milk, pee pads and dog T-shirts. They sent her for acupuncture treatment and teeth scaling.

She got better and began to walk a little.

Last Sunday, I went to see the dog.

She has been named Pom Pom and she's tiny. She weighs as little as a bunch of bananas, her face is the size of a tomato and she has the saddest eyes I've seen in a dog.

She's an old dog - the vet estimated her to be seven, which would be 49 in human years. Her stomach is wrinkled and her teats are saggy (maybe she was from a puppy mill). Her teeth are in terrible shape.

She's still pitifully thin and didn't wag her tail the whole time I saw her, maybe because of the nerve damage. She's still very wobbly when she walks. It's not clear if she will fully recover.

You've got to have a really hard heart not to feel sorry for her.

I love dogs but I'm just a moderate dog lover. Pom Pom's caregivers are in a different league of animal lovers altogether. They go out of their way to take care of those which are abused and abandoned.

I find it too time-consuming and heart-rending to allow myself to be affected by every abandoned dog I encounter.

Over the years, I've taken in several strays but, after a while, you give up because the process is emotionally exhausting.

There was Benjie, a beautiful terrier whom my colleagues and I rescued from the Kampong Java pound. I kept him and loved him to bits. But he had been so abused by his owner that he was mad. Even the sound of snipping scissors would enrage him and he'd bite us. I got him neutered in the hope it would calm him but nothing worked. I had to put him down.

There was another terrier who lived next to a drain in the neighbourhood and would bite anyone who got near him. For weeks I took him food but he still wouldn't go home with me. One day he just disappeared.

There was Santa, a huge, friendly, old dog who ambled into my house one Christmas Day, made himself at home and died a year later of numerous ailments.

There was also Latka, whom we found trapped in a plot of land next door. We kept her and she died of old age.

Then there was Pepper, a Jack Russell we found tied to a lamp-post. We kept him for a month and then couldn't anymore because he was too wild and kept biting my other dog. I sent him to the SPCA, only to discover to my horror later that he had been put down because he was deemed unsuitable for adoption.

My heart went out to every dog and I cried buckets when they died. After a few rounds of this, you harden yourself.

I see a dog wandering around the neighbourhood and my instinct is to stop and check if it's lost and to find its owner or take it home. But these days, I tell myself that the dog's actually okay and I turn away. I can't get involved with it.

It's the same when it comes to animal rights activism.

Although I'm aware of the horror stories behind how animals are hunted for our food and used in products testing, I still eat hamburgers and fried chicken, I have not given up tuna and shark's fin, I still use cosmetics that rely on animal testing, and I would wear fur if I had to.

I can't allow myself to be a bleeding heart or I won't be able to function.

I remind myself we're all part of the food chain. Other than dogs and cats which have been domesticated, animals are meant to be eaten and used by human beings, although I grant it would be nice if there were less painful ways of killing them.

In fact, some animal rights activism borders on idiocy.

The folks at Peta, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for example, recently launched a campaign to try and change how children view fish (because Peta believes it is cruel to hunt and kill fish).

So, Peta says, fish should be renamed 'sea kittens'. The rationale is that if kids are taught that fish are as adorable as kittens, they will grow up to be vegetarians and leave the poor fish alone. (This, of course, ignores the irony of how cats eat fish.)

Or take how Peta reacted when American President Barack Obama killed a fly while being interviewed on TV. It urged Mr Obama to be more humane towards flies and sent him a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher, a device that allows users to trap a housefly and release it outside. Goodness, it's a cursed fly.

Why do some people love animals and others don't? Is empathy and antipathy for animals something you are born with or can it be acquired?

I've a friend who says he's 'neutral' about dogs although I suspect he dislikes them. He puts it down to how he was pounced upon by a great dane when he was a boy.

Another friend avoids all animals because when she was growing up, her mother often told her how dirty they were. She has never patted a dog in her life.

I used to think that animal haters can't be nice people but I've revised my opinion. Adolf Hitler was a dog-lover.

Being an animal lover doesn't necessarily mean you're a good person and vice versa. We're different, that's all, and there's no way you can convince one group to start feeling like the other.

But I'm sure even the most neutral of dog lovers will say it's heartless to throw away a dog in a plastic bag.

The thing is, the person who did it to Pom Pom probably didn't give a hoot what others think. I doubt he's losing sleep over his dastardly deed.

Somewhere in Singapore lives a wicked person.

What sweet revenge it'll be if Pom Pom recovers fully and goes on to live out the rest of her life showered with love and care.

Read more!

Lift HDB ban on cat ownership, tighten pet licensing rules

Sunday Times 28 Jun 09;

The Ministry of National Development (MND) can alleviate the problems highlighted in the article, 'Suffer the little critters'.

The Housing Board should relax rules barring cats from being kept in flats, while the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) can impose more stringent licensing and registration requirements for such pets.

Both organisations come under the MND.

I like my cats, cars and flowers, and have to resolve the conflicting requirements of the three. Cats shed fur, scratch cars, dig up plants and leave their poo in flower beds, which I discover when I do work by hand.

No wonder relationships are acrimonious between people who do not share an equal liking for all of the above.

Motorists justifiably complain about damage to their precious vehicles. Others hate the exceptionally pungent smell of feline urine and faeces, which the strays either do not bury properly in built-up areas, or do so among people's precious flowers.

Town councils and condominium management groups get

deluged with complaints. When they do not act promptly, some people, driven to desperation, may get rid of the offending cats in illegal ways.

As the vast majority of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, finding homes for cats is extremely difficult because of the HDB ban.

Cats are ideal indoor pets. If the ban is lifted, genuinely responsible animal lovers will be able to find more homes for strays.

If the AVA were to require that all cats be microchipped and registered, the animals can be identified. Steps can then be taken to ensure that owners do not allow their pets to become a nuisance.

While the article mentioned that the Nanyang Technological University staff managed the cats within their vast campus, their system will not work in densely populated residential areas with more diverse types of people, not all of whom will welcome free-roaming cats.

The humane solution is to hand the cats over to people prepared to accept full responsibility for them.

A concession by the HDB to allow cats in flats will greatly increase the pool of such caregivers and eliminate the vast majority of public complaints against felines.

Lee Chiu San

Twisted logic in trapper's act
Sunday Times 28 Jun 09;

We refer to last Sunday's article, 'I help stray cats end their suffering', in which Mr Tony Tan Tuan Khoon attempted to characterise his long history of trapping cats to be killed as an act of compassion.

Mr Tan correctly notes that indoor cats live longer, healthier lives compared to community (stray) cats. A truly compassionate reaction to that fact would be to try to find homes for such cats, or to systematically reduce their population through sterilisation programmes.

Mr Tan resorts instead to trapping them and taking them to the authorities to be culled. His attempt to disguise an act of cruelty as one of compassion results in arguments replete with twisted logic.

Well-managed colonies of community cats are ones with dedicated caregivers who feed these cats responsibly, care for their health, help to resolve cat-related complaints and, most importantly, ensure that all cats in the colony are sterilised.

This is a method that has been shown in the United States and elsewhere to be an effective and humane way to tackle the problem of overpopulation.

Contrary to what Mr Tan would have readers believe, not all stray cats lead lives of suffering and distress. Those in well-managed colonies can, in fact, lead healthy lives.

This is not to deny the dangers that confront cats - the risks of abuse, disease and accidents are ever present. That these risks exist cannot, however, be the impetus for killing them.

Reducing the stray cat population, having more punitive measures to deter abuse, and instilling in our young the need to respect animal life should be the focus of one who is truly compassionate.

Dr Michelle Lee
Cat Welfare Society

Sterilised strays can be a nuisance
Sunday Times 28 Jun 09;

I refer to last Sunday's article, 'Suffer the little critters'.

I support the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority's measure of culling the strays rather than releasing them back into the community after sterilisation.

Sterilising stray cats may still not ensure that they get fed properly. They may still go hungry and resort to finding their own food.

This may result in their adversely affecting public hygiene in the neighbourhood, such as when they knock over rubbish bins when searching for food.

Stray cats also tend to defecate anywhere they like, leaving an insanitary mess behind.

Brendan Tan

Give stray cats a chance to live in our communities
Straits Times Forum 6 Jul 09;

I REFER to Mr Brendan Tan's letter, 'Sterilised strays can be a nuisance' (June 28).

I have sterilised many cats and released them back into the community for many years. We should try to give these strays a chance to live in our urban society.

I work closely with the Cat Welfare Society. The cats around Hougang Avenue 3 are well looked after by many animal lovers. One particular woman never forgets to feed them. At every feeding session, she also cleans up the leftover food. She is a model example of an animal lover.

In my neighbourhood, some residents are more unhygienic than these cats. They throw litter immediately after the cleaner has cleaned up.

We should give these cats a chance to live their lives. They cannot voice their pleas for mercy, so I will do it on their behalf. Please have a heart and be compassionate.

Mr Tan can help by donating to the Cat Welfare Society so it can sterilise these stray cats.

See Choon Beng

Read more!

10 Indonesian governors vow to restore dwindling forests

Adianto P. Simamora, The Jakarta Post 27 Jun 09;

Ten Sumatran governors have pledged to restore forests and promote environmental sustainability by advocating for integrated spatial planning on the island.

The governors signed an agreement Friday to protect Sumatra's ecosystem and depleted forests.

As part of the agreement, the governors will restore damaged forests, protect existing forests and the sensitive ecosystem across the island.

They will also offer incentives to encourage local administrations to implement nature conservation programs.

State Minister for the Environment Rachmat Witoelar said that spatial planning in Sumatra should be oriented toward balancing both economic and environmental factors.

"Sumatra is currently one of the islands with the fastest deforestation rate in the country and is the largest *exporter' of haze to neighboring nations from its forest fires," Rachmat said.

"Thus, it is in your hands *governors* to increase the protected areas from the current rate of 30 percent to the ideal rate of at least 40 percent."

Noted environmentalist, Emil Salim, warned the governors to learn from the poor environmental management of Java, which has caused repeated natural disasters, especially floods in the region.

"Don't make the same mistake as Java," he said.

Data from the Office for the State Minister for the Environment reveals that 7.5 percent of Java is covered by forest, while 32 percent of Sumatra is forest.

Papua has the largest area of forests in the country, with 79 percent, followed by Maluku with 72 percent.

Public Works Minister Djoko Kirmanto said the plan to protect Sumatra's natural environment was crucial to solving the critical condition of rivers in Sumatra.

"There are 14 critical rivers in Sumatra and cooperation between the local administration and the local community to improve the quality of the rivers is urgently needed," he said.

Read more!

Study Outlines Potential Benefit of Green Economy for Indonesia

Fidelis E. Satriastanti, Jakarta Globe 27 Jun 09;

Even though environmental protection is still a marginalized issue, the State Ministry for the Environment continued to advocate green economic development by releasing a study into the concept in Jakarta on Friday.

Based on the study’s best-case scenario for a green economy, carbon emissions could be reduced by up to 179 million tons and Gross Domestic Product would increase by 2.8 percent, equivalent to about Rp 140 trillion ($13.7 billion). It would also create job opportunities for three million people and bring as many as 4.3 million people out of poverty.

Masnellyarti Hilman, the ministry’s deputy for environmental damage control, said the study was aimed at forest degradation and renewable energy in particular.

“We are very aware that we are still very dependent on our nonrenewable resources, such as oil and gas,” she said. “If we are trying to prevent that by turning to renewable resources, we would be able to cover the gap [if we ever run out of oil and gas].”

She said the study also found new schemes, such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), and ecotourism were good alternative ways to generate income from forests, rather than cutting them down for timber.

The joint study was undertaken by the ministry, consultancy group Strategic Asia and economic researchers from Padjajaran University in Bandung.

Meanwhile, State Minister for the Environment Rachmat Witoelar, said the idea to pursue a green economy was not something new and was already being implemented around the world.

“Basically, we are talking about efficiency and the three R’s, which are reduce, reuse and recycle,” he said. “Even though the cost is quite high, within five years developed countries will be providing assistance in this matter, whether through the Kyoto Protocol, voluntary market or bilateral relationships.”

Rachmat said that Indonesia could take advantage of developments in geothermal energy here to push developed countries for funding.

“It has been discussed in the negotiations and I think it is very important to understand that within five years, geothermal energy could bring more benefits to us in reducing emissions,” he said. “It is going to be a great loss for us if we don’t make use of it, even starting from today.”

Read more!

Malaysian Palm Oil Council chief: Palm oil has become important revenue earner

Hanim Adnan, The Star 27 Jun 09;

AMID the industry’s quest for sustainability and environmental protection, oil palm planters from Malaysia and Indonesia have been urged not to yield to the demands of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and environmentalists who are targeting deforestation.

Sharing global resources should mean sharing responsibility to sustain these resources, says Malaysian Palm Oil Council chief executive Tan Sri Dr Yusof Basiron at the close of the 6th International Planters Conference (IPC 2009) held here early this week.

“Right now, one part of the planet consumes and pollutes in its lavish lifestyle, while another part is forced to remain undeveloped and to preserve their forests for future generations,” he adds.

There is constant pressure to preserve the biodiversity and rainforests of the developing countries. However, this is a big burden for nations like Malaysia and Indonesia, which have to balance this with the task of ensuring economic development in their countries.

Yusof says oil palm planters cannot succumb to the NGOs’ demands because palm oil has become an important revenue earner to the developing nations.

“What is so wrong about cutting some of our forests to develop industrial areas, cities and township, and to make way for agriculture and infrastructure, given that we are developing countries?” he asks.

He warns that if planters in Malaysia and Indonesia continue to listen to NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of Earth and other anti-palm oil campaigners that oppose development involving deforestation, this will completely hinder the socio-economic development of the poorer nations.

Malaysia only needs 4.5 million ha to produce 20 million tonnes of palm oil, compared with 50 million ha to produce the same amount of soybean oil.

Yusof suggested the formation of a world agricultural and forestry body that will determine how much land each developing country can develop.

Indonesian Palm Oil Board vice-chairman Derom Bangun points out that Indonesian planters face significant challenges in acquiring the stringent Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification as well as in producing certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO).

Derom says it is tough to convince Indonesian companies that are not members of RSPO or GAPKI (the Indonesian Palm Oil Producers Association). Some 35% of Indonesia’s oil palm plantations belong to smallholders.

For large companies, the decision to move towards CSPO production depends on the size of the gap between the operating conditions of their plantations and mills, and the RSPO procedures and criteria, says Derom. A common problem for Indonesian plantation companies is obtaining the necessary licences and paperwork.

For example, certificates of land-use rights, licences to operate a plantation business and other similar documentation are difficult to produce as the law on regional autonomy is newly promulgated. This has caused confusion.

To date, 48 Indonesian companies have joined RSPO, and three of them have received certification.

Felda Plantations Sdn Bhd senior executive director plantation division Datuk Md Tahir Mohammed and Sime Darby Plantations Sdn Bhd senior vice-president II Syed Mahdhar Syed Hussain concur with Derom, that it is time-consuming to acquire RSPO certification.

Felda is still waiting for its plantation and mills to be certified despite having applied 1½ years ago, says Md Tahir.

“Unlike private sector companies, Felda manage smallholder estates in addition to its own estates. We understand why it will take us longer to get certified,” he adds.

As at this month, Sime Darby has received RSPO certification for five of its mills, with total oil palm area of 11,966ha producing 218,636 tonnes of CSPO, says Syed Mahdhar, adding that the group aims to get full RSPO certification for its remaining plantation operations.

Dr Goh Lian Tiong, head of sustainability for PT Musim Mas, the first Indonesian company to get RSPO certification, says huge investments in terms of money and other resources are ploughed into the RSPO process, but the immediate returns (that is, a premium on CSPO) is not apparent.

He wants the RSPO members, from the palm oil buyers to the processing constituents, to continuously support the RSPO initiative and promote the use of CSPO.

Read more!

Criticism Of Malaysian Investors In PNG Unwarranted: Forestry Industry Leader

Bernama 27 Jun 09;

PORT MORESBY, June 27 (Bernama) -- A leading figure in the business community in Papua New Guinea (PNG) has said criticism by environmental NGOs of Malaysian investment in PNG's forestry industry was unwarranted and unhelpful, as reported by the PNG media.

"There is an innuendo here which is totally out of place in a country like PNG where ethnicity is a very sensitive issue, as recent events have shown," said Executive Officer of the Papua New Guinea Forest Industries Association, Bob Tate.

He made clear the recent events he was referring were the anti-Chinese riots in PNG last month.

Tate criticized the Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights (CELCOR), an anti-forestry NGO for employing unethical tactics to advance its campaign to undermine the commercial forestry industry in PNG.

Tate was commenting on the release of a detailed report on CELCOR's campaign via news dissemination agency, ITS Global, Melbourne.

The report showed CELCOR based its campaign on lurid accusations of human rights abuse, sexual abuse of employees and even insinuations the forest industry fostered gun-running and people trafficking, he said.

He also said the report examined all these claims in detail and found they lacked substantiation.

"The report found CELCOR had used these accusations to justify claims that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) should investigate a leading PNG forestry company for human rights abuse and to pressure ANZ Bank customers in Australia to urge that it cut ties with the timber industry," said Tate.

Tate said the campaign failed because the Australian Government officials ruled they did not provide grounds for investigation by the OECD and because customers of the ANZ Bank did not respond as CELCOR hoped.

Now CELCOR and its associates in the Friends of the Earth Network, including Sahabat Alam Malaysia and Friends of the Earth in United Kingdom are lobbying around the world to block timber exports from PNG, and stymie Malaysian investment, he added.

Tate said it was time for CELCOR and its associates to stop these tactics which in the end only threaten the livelihoods of 20,000 or more people who depend on the forestry industry in PNG.

The forests in PNG are owned by local landowners who support the forest industry.

Claims of forests in PNG are under threat are also wrong as 60 per cent of PNG is forested and half of that area is not available for commercial forestry, he pointed out.

Tate said Malaysian investors in PNG have made major contributions to economic development in a poor country and should be congratulated for their contributions to national development.

"Papua New Guinea needs more, not less, Malaysian investment," he added.

-- BERNAMA

Read more!

CrossTalk: Is nuclear energy the answer for Malaysia?

New Straits Times 27 Jun 09;

Fresh nuclear debate was stirred earlier this month when Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced in South Korea that Malaysia would be developing a reactor. Dr Nahrul Khair Alang Mohd Rashid, president of the Malaysian Nuclear Society, and Dr Ronald McCoy, president of the Physicians for Peace and Social Responsibility, pitch their views with ARMAN AHMAD sitting in.

Nahrul: Depending on what you use it for, nuclear technology can be good (or bad). If you use it for peaceful purposes, then I am all for it. If it is for making weapons, missiles and other things, then this is the wrong use for it.

There is concern now over the proliferation of fuel from nuclear reactors to weapons. But there are certain technologies that make it impossible or very difficult for it to happen.

McCoy: As long as you have nuclear energy in a country, that country is a potential proliferator of nuclear weapons. There are so many examples, among them North Korea.

It is so difficult to control it. You can hide things.

As far as Malaysia is concerned, I am pretty confident that the country is not going for nuclear weapons because it has been so vocal about nuclear disarmament for many, many years. That is not going to change.

My only concern is with nuclear energy itself and all the hazards associated, environmental and health, and the cost involved.

Today with climate change, nuclear energy is not the answer.

Renewable sources of energy, changing lifestyle and sustainable development is part of the answer as well as energy efficiency and energy conservation.

These are all the different factors that go into the question of how we resolve climate change and global warming.

Nahrul: I agree on the more prudent use of energy, better efficiency and so on.

But with our energy needs, we see that at current technology levels there are not many possibilities of having sustainable energy without a good combination of nuclear and the rest.

McCoy: I agree about having an energy mix. But nuclear energy doesn't come into the picture at all.

It is not a clean source of energy. That is a terrible, terrible fallacy.

Nahrul: But if we look at it in its entirety, there is no such thing as clean energy. In a way, there is some level of polluting factor in there although we think it is clean.

The only question is how polluting it is and how much it affects the environment.

Take hydroelectric power for example, we may not think of it as polluting when it is running, but when we build it, we cut down forests.

NUCLEAR WASTE

McCoy: It is all relative. But my single greatest objection to the use of nuclear energy is what do we do to dispose of radioactive waste, which lasts for thousands and thousands of years.

Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years! What is that? 240 centuries! 24 millennia!

If prehistoric man started out with nuclear energy, today if we were still alive we would still be managing his waste. We are talking about radioactive waste forever.

Nahrul: But that is what makes plutonium very valuable today. The long half-life.

Now they are closing the loop. Plutonium can be used as a fuel for another type of nuclear reactor.

So that means we are more or less having an endless source of power supply.

That is why nuclear is getting more and more beautiful.

McCoy: That is very debatable.

Nahrul: (laughs) That is why we are here, right?

McCoy: My greatest concern is the disposal of radioactive waste.

Secondly, there are so many fallacies about the cost of nuclear energy. Nobody can say it is cheap. One of the problems about nuclear economics is that so much of the facts are hidden. This is one of the problems of industry.

When you want to sell a product, you say it is cheap. That is the way corporations and industries work.

Recently, in the International Herald Tribute there was this talk about what is happening in Finland. (After four years of construction and thousands of defects, the reactor's E3 billion (RM14.9 billion) price tag has increased at least 50 per cent.)

It is happening throughout the world. It is a very, very expensive form of energy.

Nahrul: You cannot generalise that because one or two countries say it is expensive, the rest will be expensive too.

You have to look at the local context too.

Secondly, look at how many reactors are now operating, and the companies are not going bankrupt.

But if you compare in terms of cost, with time even the renewable forms of energy will be expensive too because of the technology needed to overcome the technological challenges.

For example clean coal. Even though you have clean coal you still have to stock coal. You have to burn coal all time to create energy. Imagine how much is needed, this is not including transportation.

McCoy: I am not saying coal is cleaner than nuclear. But I am saying that electric power produced by nuclear reactors is clean in inverted commas.

But the whole nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium mining onwards generates a lot of CO2 emissions. It is not entirely free of CO2 emmisions.

You also have to look at the cost of managing nuclear waste.
CHERNOBYL

You have also to think about the possibility of a nuclear accident. Look at Chernobyl (1986 nuclear reactor accident in Ukraine).

Most of the (nuclear reactor) accidents are caused by human error.

Malaysia has a very bad reputation for maintenance. There is no maintenance culture.

So, one Chernobyl disaster will wipe out this country with radioactivity.

Nahrul: But I don't think that is the right way. Just because...

McCoy: Why are you saying that? You know Murphy's Law -- If anything can go wrong, one day it will go wrong. Can you imagine a Chernobyl in Malaysia?

Nahrul: I will not imagine that yet, because there are more than 400 nuclear reactors in the world and since Chernobyl there hasn't been an accident on that scale.

McCoy: Until tomorrow, when we have an accident, then your theory is finished.

Nahrul: So far, we have only been waiting for that tomorrow.

If you are talking about culture. Actually sometimes culture can evolve with technology.

If you don't have technology, then you will not have a quality culture, because you don't have a need to handle sophisticated equipment.

I think we are really pressed for alternatives for energy because with the depletion of fossil fuel, we will not have the energy we need.

Of course, we can reduce the pressure or the demand for energy through prudent use and becoming more efficient.

McCoy: If you want to take so many risks for nuclear energy, I would agree with you if you had no alternatives. But we have safer alternatives.

We must put our money into research and development of renewable sources of energy. If we put our money in nuclear energy, we will deprive ourselves.

Nahrul: Even with renewable sources of energy it will not be enough. It must be a good mix between all sort of energy.

McCoy: I feel it must be a mix too, but I don't think nuclear energy should be part of this mix.

Nahrul: Technology is moving. What was waste before is no longer waste now. Say for example plutonium and all other wastes.

The spent fuel is being reprocessed and made as a fuel for a new type of reactor. The waste will be very minimal.

McCoy: But when is it coming? If we put our money into nuclear technology, then 20 years down the line, we might discover that no such thing exists.

Nahrul: They are not throwing the waste. Remember the Yucca mountain site?

(US president) Bush created it as a disposal site. Obama is opening it up because the waste can now be used as a fuel for a new source of energy.
EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY

So what we thought before was waste is now actually a resource. It was waste only because we did not know how to make use of it. Technology is evolving.

McCoy: But this is still to be proven isn't it?

Nahrul: Yes. But renewable energies are also yet to be proven. There is no city in the world that is powered by solar energy, for example.

McCoy: It has to be a mix, biofuel, biomass. I hope in the future, we will develop renewable sources of energy, and a culture of efficiency and conversation.

And I think we also have to come to terms with the fact that we must have a limit to economic growth. This world talks about economic growth for what? Where do the profits go to?

Does it go to poor people on the ground? No, it goes into these deep, deep pockets of very rich people.

There has to be a limit, and development must be sustainable. We are using natural resources to the point where we are now in a very serious position as far as climate change is concerned.

Nahrul: If you are talking about renewable sources of energy, there is the example of solar energy. The sun can produce what is called thermal inversion due to the heating due to the refraction of the light around the solar panel. That also must be studied.

McCoy: There is a lot we don't know about renewable energies because we haven't spent money or time on research.

If we put our money in nuclear, then we will be depriving money we could put into research for renewable sources of energy. There are manya lot of countries in the world that don't use nuclear energy.

Nahrul: But those countries today that don't use nuclear power, take electricity from neighbouring countries that produce nuclear power.

McCoy: Yes. Like parts of Europe. From Russia.

Nahrul: So there is no need for them to have nuclear power plants.

These countries in Europe are small. There is no need for them to have nuclear plants, they just buy the power. It is cheaper this way.

Currently there are about 440 nuclear power plants in the world.

McCoy: There are no guarantees for the safety of a nuclear power plant.

Nahrul: We don't look at the stadium that collapsed in Kuala Terengganu (a year after it was built). We look at Kuala Lumpur City Centre, the Petronas Twin Towers or the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.

McCoy: But you must also look at the possibility of a dis aster occurring.

Nahrul: When we look at the negative, sometimes we feel that we are not good enough.

(Dr Mahathir, a strong believer in Malaysia Boleh, recently said tak boleh when it came to a nuclear reactor)

Nahrul: (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad) surprised me too. When he visited the Malaysian Nuclear Agency, some years ago he said the use of nuclear technology for other things was ok.

But for electricity, maybe not. We have a small reactor in Bangi. It's a one-megawatt reactor. It's been running fine. I was the manager for 30 years. But of course it's too small to have a meltdown.

McCoy: He has never been in favour. We've talked about this in the last few years, and I have always known that he was very much opposed to nuclear energy.

Read more!

Litter of lynx kittens heartens US biologists

Judith Kohler, Associated Press Yahoo News 27 Jun 09;

DENVER – The discovery of 10 lynx kittens this spring marks the first newborns documented in Colorado since 2006, heartening biologists overseeing restoration of the mountain feline.
The tuft-eared cats with big, padded feet were native to Colorado, but were wiped out by the early 1970s by logging, trapping, poisoning and development. They are listed as threatened on the endangered species list.

Biologists found no kittens the past two years, possibly partly because of a drop in the number of snowshoe hares, the cats' main food source.

This year, seven male and three female kittens were found in five dens.

More than 200 lynx from Alaska and Canada have been released in Colorado since 1999. Biologists don't know how many lynx are currently in the state.

Read more!

Legless frogs mystery solved

Matt Walker, BBC News 25 Jun 09;

Scientists think they have resolved one of the most controversial environmental issues of the past decade: the curious case of the missing frogs' legs.

Around the world, frogs are found with missing or misshaped limbs, a striking deformity that many researchers believe is caused by chemical pollution.

However, tests on frogs and toads have revealed a more natural, benign cause.

The deformed frogs are actually victims of the predatory habits of dragonfly nymphs, which eat the legs of tadpoles.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers started getting reports of numerous wild frogs or toads being found with extra legs or arms, or with limbs that were partly formed or missing completely.

The cause of these deformities soon became a hotly contested issue.

Some researchers believed they might be caused naturally, by predators or parasites.

Others thought that was highly unlikely, fearing that chemical pollution, or UV-B radiation caused by the thinning of the ozone layer, was triggering the deformations.

"Deformed frogs became one of the most contentious environmental issues of all time, with the parasite researchers on one side, and the 'chemical company' as I call them, on the other," says Stanley Sessions, an amphibian specialist and professor of biology at Hartwick College, in Oneonta, New York.

"There was a veritable media firestorm, with millions of dollars of grant money at stake."

After a long period of research, Sessions and other researchers established that many amphibians with extra limbs were actually infected by small parasitic flatworms called Riberoria trematodes.

These creatures burrow into the hindquarters of tadpoles where they physically rearrange the limb bud cells and thereby interfere with limb development.

"But that was not end of the story," says Sessions.

"Frogs with extra limbs may have been the most dramatic-looking deformities, but they are by far the least common deformities found," he explains.

"The most commonly found deformities are frogs or toads found with missing or truncated limbs, and although parasites occasionally cause limblessness in a frog, these deformities are almost never associated with the trematode species known to cause extra limbs."

Missing legs

The mystery of what causes frogs to have missing or deformed limbs remained unsolved until Sessions teamed up with colleague Brandon Ballengee of the University of Plymouth, UK. They report their findings in the Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution.

For a decade, Ballengee and Sessions have collaborated on a series of art and science projects that image amphibians' bodies to show the detail within, the most recent of which is funded by the Arts Catalyst organisation, based in London.

As part of this work, Ballengee and Richard Sunter, the official Recorder of Reptiles and Amphibians in Yorkshire, spent time during the summers of 2006 to 2008 surveying the occurrence of deformities in wild amphibians at three ponds in the county.

In all, they found that between 1.2% and 9.8% of tadpoles or metamorphosed toads at each location had hind limb deformities. Three had missing eyes.

"We were very surprised when we found so many metamorphic toads with abnormal limbs, as it was thought to be a North American phenomenon," says Ballengee.

While surveying, Ballengee also discovered a range of natural predators he suspected could be to blame, including stickleback fish, newts, diving beetles, water scorpions and predatory dragonfly nymphs.

So Ballengee and Sessions decide to test how each predator preyed upon the tadpoles, by placing them together in fish tanks in the lab.

None did, except three species of dragonfly nymph.

Crucially though, the nymphs rarely ate the tadpoles whole. More often than not, they would grab the tadpole and chew at a hind limb, often removing it altogether.

"Once they grab the tadpole, they use their front legs to turn it around, searching for the tender bits, in this case the hind limb buds, which they then snip off with their mandibles," says Sessions.

Stunted growth

Remarkably, many tadpoles survive this ordeal.

"Often the tadpole is released and is able to swim away to live for another day," says Sessions. "If it survives it metamorphoses into a toad with missing or deformed hind limbs, depending on the developmental stage of the tadpole."

If tadpoles are attacked when they are very young, they can often regenerate their leg completely, but this ability diminishes as they grow older.

The researchers confirmed this by surgically removing the hind limbs of some tadpoles and watching them grow. These tadpoles developed in an identical way to those whose limbs had been removed by dragonflies, confirming that losing a limb at a certain stage of a tadpole's development can lead to missing or deformed limbs in adulthood.

Adult amphibians with one one hind limb appear able to live for quite a long time, Sessions says, explaining why so many deformed frogs and toads are discovered.

Why do the dragonflies like to eat the hind legs only?

As toad tadpoles mature, they develop poison glands in their skin much earlier than those in their hind legs, which could make the hind legs a far more palatable meal.

The front legs of tadpoles also develop within the gill chamber, where they are protected.

Sessions is careful to say that he doesn't completely rule out chemicals as the cause of some missing limbs. But 'selective predation' by dragonfly nymphs is now by far the leading explanation, he says.

"Are parasites sufficient to cause extra limbs?," he asks. "Yes. Is selective predation by dragonfly nymphs sufficient to cause loss or reduction of limbs. Yes. Are chemical pollutants necessary to understand either of these phenomena? No."

Read more!

Belize barrier reef and Los Katios park in danger

IUCN 27 Jun 09;

The Belize Barrier Reef System and Los Katios National Park in Columbia are the two natural sites added to the List of World Heritage in Danger, following the advice of IUCN.

Composed of seven protected areas, many small mangrove islands and coastal lagoons, the Belize Barrier Reef System is home to a number of threatened species, including marine turtles and the American crocodile.

A series of technical assessments and a joint IUCN/UNESCO monitoring mission to Belize in March 2009 revealed alarming developments such as extensive mangrove cutting and sale of mangrove islands. The Belize Barrier Reef, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere, is also the country’s top tourist destination.

“By adding the Belize Barrier Reef to the List of World Heritage in Danger, the World Heritage Committee is acting to ensure that one of the world’s most outstanding natural places is being protected and that the international community is doing its utmost to support Belize in its conservation efforts," says Tim Badman, Head of the IUCN delegation at the World Heritage Committee meeting.

Los Katios National Park was added to the World Heritage List in 1994 because of the exceptional diversity of flora and fauna in the area, consisting of low hills, tropical rainforests and wetlands. Illegal logging, security concerns, overfishing and potential road construction are all recognized threats to the outstanding value of the site.

“Los Katios National Park needs a high level of protection, one that must involve not only the national authorities but the international community as well," says Pedro Rosabal, IUCN’s Senior Programme Officer on Protected Areas. "IUCN commends the State Party for its proposal to put the site on the danger list. Critical conservation threats call for global action and the danger list is the mechanism we have at our disposal to help countries protect the world heritage.”

For more information or to set up interviews, please contact:

* Borjana Pervan, IUCN Media Relations Officer, m +41 79 857 4072, e borjana.pervan@iucn.org
* Sarah Horsley, IUCN Media Relations Officer, m +41 79 528 3486, e sarah.horsley@iucn.org
* Sonsoles Sanroman, IUCN Communications, t + 34.95.202.8430 (ext. 106), e sonsoles.sanroman@iucn.org

For more information on all natural sites on the World Heritage In Danger List, please visit: http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/

For high resolution images, please visit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/iucnweb/sets/72157619639272706/

About IUCN’s work on World Heritage

Each year IUCN, the independent advisory body on nature to UNESCO, reports to the World Heritage Centre on the conservation status of certain natural and mixed World Heritage sites under threat. IUCN’s assessments on what is happening in World Heritage sites are derived from a variety of sources: IUCN members, indigenous peoples groups, the scientific community, experts from IUCN commissions and concerned individuals and organizations.

Read more!

Time to get serious for tuna nations

WWF 28 Jun 09;

San Sebastian, Spain: International tuna treaty parties have totally failed to come up with ways to cap fishing capacity, are mostly failing to follow the advice of their own scientists and are making only slow progress in reducing illegal fishing and overfishing and bycatch of other marine life, according to a new assessment by WWF.

Three scorecards, covering the management of fisheries, and performance in reducing illegal fishing and levels of bycatch, were issued as representatives of around 80 nations involved in the five tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) gathered in San Sebastian, Spain amid rising global awareness and concern on tuna.

WWF found that not one of the tuna RFMOs is doing a good job in any area. Most are making slow progress and have room for improvement, but some are falling way short in important areas.

In general terms, governments are performing most poorly in the area of conservation and management of tuna stocks, with little advance in the key area of addressing the size and capacity of the fleets chasing fewer and fewer fish.

All 23 identified, commercially exploited stocks of tuna are heavily fished, with at least nine classified as fully fished and a further four classified as overexploited or depleted. Three stocks are classified as Critically Endangered, three as Endangered, and three as Vulnerable to extinction.

“Our assessment shows a resource in trouble, fisheries in trouble and institutions in trouble,” said Miguel Jorge, Marine Director at WWF International. “But we believe there is still time to protect key ocean ecosystems where tuna is a top predator, and conserve the fisheries and the communities that depend on them.”

“We now have too much experience to ignore on how fast over-exploited fisheries collapse and how slowly, if at all, they recover. With Bluefin tuna none of the collapsed populations are recovering and the remaining populations are clearly heading towards collapse.”

WWF will be asking the meeting to do more to prevent bycatch of turtles, sharks, juvenile tuna and other animals. Key measures will involve more effective regulation of the bycatch problem associated with the use of Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs).

“We know enough right now for governments to immediately adopt and implement best-practices to avoid bycatch,” said Jorge. “Even best-practices can be improved, so ongoing research and on-the-water trials are critical to bring bycatch as close to zero as possible.”

WWF’s assessment traced progress on key fisheries management measures since the first global meeting of governments involved in tuna fisheries, in Kobe, Japan in 2007. That meeting agreed on a 14 point action plan for all RFMOs.

“So far, we haven’t seen much action,” said Jorge.

“We know what needs to be done. What we would like to see from San Sebastian are clear sings that the community of tuna nations is setting up global consensus on real moves towards addressing the key issues of over-capacity and bycatch.

“We know it won’t be easy, but there are no other choices.”

Read more!

Wood harvest puts pandas at risk

Matt Walker, BBC News 26 Jun 09;

People and giant pandas are still coming into conflict.

So concludes a report into the firewood collecting habits of people living in one of China's largest panda reserves.

It found that over the past 30 years, people living in rural communities have ventured ever deeper into prime panda habitat to collect wood to burn.

Unless more is done to meet the needs of these rural households, the report says, they may continue to cut down prime forest, putting pandas at risk.

Collecting wood to use as fuel is extremely common around the developing world, with some reports suggesting that up to three billion people still rely on wood as a main source of energy to cook with and heat their homes.

That in turn significantly impacts wildlife habitats, which can become degraded and fragmented as trees are chopped down.

Guangming He of the Michigan State University in East Lansing, US led a team that examined how the collection of firewood has impacted panda habitat in the Wolong Nature Reserve in Sichuan Province, China.

More than 15% of the nation's land area is legally protected in thousands of nature reserves and national parks, and the Wolong Nature Reserve is one of the largest dedicated to protecting the giant panda, holding around 150, or roughly 10%, of the remaining wild population of pandas.

The team surveyed how the wood collecting habits of 200 rural households in the reserve had changed since the 1970s.

"The impacts of fuelwood collection on panda habitat over time and space were not known," says He.

His team found that over the past 30 years, residents have increasingly travelled further into the forest, to more remote and high elevations, to collect wood. Trees such as oak, maple, birch, spruce and larch are chopped down, and the logs driven home to be chopped down further into firewood.

"Collectors were travelling longer distances to physically challenging areas," says He. "In our case, to areas of high quality panda habitat."

The number of sites where people cut down trees for firewood increased threefold during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, says the report, published in Landscape and Urban Planning by He and colleagues based in the US and at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bejing and China's Center for Giant Panda Research and Conservation based in the Wolong Nature Reserve.

That's a problem for pandas, which occupy temperate montane forests with dense stands of bamboo at altitudes of 1,200 to 4,100m.

Since the 1970s, roads have been constructed within the reserve, including one that bisects it, to encourage local people to visit local markets rather than rely on the forest for resources.

However, these roads extended so far into the forest that they helped residents reach previously inaccessible trees, He's team found.

But "the most surprising result would be that many households were aware of fuelwood collection regulations and understood their importance to panda conservation, but many of them did not comply," He says.

China has recently provided extensive financial help to many rural households in the Wolong Nature Reserve, helping them switch to electricity rather than rely on firewood for their energy needs.

But more should be done to lower electricity prices to discourage people from collecting wood, says He.

Otherwise, he says, "if fuelwood collection continues, then all wild pandas in the reserve will be impacted."

Read more!

Brazil's Lula signs Amazon bill

Tim Hirsch, BBC News 26 Jun 09;

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has approved a controversial bill allowing Amazon farmers to acquire an area of public land larger than France.

But the president vetoed some of the most contentious clauses that would have enabled absentee landlords and companies to benefit from the measure.

Smaller parcels of public land will be handed over for free, and larger ones at reduced or market rates.

Critics say it will amount to an amnesty for illegal land-grabbers.

The law is intended to end the chaotic state of land occupation in the Amazon.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers have no legal title over their land, with claims often dating back decades.

President Lula vetoed changes to the bill made during its passage through congress, which he claims would have altered the original aim to benefit smaller farmers.

But he has left in a clause that allows larger properties to be sold on within three years, instead of requiring the new owner to hold on to the land for at least a decade.

Environmental groups fear that could lead to a heating up of land speculation in the Amazon and encourage occupation of new forest areas.

Among the critics of the measure have been federal prosecutors in the Amazon, who claim it is unconstitutional because it enables land to be given to people who have acquired it illegally, and because it could infringe the rights of traditional and indigenous communities.

Read more!

Africa alone could feed the world

New Scientist 27 Jun 09;

DOOM-MONGERS have got it wrong - there is enough space in the world to produce the extra food needed to feed a growing population. And contrary to expectation, most of it can be grown in Africa, say two international reports published this week.

The first, projecting 10 years into the future from last year's food crisis, which saw the price of food soar, says that there is plenty of unused, fertile land available to grow more crops.

"Some 1.6 billion hectares could be added to the current 1.4 billion hectares of crop land [in the world], and over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and Latin America," concludes the report, compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

If further evidence were needed, it comes in a second report, launched jointly by the FAO and the World Bank. It concludes that 400 million hectares, straddling 25 African countries, are suitable for farming.

Models for producing new crop land already exist in Thailand, where land originally deemed agriculturally unpromising, due to irrigation problems and infertile soil, has been transformed into a cornucopia by smallholder farmers.

As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.

Read more!

US Climate bill may spur energy revolution

H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Yahoo News 27 Jun 09;

WASHINGTON – Congress has taken its first step toward an energy revolution, with the prospect of profound change for every household, business, industry and farm in the decades ahead.

It was late Friday when the House passed legislation that would, for the first time, require limits on pollution blamed for global warming — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. Now the Senate has the chance to change the way Americans produce and use energy.

What would the country look like a decade from now if the House-passed bill — or, more likely, a water-down version — were to become the law of the land?

"It will open the door to a clean energy economy and a better future for America," President Barack Obama said Saturday.

But what does that mean to the average person?

Energy touches every corner of the economy and in countless ways can alter people's lives.

Such a law would impact how much people pay to heat, cool and light their homes (it would cost more); what automobiles they buy and drive (smaller, fuel efficient and hybrid electric); and where they will work (more "green" jobs, meaning more environmentally friendly ones).

Critics of the House bill brand it a "jobs killer." Yet it would seem more likely to shift jobs. Old, energy-intensive industries and businesses might scale back or disappear. Those green jobs would emerge, propelled by the push for nonpolluting energy sources.

That could mean making or installing solar panels, repairing wind turbines, producing energy-efficient light bulbs, working for an environmental engineering firm or waste recycler, making equipment that harnesses carbon from coal burning and churning out energy-saving washing machines or air conditioners.

Assembly line workers at factories that made gas-guzzling cars might see their future in producing the next generation of batteries or wind turbine blades — an emerging shift, though on a relatively small scale today. On Wall Street, commodity brokers would trade carbon pollution credits alongside oil futures.

Farmers would see the cost of fertilizer and electricity go up. More windmills would dot their pastures. And a new source of income could come from selling pollution credits by planting trees or changing farming methods to absorb more carbon dioxide.

Energy would cost more because it would become more expensive to produce. For the first time there would be a price on the greenhouse gas pollution created when coal, natural gas or oil are burned. Energy companies would have to pay for technologies that can capture the carbon emissions, purchase pollution allowances or shift to cleaner energy sources.

It all costs.

Investors would see a new line item on companies financial reports: the cost of carbon permits.

Some increases would be reflected in the prices of goods and services, economics say. It might mean shelling out more for a toy because plastic, a petroleum based product, is more expensive, or paying more for a house because of new efficiency requirements.

Not all the higher energy cost would show up in people's utility bills. Households, as well as business and factories — including those, for example, making plastic for toys — could use less energy, or at least use it more efficiently. The poorest of homes could get a government check as a rebate for high energy costs. That money would come from selling pollution allowances for industry.

Energy experts in government and industry say a price on carbon pollution would lead to new ways to make renewable energy less expensive, while emphasizing how people can use it more wisely.

Potential changes to how homes are built and even financed seem likely as energy efficiency is taken into account in building codes and the cost of mortgages. With the cost of energy increasing, homeowners and businesses would have greater incentive to use more energy efficient lighting, windows and insulation.

But don't think that the traditional sources of energy would disappear.

Coal, which today accounts for half the electricity produced, would continue as a major energy source, though a less polluting one, energy experts forecast. That would mean capturing the carbon released when coal is burned.

It's a technological hurdle with a complication: "not in my back yard" complaints over what to do with the billions of tons of carbon dioxide captured from power plants and pumped beneath the earth. Would people feel comfortable having it stored near or under their homes, factories and businesses?

Scientists studying climate change say carbon capture from power plants is essential if the country is to take up the challenge against global warming.

The cleaner energy economy also put nuclear energy front and center. Does the U.S. build new power plants? If so, where, and where does all the waste go? Nuclear energy makes up about one-fifth of the nation's electricity today.

The House-passed bill contains provisions to make it easier to get loan guarantees and expands the nuclear industry's access to loans for reactor construction. An Environmental Protection Agency analysis that shows modest future costs from a low-climate energy world assumes a significant expansion of nuclear energy. The Senate could add more incentives for the nuclear industry.

The new energy world would rely more on natural gas. This abundant fossil fuel emits carbon but is relatively clean when compared with coal. But people would have to decide whether to accept new pipelines that are needed to ship the gas around the country — just as they would have to deal with the need for new power lines to move solar and wind energy to where it's needed.

EDITOR'S NOTE — H. Josef Hebert has covered energy and environmental issues for The Associated Press since 1990.

Barack Obama's US climate change bill passes key Congress vote
Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian 27 Jun 09;

America has taken historic action against climate change, with the US Congress voting to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming.

The house of representatives has voted 219 to 212 to bind the US to cutting carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels in 2020 and 83% in 2050. It will also set up a national cap and trade system.

Democrats claimed the bill – the first such measure ever to win a vote in Congress – as an important victory.

"The house has passed the most important energy and environment bill in our nation's history," said Ed Markey, one of the bill's authors. "Scientists say global warming is a dangerous man-made problem. Today we are saying clean energy will be the American-made solution."

Even the bill's most implacable opponents acknowledged its importance in transforming US energy use. "This could be the defining bill of this Congress," said Republican house leader John Boehner.

The bill must still clear the Senate – where it faces even more daunting odds – before it can be signed into law. But the vote was indisputably an important victory for Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. For Obama, it was a first step towards redemption of one of his signature campaign promises, within six months of coming to the White House.

The vote also delivers an important boost to the prospects of reaching an agreement for international action on climate change at Copenhagen this year.

"I think it will have a very positive impact on the Copenhagen process because the international negotiations have largely been stymied by countries waiting to see what the US will do," said Jennifer Haverkamp, the director of international climate policy for the Environmental Defence Fund. "Passage of the house bill is just one step in that process, but it is such a crucial step and a high hurdle."

In addition to establishing a cap and trade system that is the heart of the 1,200-page bill, the measures approved by the house would require power companies to produce 15% of their electricity from wind and solar energy.

But the bill's passage was hard-won. By the time of the vote, the Democratic leadership had made several major concessions to win support from party refuseniks, weakening the bill. Several environmental organisations admitted they were disappointed. Greenpeace went so far as to call on Congress to reject it.

Even after giving ground on the bill, the White House and Democrats were forced to go to extraordinary lengths to muster enough support for passage. Obama put his personal prestige on the line – making three appeals in the space of 48 hours this week for Congress to deliver the bill.

The White House also oversaw a furious public relations effort to sell the sweeping package of energy reforms as a jobs creation programme.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker, and her lieutenants lobbied till the last minute to round up final stragglers, but heroic measures were needed. Patrick Kennedy of Massachusetts, who checked in to a rehab clinic two weeks ago, returned to Congress; so did John Lewis of Georgia despite having surgery only days ago.Forty-four Democrats – mostly from conservative and rural areas – voted against the measure. However, eight Republicans voted for the bill, breaking their party's blanket opposition to action on climate change, and allowing Obama to claim a share of bipartisan support for his energy reforms.

Read more!