Best of our wild blogs: 2 Sep 09


Turtle sighting at Pulau Hantu
from Pulau Hantu

Butterfly of the Month - September 2009: The Archduke
from Butterflies of Singapore

Flora and Fauna @ Toa Payoh Sensory Park (Part 2)
from Beauty of Fauna and Flora in Nature

Assoc. Prof. Hugh Tan on "Cultivating the Native Plants of Singapore" from wild shores of singapore

What motivates cross-breeding?
from Bird Ecology Study Group

The Importance Of Grooming
from Life's Indulgences and The fungi are blooming

No one likes the mangroves
from The annotated budak


Read more!

Outlook "poor" for Great Barrier Reef: report

Rob Taylor, Reuters Alertnet 2 Sep 09;

CANBERRA, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest living organism, is under grave threat from climate warming and coastal development, and its prospects of survival are "poor", a major new report found on Wednesday.

While the World Heritage-protected site, which sprawls for more than 345,000 square km (133,000 sq miles) off Australia's east coast, is in a better position than most other reefs globally, the risk of its destruction was mounting.

"Even with the recent management initiatives to improve resilience, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor and catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted," a government reef management body said in the report.

The five-yearly reef outlook report, aimed at benchmarking the health of the reef, found climate change, declining water quality from coastal runoff, development and illegal fishing were the biggest dangers to the reef.

The study echoed findings by scientists belonging to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Great Barrier Reef could be "functionally extinct" within decades, with deadly coral bleaching likely to be an annual occurrence by 2030.

The reef was one of the most diverse and remarkable ecosystems in the world, and populations of almost all marine species were still large, the government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said in the report.

But some ecologically important species, such as dugongs, marine turtles, seabirds, black teatfish and some sharks had declined significantly, while coral diseases and pest outbreaks like crown-of-thorns starfish appeared to be increasing and becoming more serious.

CHALLENGE AHEAD

A separate report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, also released on Wednesday, found ocean temperatures on northern parts of the reef had been a degree above average through winter, pointing to a bad year for coral bleaching. "We know that a failure to act on dangerous climate change puts at risk significant places like the Great Barrier Reef and this report confirms the scale of the challenge ahead," Australia's Environment Minister Peter Garrett said.

Bleaching occurs when the tiny plant-like coral organisms die, often because of higher temperatures, and leave behind only a white limestone reef skeleton.

Garrett and Queensland state Premier Anna Bligh unveiled a plan to improve water quality on the reef. It followed a report last year which found agricultural run-off was killing the reef, with some sections already irreversibly damaged.

The plan aimed to halve the runoff of harmful nutrients and pesticides by 2013 and ensure 80 percent of agricultural enterprises and 50 percent of grazing operations were taking steps to reduce runoff.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) said the report added urgency to a debate in Australia's parliament on laws to curb carbon emissions, rejected last month by the upper house Senate and due for a second vote in mid-November.

"We cannot sit back and let the world's largest and most iconic reef system die on our watch," said WWF reef campaigner Nick Heath. (Editing by Robert Birsel)

Great Barrier Reef May Face Catastrophic Damage, Report Says
Ed Johnson, Bloomberg 2 Sep 09;

Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Catastrophic damage to the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s most extensive coral reef system, may be unavoidable if global warming continues unchecked, according to an Australian report published today.

Improving water quality and further research into the effects of fishing are among initiatives that will give the reef the best chance of adapting to the “serious threats” ahead, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority said.

“If changes in the world’s climate become too severe, no management actions will be able to climate-proof” its ecosystem, the authority said in its “Outlook Report 2009.”

The Great Barrier Reef, which stretches along 2,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) of Australia’s northeastern coast, is one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Covering 348,000 square kilometers, it is larger than Italy, according to the Australian government.

The reef contributes about $A5.4 ($4.5) billion to the Australian economy through tourism, fishing and other industries and supports more than 50,000 jobs, according to the government.

Scientists say it is under threat from climate change as sea levels rise, storms and cyclones become more destructive, water temperatures increase and the ocean becomes more acidic.

The Australian government responded to the report with a plan to cut the amount of pollution reaching the reef in runoff water from agricultural land.

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett and Queensland state Premier Anna Bligh introduced a new water protection plan to halve the harmful runoff, containing pollutants such as pesticides and phosphorous, entering the reef in the next five years.

Water Quality

“Improving the quality of water flowing into the reef is one of the most important things we can do to help the reef withstand the impacts of climate change,” Bligh said in a statement.

In 2007, an estimated 6.6 million metric tons of sediment, 16,600 tons of nitrogen and 4,180 tons of phosphorous reached the waters of the reef, concentrations high enough to cause environmental harm, according to the government.

Under the plan, the government aims to ensure 80 percent of agricultural businesses such as sugarcane, cotton and dairy farms have improved soil, nutrient and chemical management practices by 2013.

The Great Barrier Reef is home to an estimated 1,500 species of fish and more than 360 species of hard coral, according to the Department of the Environment. Its seagrass beds are an important feeding ground for the dugong, a vulnerable mammal species, and the reef contains nesting grounds for the endangered loggerhead turtle.

Coral Growth

Growth of coral on the reef is declining more than at any time in four centuries, the Australian Institute of Marine Science in Townsville, Queensland reported in January.

The fate of corals is crucial to the livelihoods of millions of coastal dwellers around the world. Reefs are worth about $30 billion a year to the global economy through tourism, fisheries and coastal protection, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a United Nations-supervised study.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has proposed reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 2000 levels in the next decade in the event of an international accord stabilizing carbon levels.

Government legislation to introduce a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe was voted down by the Senate last month.

Great Barrier Reef has diseased future
Jessica Marszalek, Australian Associated Press 2 Sep 09;

A NEW Government plan to protect the Great Barrier Reef has been signed as a report paints a grim picture of the icon, warning of declines in significant species and outbreaks of disease.

The Great Barrier Reef Outlook report - the first and most comprehensive of its kind - was released today as Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett signed a new reef plan to improve the water quality for the natural wonder.

The report identifies climate change, continued declining water quality from catchment run-off, loss of coastal habitats from development and remaining impacts from fishing and illegal fishing as the key issues undermining the resilience of the reef.

It said damage to mangroves, increasing algae on coral reefs, ocean acidification and coral bleaching were already evident.

"While populations of almost all marine species are intact and there are no records of extinctions, some ecologically important species, such as dugongs, marine turtles, seabirds, black teatfish and some sharks, have declined significantly," it said.

"Disease in corals and pest outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish and cyanobacteria appear to be becoming more frequent and more serious."

It follows a report a year ago which found agricultural run-off was killing the Great Barrier Reef and that some sections were already irreversibly damaged, prompting a government promise to toughen regulations for farmers.

New Government targets aim to reduce agricultural run-off by half and see 80 per cent of agricultural enterprises and 50 per cent of grain enterprises adopt land management practices to reduce run-off, all by 2013.

And a minimum 20 per cent reduction in sediment loads is planned by 2020.

Among the measures, $76 million was available for farmers to help them change their practices faster, Mr Garret said.

"Farmers are already engaging in improving their practices," he said.

"What this particular support enables them to do is to do more and to do it quickly."

'Loved to death'

Ms Bligh said the reef was in danger of being "loved to death". Two million people visited the coast between Bundaberg and Cairns each year, spending more than $5 million and underpinning 50,000 jobs in the tourism industry alone, she said.

Fisheries contribute a further $290 million annually to the economy.

"We simply cannot afford to stand back and do nothing when we know it is at such risk," Ms Bligh said.

WWF spokesman Nick Heath welcomed the new goals but said more needed to be done.

"It's really sad," he said.

"We are seeing the reef on the brink of a catastrophe and we are going to have to see far faster action, far deeper cuts in our climate emissions from both our federal and state governments than we've seen to date.

"This is a trigger for more action, not words."

He said land clearing and coal-fired power stations had to be banned, solar energy embraced, shark fishing reduced and carbon emissions strongly tackled.

Mr Heath said parts of the reef were already dying and would be catastrophically damaged within five years if significant action was not taken in the next 12 months.


Great Barrier Reef under serious threat: report
AFP Google News 2 Sep 09;

SYDNEY — Australia's Great Barrier Reef is in serious jeopardy as global warming and chemical runoff threaten to kill marine species and cause serious outbreaks of disease, a report warned Wednesday.

The World Heritage-listed reef was already showing the impacts of climate change, with two episodes of mass coral bleaching in the past 10 years, the Marine Park Authority's inaugural reef outlook report said.

"While populations of almost all marine species are intact and there are no records of extinctions, some ecologically important species, such as dugongs, marine turtles, seabirds, black teatfish and some sharks, have declined significantly," the authority wrote.

Coral disease, outbreaks of toxic blue-green algae and infestation by pestilent species such as the crown-of-thorns starfish appeared to be becoming more frequent and more serious, it added.

The 345,000-square-kilometre (133,000-square-mile) attraction had deteriorated significantly since European settlement in 1788 and was at a "crossroads", the report warned.

"Almost all the biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef will be affected by climate change, with coral reef habitats the most vulnerable," the report said.

"Coral bleaching resulting from increasing sea temperature and lower rates of calcification in skeleton-building organisms such as corals because of ocean acidification, are the effects of most concern and are already evident."

The runoff of nitrogen-based pesticides from local farming areas was a particular concern, the report said, adding that their impact remained "largely unknown".

Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the report showed strong decisive action needed to be taken, and pledged to halve agricultural runoff by 2013 and to reduce sediment loads by 20 percent by 2020.

"Improving the quality of water flowing into the reef is one of the most important things we can do to help the reef withstand the impacts of climate change," Garrett said.

Australia's centre-left government has already pledged 52 million dollars (42 million US) to improve water quality on the reef.

It has also agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent of 2000 levels by 2020 if world leaders sign up to an ambitious reduction goal in Copenhagen in December.

Without an agreement, Australia's target will remain unchanged at five percent.

Why coral reefs face a catastrophic future
Destroyed by rising carbon levels, acidity, pollution, algae, bleaching and El Niño, coral reefs require a dramatic change in our carbon policy to have any chance of survival
David Adam, guardian.co.uk 2 Sep 09;

Animal, vegetable and mineral, a pristine tropical coral reef is one of the natural wonders of the world. Bathed in clear, warm water and thick with a psychedelic display of fish, sharks, crustaceans and other sea life, the colourful coral ramparts that rise from the sand are known as the rainforests of the oceans.

And with good reason. Reefs and rainforests have more in common than their beauty and bewildering biodiversity. Both have stood for millions of years, and yet both are poised to disappear.

If you thought you had heard enough bad news on the environment and that the situation could not get any worse, then steel yourself. Coral reefs are doomed. The situation is virtually hopeless. Forget ice caps and rising sea levels: the tropical coral reef looks like it will enter the history books as the first major ecosystem wiped out by our love of cheap energy.

Today, a report from the Australian government agency that looks after the nation's emblematic Great Barrier Reef reported that "the overall outlook for the reef is poor and catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted". The Great Barrier Reef is in trouble, and it is not the only one.

Within just a few decades, experts are warning, the tropical reefs strung around the middle of our planet like a jewelled corset will reduce to rubble. Giant piles of slime-covered rubbish will litter the sea bed and spell in large distressing letters for the rest of foreseeable time: Humans Were Here.

"The future is horrific," says Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist who is widely regarded as the world's foremost expert on coral reefs. "There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we now recognise. If, and when, they go, they will take with them about one-third of the world's marine biodiversity. Then there is a domino effect, as reefs fail so will other ecosystems. This is the path of a mass extinction event, when most life, especially tropical marine life, goes extinct."

Alex Rogers, a coral expert with the Zoological Society of London, talks of an "absolute guarantee of their annihilation". And David Obura, another coral heavyweight and head of CORDIO East Africa, a research group in Kenya, is equally pessimistic: "I don't think reefs have much of a chance. And what's happening to reefs is a parable of what is going to happen to everything else."

These are desperate words, stripped of the usual scientific caveats and expressions of uncertainty, and they are a measure of the enormity of what's happening to our reefs.

The problem is a new take on a familiar evil. Of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide spewed from cars, power stations, aircraft and factories each year, about half hangs round in the thin layer of atmosphere where it traps heat at the Earth's surface and so drives global warming. What happens to the rest of this steady flood of carbon pollution? Some is absorbed by the world's soils and forests, offering vital respite to our overcooked climate. The remainder dissolves into the world's oceans. And there, it stores up a whole heap of trouble for coral reefs.

Often mistaken for plants, individual corals are animals closely related to sea anemones and jellyfish. They have tiny tentacles and can sting and eat fish and small animals. Corals are found throughout the world's oceans, and holidaymakers taking a swim off the Cornish coast may brush their hands through clouds of the tiny creatures without ever realising.

It is when corals form communities on the sea bed that things get interesting. Especially in the tropics. Yes, Britain has its own rugged coral reefs, but such deep-water constructions are too remote, cold and dark to really fire the imagination. It is in shallow, brightly light waters, that coral reefs really come to life. In the turquoise waters of the Caribbean, Indian Ocean and Pacific, the coral come together with tiny algae to make magic.

The algae do something that the coral cannot. They photosynthesise, and so use the sun's energy to churn out food for the coral. In return, the coral provide the algae with the carbon dioxide they need for photosynthesis, and so complete the circle of symbiotic life.

Freed of the need to wave their tentacles around to hunt for food, the coral can devote more energy to secreting the mineral calcium carbonate, from which they form a stony exoskeleton. A second type of algae, which also produces calcium carbonate, provides cement. Together, the marine menage-a-trois make a very effective building site, with dead corals leaving their calcium skeletons behind as limestone. For all their apparent beauty and fragility, just think of coral reefs as big lumps of rock with a living crust.

A fragile crust too. The natural world is a harsh environment for coral reefs. They are under perpetual attack by legions of fish that graze their fields of algae. Animals bore into their shells to make homes, and storms and crashing waves break them apart. They may appear peaceful paradises, but most coral reefs are manic sites of constant destruction and frantic rebuilding. Crucially though, for millions of years, these processes have been in balance.

Human impact has tipped that balance. Loaded with the agricultural nutrients nitrates and phosphates, rivers now spill their polluted waters into the sea. Sediment and sewage cloud the clear waters, while over-fishing plays havoc with the finely tuned community of fish and sharks that kept the reef nibbling down to sustainable levels. All of this is enough to wreck coral without any help from climate change.

Global warming, predictably, has made the situation worse. Secure in their tropical currents, coral reefs have evolved to operate within a fairly narrow temperature range, yet, in the late 1970s and 1980s, coral scientists got an unpleasant demonstration of what happens when the hot tap is left on too long. "The algae go berserk," said Rogers. Scientists think the algae react to the warmer water and increased sunlight by producing toxic oxygen compounds called superoxides, which can damage the coral. The coral respond by ejecting their algal lodgers, leaving the reefs starved of nutrients and deathly white. Such bleaching was first observed on a large scale in the 1980s, and reached massive levels worldwide during the 1997-98 El Niño weather event.

On top of a human-warmed climate, the 1997-98 El Niño, caused by pulses of warming and cooling in the Pacific, drove water temperatures across the world beyond the coral comfort zone. The mass bleaching event that followed killed a fifth of coral communities worldwide, and though many have recovered slightly since, the global death toll attributed to the 1997-98 mass bleaching stands at 16%. "At the moment the reefs seem to be recovering well but it's only a matter of time before we have another [mass bleaching event]," says Obura.

With its striking images of skeletal reefs stripped of colour and life, coral bleaching offers photogenic evidence of our crumbling biodiversity, and has placed the plight of coral reefs higher on the world's consciousness. Head along to your local swimming pool for diving lessons these days, and chances are that you will be offered a coral conservation course as well.

Katy Bloor, an instructor at Sub-Mission Dive School in Stoke-on-Trent, says many divers are not aware of the problems corals face, particularly as holiday operators tend to visit reefs in better condition. "Most have probably dived on a coral reef that they thought was a bit rubbish, but they haven't considered why," she said.

If anyone knows what they are missing out on, it should be Charlie Veron. So what does it feel like to dive on a pristine reef? "I have not seen many reefs that can be called pristine, and none exist now," he says. "But if I had to take a punt, I was diving on the Chesterfield Reefs, east of New Caledonia [in the southwest Pacific] about 30 years ago and was staggered by the wealth of life, especially big fish which were so thick that I was hardly ever able to photograph coral. That place made even remote parts of the Great Barrier Reef look second rate.

"I can only describe it like walking through a rainforest dripping with orchids, crowded with birds and mammals of bewildering variety and trees growing in extreme profusion."

Can the coral be helped? If planting more trees can regrow a forest, can coral be introduced to bolster failing reefs? There are a handful of groups working on the problem, many of which have reported encouraging results. Off Japan, scientists are farming healthy coral on hundreds of ceramic discs, which they plan to transplant onto the badly-bleached Sekisei Lagoon reef within two years. In 30 years or so, they hope the reef can recover fully.

A similar, if more low-tech, exercise is under way in the Philippine coastal community of Bolinao, where local people have broken off chunks from the healthy section of their local reef and have crudely wedged them into cracks in bleached sections. Others have cultured corals in swimming pools, and researchers in the Maldives are using giant sunken cages, connected to a low level electric current, to help coral form their chalky shells.

But the problem with all these efforts, according to Rogers at the ZSL, is that they cannot address the looming holocaust that reefs face. A new, terrible curse that comes on top of the bleaching, the battering, the poisoning and the pollution.

Remember the carbon dioxide that we left dissolving in the oceans? Billions and billions of tonnes of it over the last 150 years or so since the industrial revolution? While mankind has squabbled, delayed, distracted and dithered over the impact that carbon emissions have on the atmosphere, that dissolved pollution has been steadily turning the oceans more acidic. There is no dispute, no denial, about this one. Chemistry is chemistry, and carbon dioxide plus water has made carbonic acid since the dawn of time.

As a result, the surface waters of the world's oceans have dropped by about 0.1 pH unit – a sentence that proves the hopeless inadequacy of scientific terminology to express certain concepts. It sounds small, but is a truly jaw-dropping change for coral reefs.

For reefs to rebuild their stony skeletons, they rely on the seawater washing over them to be rich in the calcium mineral aragonite. Put simply, the more acid the seawater, the less aragonite it can hold, and the less corals can rebuild their structure. Earlier this year, a paper in the journal Science reported that calcification rates across the Great Barrier Reefs have dropped 14% since 1990. The researchers said more acidic seas were the most likely culprit, and ended their sober write-up of the study with the extraordinary warning that it showed "precipitous changes in the biodiversity and productivity of the world's oceans may be imminent".

Rogers says carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are already over the safe limits for coral reefs. And even the most ambitious political targets for carbon cuts, based on limiting temperature rise to 2C, are insufficient. Their only hope, he says, is a long-term carbon concentration much lower than today's. The clock must somehow be wound back and carbon somehow sucked out of the air. If not, then so much more carbon will dissolve in the seas that the reefs will surely crumble to dust. Given the reluctance to reduce emissions so far, the coral community is not holding its breath.

"I just don't see the world having the commitment to sort this one out," says Obura. "We need to use the coral reef lesson to wake us up and not let this happen to a hundred other ecosystems."

Reefs to see before they die

Florida Keys, United States

The only coral reef system in the continental US and the third largest in the world, stretching 221 miles down the Florida coast. The US National Marine Fisheries Service says live coral is down 50-80% in the last decade, mainly due to damage by humans.

Jamaican reefs

Threatened by sewage disposal, inland agricultural run-off and eutrophication, as well as tourist activities such as glass-bottom boat trips. Hurricanes hinder reef recovery and Caribbean coral cover has declined 80% in 25 years.

Scarborough Reef, South China Sea

Ownership disputes between the Philippines, mainland China and Taiwan mean the waters surrounding this reef are heavily overfished, and mangled by the blasts and cyanide used to maximise catch.

Reefs of the windward Southeast Hawaiian Islands, US

Management is improving around the main Hawaiian islands such as Oahu and Maui, but over-fishing and organic sediment from plantations remain major threats.

Seribu Islands, Java Sea, Indonesia

Spanning over 108,000 hectares and 100 small islands, this reef is a significant contributor to the Indonesian tourism economy. Rapid urban development poses threats from domestic and industrial waste, urban run-off and oil and gas exploration. The 1997-1998 El Niño event triggered severe bleaching and killed over 90% of the coral down to 25 metres.

Stable but for how long?

The Great Barrier Reef

The globe's largest coral reef ecosystem, composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and stretching over 3,000km, is the best example of reef management with little damage since 2004. Significant bleaching occurred in 1998, 2002 and 2006.

The Red Sea Riviera, Gulf of Aqaba, Egypt, Israel and Jordan

These reefs continue to remain in good health despite intense tourism. Coral cover remains high to very high, despite localised losses from coral bleaching and crowns-of-thorns starfish, which prey on coral polyps.

Mombasa National Marine Park, Kenya

Adjacent to the most heavily populated beach along the Kenyan coast, damage due to tourism is inevitable. In 1989 the area was pronounced a marine park, leading to an increase in recorded coral cover from 8 to 30%.

Reefs of the Seychelles, Indian Ocean

Lost some 90% of coral cover during the 1998 El Nino event. Slowly recovering due to granitic coral, which is more resistant and supports regrowth.

Surin Islands, Thailand

The reefs located off this group of islands were weakened by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami The majority of the damage is localized and low impact, but the coral is now more susceptible to future destruction.

Lauren Smith


Read more!

Intensive frog farming takes giant leap forward

Shanta Barley, New Scientist 1 Sep 09;

Giant frog farms could satisfy western diners' apparently insatiable appetite for frog meat, if pioneering French research is put into practice. That's not just good news for the Europe's menus, but also for Asia's frogs, which conservationists say are in danger of being eaten to extinction.

Farming would also mean frogs could be raised close to where they're eaten, which could reduce the spread of diseases that are threatening frog populations around the world. But some ecologists and conservationists say that intensive frog farming could spawn a new range of problems.

The vast majority of frogs destined for European dinner tables are harvested from the wild in Asia, because previous attempts to farm frogs closer to home have ended in failure.

Disease spreads easily between frogs kept in close quarters, and they prefer expensive live prey to cheap food pellets, so they're not easy to raise. Another problem is that frogs hibernate for relatively long periods in cool European climates. So farming has thus far proven uneconomic.

Now, however, André Neveu at the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Rennes says he's managed to raise common European frogs under intensive farming conditions.
Yield jump

Neveu set out to discover which of three types of European frog responded best to intensive farming: the pool frog, the marsh frog or the edible frog, an infertile hybrid of the other two species.

He raised populations of all three under the same conditions – up to 1000 froglets per square metre fed on floating pellets of fish meal, soya and other ingredients – and then measured how many of each survived, how much they grew and how much meat they yielded. His published paper is short on details of his commercially sensitive technique for persuading the frogs to eat the food, only hinting that he kept the food pellets moving on the surface of their ponds to fool the frogs into treating them like prey.

The best candidate for farming turned out to be the marsh frog. Not only was it the only strain to reach 30 grams in weight – the minimum considered acceptable for the French market – but it also did better in captivity than the other strains. Just over half the marsh frogs survived three years of intensive farming, whereas only 5 to 8 per cent of the pool and edible frogs did.

That resulted in yields of about 29 kilograms of marsh frog meat per square metre – six times higher than the yields from other strains.
Last legs

If Neveu's results can be replicated on an industrial scale, European frog-fanciers could soon be feasting on local fare, rather than on Asian imports. That would reduce the pressure on wild populations in Asia, which currently supply 95 per cent of the world's frog meat.

It would also slow the progress of amphibian diseases that have caused extinctions and declines in 200 species of frog, says Tim Halliday, international director of the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force, based in Milton Keynes, UK.

But other specialists say frog meat is too expensive a taste. "With fish populations collapsing, should we really be harvesting fish to provide protein feeds to farmed amphibians, which are going to end up as luxury items on menus in expensive restaurants?" asks Trevor Beebee, a molecular ecologist and amphibian expert at the University of Sussex, UK.

James Collins, a frog conservation specialist at Arizona State University, Tempe, says that farming frogs could turn out to be worse for the environment than farming some other types of livestock. "Until we can find a way to feed frogs vegetable protein, rather than fish protein, it may be better to simply harvest frogs sustainably in the wild rather than building elaborate, energy-intensive farms that rely on fish meal. But we're a long way off that."

David Green of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, acknowledges that Neveu's research could make the large-scale production of frogs a viable concern, but argues we shouldn't be eating frogs – a third of which are at risk of extinction – at all.

"I hear frogs' legs taste like chicken," he says. "Eat that and leave the frogs alone."

Journal reference: Aquaculture, DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.06.027


Read more!

EU fisheries minister calls for an end to dumping millions of dead fish

Fishing quotas, that have led to tonnes of dead fish being dumped in the sea, should be scrapped in favour of restricting the number of days at sea fishermen are allowed, according to the EU fisheries chief.
Louise Gray, The Telegraph 1 Sep 09;

Catch quotas that allow fishermen to land a limited amount of fish have been a key part of the Common Fisheries Policy for a quarter of a century.

However the policy has led to fishermen throwing away millions of tonnes of dead fish to avoid breaching the quota for that species, rather than making use of the whole catch.

Now Joe Borg, the EU Fisheries Commissioner, has called for an end to "discards".

Instead he told MEPs that fishermen should be limited by "effort". For example limiting the number of days vessels can spend at sea or where boats can fish.

"Replacing quotas by effort can be a very effective way of reducing the environmental impact of fisheries, and in particular of discards"," he said.

At the moment a mix of limits on catches and days at sea is in force, but if quotas were scrapped the whole policy would hinge on the carve-up of days at sea between boats, which would be transferable if the skipper wished.

Mr Borg said a vessel owner could rent them or sell his days at sea to another vessel owner:

"This could in turn help us to achieve the objective of having a smaller fleet commensurate to our resource base." he said. "For some, this may be radical thinking, but we need to explore every option if we are to make our fisheries policy truly fit for purpose."

The CFP imposed strict quotas on fish like cod in order to allow the species to recover from overfishing.

However in a mixed fishery like the North Sea once the quota is filled, fishermen carry on catching cod as by-catch.

It is estimated almost a million tonnes of fish are discarded in the North Sea every year as a result, with around 100,000 tonnes dumped by Scottish boats.

Brussels is currently consulting on a replacement for the CFP to be brought in by 2012.

Seafish, which represents fishermen in Britain, welcomed changing the system so that fishermen are limited by days at sea.

A Defra spokesperson said: “We agree that the CFP needs updating and we are looking at all the options. We will shortly be asking for the industry’s views on reforming the CFP and we welcome all contributions to that debate.”


Read more!

Secret whaling caused collapse

Southern Cross University, ScienceAlert 2 Sep 09;

Secret illegal Soviet whaling, during the years from 1947 to 1973, led to the decimation of some populations of humpback whales in the Pacific, according to a new study by collaborating marine researchers.

Wally Franklin, a PhD student with Southern Cross University’s Whale Research Centre and co-director of The Oceania Project, was one of the contributors to the study, which was presented to the International Whaling Commission meeting held in Portugal earlier this year.

Mr Franklin said while it had been known for some years that almost 100 000 whales had been killed secretly by the Soviet whaling fleet in the southern hemisphere, it had not been clear how this had impacted on the current humpback whale population.

“It was always a mystery why the population of humpback whales off the east coast of Australia and in the Pacific region suddenly collapsed in the early 1960s,” Mr Franklin said.

“This new study has shown the link between the illegal catches during the late 1950s and early 1960s and the collapse of the Australian and Pacific populations.”

During the 1950s the whaling stations at Tangalooma (in Queensland) and Byron Bay each had a quota of whales which they could usually get in a couple of days.

“By the early 1960s, all of a sudden they just couldn’t find any whales to meet the quotas and basically the industry collapsed,” Mr Franklin said. “On the figures reported to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) that shouldn’t have happened.”

Mr Franklin said it had been surmised that more whales had been taken by the Soviets than were reported, but it was not until the late 1990s that the data confirmed it.

“The Russians took about 25 000 whales in the years from 1959 to 1961, of which only a fraction were officially reported to the IWC,” he said.

“Our study has now linked the reported catches and the data recording the illegal catches with the breeding areas in Antarctica, confirming suspicions that these illegal catches on top of earlier whaling did lead to the collapse of these populations.

“It’s been established that only around 150 humpback whales survived out of those Pacific and east Australian populations, from what we believe to have been pre-whaling numbers of between 45 000 and 65 000 whales.”

Mr Franklin said while the east Australian population was showing a steady rate of increase, the population that migrated past New Zealand to places such as Fiji had not.

“There were hundreds of whales reported off Fiji in the late 1940s and 50s, but the whales have not gone back and now there are virtually none,” he said.

“We are seeing signs that some of the whales from the east Australian population may be now moving into the Pacific and we are hopeful this will eventually lead to a stronger recovery.

“We are conducting further studies to identify the whales in these locations.”

Mr Franklin said with the ongoing threat of renewed ‘scientific’ whaling in the Southern Ocean it was imperative that there was a watertight system to ensure compliance with the international regulations, requiring independent observers.

As it did in the 1950s and 1960s, the International Whaling Commission relies on self-reporting of catches.

“We want to make sure that the illegal catches which led to the decimation of these whale populations cannot be repeated in the future,” Mr Franklin said.


Read more!

New treaty will leave fish pirates without safe haven

FAO 1 Sep 09;

91 FAO Members have agreed on an international agreement to implement “port state measures” to combat illegal fishing

September 2009, Rome - The final text of a new treaty that aims to close fishing ports to vessels involved in illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing has been agreed upon by a group of 91 countries during talks brokered by FAO, the UN agency announced today.

The "Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing" will be the first ever global treaty focused specifically on the problem of IUU fishing. It is hoped that the agreement will help block IUU-caught fish from entering international markets, thereby removing an important incentive for some fishermen to engage in illicit fishing.

In the Agreement, countries agree to take a number of steps to harden their ports against IUU fishers. Key points of the treaty include:


• Foreign fishing vessels wishing to dock will be required to request permission from specially designated ports ahead of time, transmitting information on their activities and the fish they have on board -- this will give authorities an opportunity to spot red flags in advance.

•The treaty commits countries to regular inspections and outlines a set of standards that will be used during those inspections. Reviews of ship papers, surveys of fishing gear, examining catches and checking a ship's records can often reveal if it has engaged in IUU fishing.

• Signatories must ensure that ports and inspectors are adequately equipped and trained;

• When a vessel is denied access, port states must communicate that information publicly and national authorities from the country whose flag the vessel is flying must take follow-up action;

• The treaty calls for the creation of information-sharing networks to let countries share details on IUU-associated vessels, and also contains provisions intended to assist resource-strapped developing countries meet their treaty obligations.


These measures apply to foreign fishing vessels not flying the flag of port states (see definitions at right), however countries can apply them to their own fishing fleets as well should they choose.

"By frustrating responsible management, IUU fishing damages the productivity of fisheries — or leads to their collapse. That's a serious problem for the people who depend on them for food and income," said FAO Assistant-Director General for Fisheries and Aquaculture, Ichiro Nomura. "This treaty represents a real, palpable advance in the ongoing effort to stamp it out."

Ratification process

The Agreement falls under Article XIV of the FAO Constitution, with FAO's Director-General acting as legal depository for countries' ratifications.

As such, it next will be reviewed by FAO's Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters at its next meeting (23-25 September 2009) and from there it will go to FAO's Council in September and the FAO Conference in November for final review and formal adoption. The substantive work on the treaty may be considered as having been finalized, however.

In order to enter into force the Agreement must then be OK'd at the national level. Once 25 States have done so, it will enter into force after 30 days.

Regular monitoring of compliance will take place, with a major review scheduled to occur four years after the Agreement takes effect.

Strategic bottleneck

So-called "Port state measures" like those prescribed in the new treaty are widely considered as one of the most effective and cost-effective weapons in the fight against illicit fishing.

"Of course, the effectiveness of port state measures depends in large part on how well countries implement them," said David Doulman, an expert on the issue at FAO. "So the focus now is to make sure that countries and other involved parties have the means and know-how to enforce it and are living up to their commitments. Importantly, the Agreement provides for assistance and support to developing countries to help them with implementation."

*FAO Members involved in the talks included: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Congo DR, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, European Community, Fiji, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lesotho, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia and FAO Associate Member, Faeroe Islands.

First global illegal fishing treaty agreed: UN
Yahoo News 1 Sep 09;

ROME (AFP) – A group of 91 countries have agreed on a treaty that will block ships involved in illegal fishing from entering signatory ports and thus help prevent the fish going to market, the UN said on Tuesday.

The UN's Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) hailed the agreement to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing as "the first ever global treaty focused specifically on the problem."

New measures include requiring foreign fishing vessels to request permission to enter port ahead of time, informing the authorities of their fish cargo, as well as committing signatories to regular inspections of foreign ships.

Illegal fishing accounts for 14 percent of all fish caught in the world, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Those that have agreed to the treaty include Brazil, the European Union, Japan, Russia and the United States.

The treaty will be examined by the FAO's Council later this month, and go to the FAO Conference in November for formal adoption. It must then be approved by individual nations, and will come into effect shortly after 25 have done so.

An FAO report in March said that 19 percent of major commercial fish stocks it monitors are being overfished.

Areas with the highest levels of fully-exploited stocks are the northeast Atlantic, the western Indian Ocean and the northwest Pacific, the FAO said.


Read more!

Brazil points to sharp drop in Amazon destruction

Raymond Colitt, Reuters 1 Sep 09;

BRASILIA (Reuters) - The annual rate of destruction of Brazil's Amazon rain forest has fallen 46 percent to its lowest level in over two decades due partly to increased police patrols, Environment Minister Carlos Minc said on Tuesday.

The drop, if confirmed by definitive data, could allow Brazil to argue at a major world climate summit later this year that it is delivering on a pledge to slash deforestation after decades of criticism by environmentalists.

"We'll have the lowest deforestation in 21 years," Minc told a news conference in the capital Brasilia.

Brazil has been under pressure to slow the encroach of loggers and ranchers who are blamed for much of the destruction of the world's largest rain forest, while at the same time continuing to develop the resource-rich region.

Deforestation has in the past increased when demand for soybeans, beef and timber have gone up.

Minc estimated between 8,500 square kilometers (3,088 sq miles) and 9,000 sq km (3,474 sq miles) were destroyed in the 12 months to July, 2009. That compared to 12,900 sq km (4,980 sq miles) in the same period a year earlier.

The peak of 27,329 sq km (10,500 miles) was reached in the 2003/2004 period.

He based his calculations on a preliminary report by Brazil's National Institute of Space Studies, which indicated a 46 percent reduction in deforestation in the region in the 12 months to July, 2009.

That report was based on satellite imaging. A definitive report using higher-resolution images will be published later this year.

Minc attributed 90 percent of the deforestation reduction to improved policing. Experts give authorities some credit for the trend, but they say lower commodity prices resulting from a global economic crisis also was a factor.

"Government measures seem to have had a positive impact but we need to see that trend confirmed during an upswing in demand for commodities," Paulo Moutinho, coordinator at the Amazon Research Institute, told Reuters.

The states with the biggest reduction were Rondonia and Mato Grosso, both in the southwestern region of the Amazon.

Mato Grosso is one of the country's leading farm states and its governor, Blairo Maggi, is often called the "king of deforestation" by conservationists.

Brazil last year announced it would reduce destruction in its share of the Amazon by 50 percent in a decade.

The South American nation is expected to play a key role in negotiations at a summit in Copenhagen in December, which is aimed at framing a new international treaty on climate change.

The destruction of the rain forest made up 75 percent of Brazil's greenhouse gas emissions in 1994 but is falling to around 60 percent, Minc said last week. Burning or decomposing trees emit carbon dioxide, a key cause of global warming.

Minc, in his post since May 2008, earlier complained to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva about opposition to his agenda from a powerful farm lobby and from colleagues. Minc will step down in March to run as a candidate for the Rio de Janeiro state assembly in an election next year.

(Editing by Stuart Grudgings and Paul Simao)


Read more!

Top science body calls for geoengineering 'plan B'

Catherine Brahic, New Scientist 1 Sep 09;

Take note: the back-up plan for saving the world is no joke. A major scientific institution has published a comprehensive review of possible ways to engineer the climate to reverse global warming.

The UK Royal Society's review of geoengineering will make it difficult for governments to ignore the issue. It says that while reducing emissions of greenhouse gases "absolutely" must remain a priority, there is a serious chance that this will not be enough to stave off global warming of 2 °C.

"My guess would be that there is a 50-50 chance that we can achieve something with emissions reductions," says John Shepherd of the University of Southampton in the UK, chair of the Royal Society group behind the report.

If humanity wants to avoid the worst effects of climate change, it must be ready to safely deploy geoengineering methods as and when necessary, the report says. "We are already staring 1.6 °C in the face," says Shepherd.

He believes we should know some time in the next two decades whether or not efforts to curb emissions will be enough to avoid 2 °C of warming. If not, his personal view is that we should be prepared for a two-step plan B.
Sun shield

Step one: deploy some sort of sun shield to deflect solar energy away from Earth. Reflective technologies could cool the planet within a year, and according to the Royal Society's findings the most promising method in terms of cost and effectiveness would be to pump sulphate particles into the stratosphere (see illustration). However, this will not curb ocean acidification and other side effects of greenhouse emissions, and could disrupt weather patterns, so another method is required.

Step two: enact a means of sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Several methods are already being investigated, which fall broadly into two categories: "tech-heavy" solutions, such as artificial trees that filter air and extract CO2 for storage, and "biological" methods, such as planting trees, using biofuels and fertilising the oceans.

According to Shepherd, tech-heavy methods are preferable because they are less likely to interfere with complex ecosystems. "Most of the things that have gone wrong in the past have happened when we've tampered with biological systems," he says.

Geoengineering methods have so far been on the fringe of climate discussions and research. Few, if any, could be developed tomorrow or even tested on a large scale. The Royal Society report calls on the UK government to invest £10 million a year towards an international research effort into geoengineering. This amounts to roughly 10 per cent of the UK climate research budget.

Another unresolved issue is for governments to agree on how to regulate geoengineering efforts. The Royal Society proposes that the UN Commission for Sustainable Development be charged with the task. It also suggests the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should establish a geoengineering working group.
Bandwagon rolling

Such an international effort is conceivable. There are signs that the field is increasingly being taken seriously at national and international levels. Earlier this month the US National Academies tweaked the remit of its climate panel such that it will now assess geoengineering proposals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will decide next month whether or not to do the same.

"It is clear that a lot of people are arguing that the IPCC should include an assessment of geoengineering in its next report," says Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and co-chair of one of the IPCC's three working groups. More worryingly, perhaps, military and naval representatives have also taken to attending research and policy workshops on the topic.

The Royal Society gave some reassurance that discussions of geoengineering will not deflate the public will to cut emissions. Results from focus groups suggested that the fact that scientists are giving geoengineering serious thought could be enough to spur people into acting on climate change. Whether this will hold true for politicians remains to be seen.

Investment in geo-engineering needed immediately, says Royal Society
Techniques such as CO2 removal and radiation reflection are 'untested parachutes' until they are rigorously tested, it says
Alok Jha, guardian.co.uk 1 Sep 09;

Experiments on giant sunshades for the Earth and vast forests of artificial trees must begin immediately, according to the Royal Society, to ensure such mega-engineering plans are available as a safety net in case global talks to combat climate change fail.

The scientists spent a year assessing geo-engineering technologies, deliberate planet-scale interventions in the climate system that attempt to counteract global warming. Their report, the most comprehensive to date, concluded that immediate investment is required to discover whether the potential risks outweigh the benefits.

"Unless the world community can do better at cutting emissions, we fear we will need additional techniques such as geo-engineering to avoid very dangerous climate change in the future," said John Shepherd of the University of Southampton, who chaired the RS report.

"However, we are not advocates of geo-engineering - our opinions range from cautious consent to very serious scepticism about these ideas. It is not an alternative to emissions reductions and cannot provide an easy quick-fix to the problem."

Its report, published today, concluded that some approaches – such as capturing CO2 from the atmosphere using artificial trees or shooting tiny particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect away sunlight – looked promising. But all geo-engineering techniques had major uncertainties regarding their own environmental impacts.

The Royal Society considered two main categories of the technology. One involves reflecting a small amount, around 2%, of the solar radiation that reaches the Earth, thus preventing the planet from warming up. The other category involves removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

"CO2 removal methods are preferable because removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere addresses the problem at its root and is returning the earth's climate system closer to its natural state," said Shepherd.

But he said crucial experimental data in the area was lacking. "We need to initiate research so we can understand the intended and unintended consequences of these methods so that, if we ever do need to deploy them, we can do so in a sensible and effective way."

The report calls for about £10m per year to be spent in the UK as part of a global £100m fund. "That's about 10 times what is being spent now and about 10 times less than what we spend on climate change research," said Shepherd. "And it's only 1% of what we spend on new energy technology."

Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution in California, said this early-stage research must be carried out as soon as possible. "The worst situation is to not test the options and then face a climate emergency and then be faced with deploying an untested option, a parachute that you've never tested out as the plane's crashing."

Among the most promising technologies identified by the Royal Society are techniques to suck CO2 directly out of the atmosphere. The front-runner in this arena is a design by Klaus Lackner of Columbia University in New York. His artificial trees are not yet cost-effective to produce but Shepherd said it was probably just a matter of time.

Shooting sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere would also work well, said the Royal Society, as previous volcanic eruptions have showed in the past. When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, for example, global temperatures dropped by 0.5C the following year. The costs would be relatively low but the scientists identified questions over potential adverse effects, in particular the destruction of the ozone layer.

Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said: "Geo-engineering is creeping onto the agenda because governments seem incapable of standing up to the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby, who will use the idea to undermine the emissions reductions we can do safely.

"Intervening in our planet's systems carries huge risks, with winners and losers, and if we can't deliver political action on clean energy and efficiency then consensus on geo-engineering is a fantasy."

The Royal Society also pointed out that technical and scientific issues may not be the dominant ones when it came to the actual deployment of geo-engineering technology. Social, legal, ethical and political issues would be of equal significance and implementing global-scale projects would require a pre-existing international agreement.

"When it comes to techniques that need to be field-tested, and where that will occur in places beyond national jurisdiction, such as sulphate aerosols, then inevitably we're looking at some kind of international governance framework," said Catherine Redgwell, a professor of international law at University College London and a member of the Royal Society working group on geoengineering.

At a meeting to launch the report at the Royal Society today, the government's chief scientific adviser John Beddington said the government should be thinking about a modest investment in geoengineering research.

"It is appropriate that the UK continues to support international research in this area including the possibility of considering the types of global governance systems that would be needed for geo-engineering," he said.

World must plan for climate emergency: report
Gerard Wynn, Reuters 1 Sep 09;

LONDON (Reuters) - Humans may have to reset the Earth's natural thermostat and develop new technologies like reflecting sunlight back into space if climate talks fail, Britain's top science academy said on Tuesday.

So-called geoengineering was not a quick fix but may be needed to head off planetary catastrophe and so deserved more research as an insurance policy, the Royal Society said in a report, "Geoengineering the climate."

Such technologies were not an alternative to cutting emissions, however, the report stressed.

Political efforts to curb greenhouse gases are in the spotlight three months before a U.N-led meeting meant to clinch a new climate treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

"Nothing should divert us from the priority of reducing global carbon dioxide emissions and ensuring that the December meeting in Copenhagen does lead to real progress," said Royal Society President Martin Rees.

"But if such reductions achieve too little too late there will be surely pressure to contemplate a plan B," he told an audience at the launch of the report in central London.

Growing interest in geoengineering was partly motivated by a "false hope of a quick fix," Rees said, and Greenpeace's Doug Parr said that it would be seized upon by polluters.

Britain's chief scientific adviser John Beddington supported more research, however. "They are part of the solution," he said of the technology, and painted a bleak picture for the planet.

"There's an enormous 'if' whether there'll be comprehensive action agreed in Copenhagen, whether it's going to be enough. There are also going to be (climate) emergencies and surprises," he said, referring to the "devastating" risk of more acidic oceans as a result of carbon emissions.

MIRRORS

Geoengineering technologies can be divided between those that remove the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and those which reflect sunlight back into space.

Such technologies are now limited to the laboratory and the Royal Society report called for a 10-year, 100 million pound ($163.2 million) British research program, a 10-fold increase.

People have spewed carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air for thousands of years from burning forests to clear farmland and more recently burn fossil fuels in the industrial revolution.

Reversing that trend of emissions poses an enormous challenge, leading to a growing enquiry into geoengineering.

"Do we need it? I think there is a significant risk that we shall make insufficient progress with emissions reductions and that some support for conventional emissions reductions may be needed," said co-author, James Wilsdon.

The report supported steps to remove CO2 from the air above others, because they addressed the underlying problem of too many heat-trapping gases, and so were more predictable and would fight not only climate change but also acidifying oceans.

In the event of an emergency where the Earth suddenly pitched into a different, hotter climate, however, the world may need to reflect back some sunlight, the report said, for example by shooting highly reflective aerosols into the atmosphere.

That would introduce a new influence on the Earth's climate besides greenhouse gases and so was less predictable, especially if not applied across the whole atmosphere.

"You could actually seriously and adversely impact one of the most critical weather patterns on the planet," said lead author John Shepherd, referring to disruption of the monsoon.

Risky schemes may be only hope for cooling planet: scientists
Richard Ingham Yahoo News 1 Sep 09;

LONDON (AFP) – Sci-fi proposals to cool the planet are laden with risk but may be Earth's only hope if politicians fail to tackle global warming, scientists said on Tuesday in their biggest evaluation to date of "geo-engineering" concepts.

The verdict by Britain's prestigious Royal Society came little more than three months before a UN showdown in Copenhagen on how to reduce the carbon emissions that drive climate change.

John Shepherd, a professor at Britain's University of Southampton, who chaired a 12-member panel which assessed the evidence, said geo-engineering was filling a perilous political void.

"Our research found that some geo-engineering techniques could have serious unintended and detrimental effects on many people and ecosystems -- yet we are still failing to take the only action that will prevent us from having to rely on them," he said.

The report cautiously said some geo-engineering schemes were technically feasible but were shadowed by safety worries and doubts about affordability.

Provided these questions were answered, such projects could be a useful tool as part of a worldwide switch to a low-carbon economy, it said.

But, the report warned, other geo-engineering schemes are so costly or so freighted with risk and unknowns that they should only be considered a last-ditch fix.

Just five years ago, geo-engineering was widely dismissed by mainstream climate scientists as quirky or delusional. As recently as 2007, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cautioned of its potential risk and unquantified cost.

But the schemes are now getting a serious hearing in many quarters, helped by mounting evidence that climate change is advancing faster than thought while progress towards a carbon-curbing UN treaty is moving at glacial speed.

Supporters say geo-engineering can buy time to let politicians hammer out a deal or wean the global economy off polluting fossil fuels.

The report, "Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty," was based mainly on peer-reviewed literature.

It took a year to carry out, and the Royal Society came under fire from green groups who accused it of handing a cloak of respectability to a once-mocked scientific fringe.

The authors said geo-engineering fell into two main categories.

The most promising entails removal of carbon dioxide, such as by planting forests and building towers that would capture CO2 from the air.

Some of these projects could be harnessed alongside conventional methods to reduce emissions once they are demonstrated to be "safe, effective, sustainable and affordable," said the report.

The other category is called solar radiation management.

Instead of tackling CO2, it would act like a thermostat, turning down the heat that reaches Earth from the Sun.

Concepts in this field include deflecting the Sun's heat away from the Earth through space mirrors, scattering light-coloured particles in the high atmosphere to reflect the solar rays and using ships to spray water that would create reflective low-altitude clouds.

The advantage would be to lower temperatures quickly and could be tempting if global warming suddenly cranked up a gear, the report said.

But these techniques would not curb CO2 emissions that cause dangerous ocean acidification; their costs are unclear but possibly astronomical; and they may end up generating disasters of their own.

Even so, they should not be dismissed out of hand, given their potential in an emergency, said Ken Caldeira, a professor of climate modelling at Stanford University, California.

"We need to think if Greenland were to be sliding into the sea rapidly, causing rapid sea-level rise, or if methane started to de-gas rapidly from the Siberian permafrost, or if rainfall patterns were to shift in such a way that wide-spread famines were induced," he said.

"We would be remiss if we did not do what we could do to understand the potential of these options as well as their uncertainties and risks ahead of time."

Painting roofs white to reflect solar rays -- an idea gaining ground in California and other sunny places -- would provide only limited, local cooling and not affect the rise in global temperature.

"None of the geo-engineering technologies so far suggested is a magic bullet and all have risks and uncertainties associated with them," Shepherd said.

The panel called for funding of around 100 million pounds (162 million dollars) a year to kickstart research into the feasibility of geo-engineering schemes could be feasible -- and, if so, in what circumstances they should be applied and how they would be managed.

Engineering Earth 'is feasible'
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News 1 Sep 09;

A UK Royal Society study has concluded that many engineering proposals to reduce the impact of climate change are "technically possible".

Such approaches could be effective, the authors said in their report.

But they also stressed that the potential of geo-engineering should not divert governments away from their efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Suggestions range from having giant mirrors in space to erecting giant CO2 scrubbers that would "clean" the air.

Such engineering projects could either remove carbon dioxide or reflect the Sun's rays away from the planet.

Ambitious as these schemes seem, the report concluded that many of them potentially had merit, and research into them should be pursued.

The authors stated, however, that some of the technology was barely formed and there were "major uncertainties regarding its effectiveness, costs and environmental impacts".

One of the technologies considered "too risky" was pouring iron filings into the ocean to grow algae which, the authors said, could cause "substantial damage" to marine life and freshwater, estuary and coastal ecosystems.

Buying time

The study stressed that engineering approaches would only have a limited impact, and that efforts should continue to be focused on reducing CO2 emissions.

"(Governments) should make increased efforts toward mitigating and adapting to climate change and in particular agreeing to global emissions reductions of at least 50% on 1990 levels by 2050 and more thereafter," the authors wrote.

But, they continued, there should be "further research and development" into geo-engineering options "to investigate whether low-risk methods can be made available if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century".

Of the two basic geo-engineering approaches, the report concluded that those involving the removal of carbon dioxide were preferable, as they effectively return the climate system closer to its pre-industrial state.

But the authors found that many of these options were currently too expensive to implement widely.

This included "carbon capture and storage" methods, which require CO2 be captured directly from power plants and stored under the Earth's surface.

Current proposed methods also work very slowly, taking many decades to remove enough carbon dioxide to significantly reduce the rate of temperature rise.

Of the carbon removal techniques assessed, three were considered to have most potential:

1. CO2 capture from ambient air: This would be the preferred method, as it effectively reverses the cause of climate change.

2. Enhanced weathering: This aims to enhance natural reactions of CO2 from the air with rocks and minerals. It was identified as a prospective longer-term option.

3. Land use and afforestation: The report found that land-use management could and should play a small but significant role in reducing the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

So-called solar radiation management methods do not take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and, according to some climate models, may be ineffective in altering shifts in rainfall patterns and storms, the report said.

But the authors said that the door should not be shut to the approach, which could be a faster way to reduce the rate of increase in global temperatures.

Some suggestions include: a giant mirror on the Moon; a space parasol made of superfine aluminium mesh; and a swarm of 10 trillion small mirrors launched into space one million at a time every minute for the next 30 years.

The study also said that many of these approaches had huge logistical demands, and it could take several decades for them to be implemented.

But if temperatures rose to such a level where more rapid action needed to be taken, three techniques were considered to have most potential:

1. Stratospheric aerosols: Previous volcanic eruptions have effectively provided case studies of the potential effectiveness of this method.

2. Space-based methods: These were considered to be a potential technique for long-term use, but only if major problems of implementation and maintenance could be solved.

3. Cloud albedo approaches: These include "cloud ships" which would send sea water into the clouds to make them more reflective.

The report also highlighted an inadequate international legal framework for cross border projects.

"The greatest challenges to the successful deployment of geo-engineering may be to social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance rather than scientific issues," it pointed out.

The authors urged an appropriate international body, such as the UN Commission for Sustainable Development, to establish a method for developing treaties to determine who would be responsible for research that might have global risks and benefits.

Professor John Shepherd, a researcher from the University of Southampton, chaired the Royal Society's geo-engineering study.

He said: "It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO2 emissions, we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future.

"Geo-engineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change."


Read more!

Can Bill Gates stop hurricanes? Scientists doubt it

Ayesha Tejpar, CNN 28 Aug 09;

(CNN) -- Hurricane experts are throwing cold water on an idea backed by billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates aimed at controlling the weather.

Gates and a dozen other scientists have raised eyebrows by submitting patent applications for a technology to reduce the danger of approaching hurricanes by cooling ocean temperatures.

It's a noble idea, given the horrible memories from Hurricane Katrina, which slammed into the Gulf Coast four years ago this week.

The storm, which rated a frightening Category 3 when it made landfall in Louisiana, was blamed for $81 billion in damaged and destroyed property and the deaths of more than 1,800 men, women and children.

Skeptics applaud the motive of the concept but question its feasibility.

"The enormity of it, in order to do something effective, we'd have to do something at a scale that humans have never really done before," said Gabriel Vecchi, a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

How exactly would this hurricane-zapping technology work?

Hurricanes are fueled by warm water, and cooling the waters surrounding a storm would slow a storm's momentum.

According to the patents, many tub-like barges would be placed directly in the path of an oncoming storm. Each barge would have two conduits, each 500 feet long.

One conduit would push the warm water from the ocean's surface down. The other would bring up cold water where it lies deep undersea.

World reknowned hurricane expert William Gray, who's been studying and predicting the storms for a half-century, also doubts whether the proposal would work.

"The problem is the storms come up so rapidly," said Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. "You only get two to three days warning. It's very difficult to bring up enough cold water in two to three days to have much effect."

The idea itself isn't groundbreaking, according to Gray, who said it could only be feasible if the barges were put into place at the beginning of hurricane season with the idea that storms will come.

"But you might do all that, and perhaps no storms would come. That's an economic problem," Gray said.

Even if the technology does work, Gray said it won't completely halt a hurricane.

"There is no way to stop it. The storm might weaken in the center, but the outer areas wouldn't be affected much."

And flooding and storm surges are determined by these outer winds, Gray said.

When word of Gates' five patent applications first made headlines in July, alarmed bloggers lit up the Internet, expressing fears that playing with ocean temperatures could lead to catastrophe, possibly forcing a storm in a different direction.

That's not likely, said Kerry Emanuel, a professor in atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"You're doing something to the ocean that the hurricane would have done anyway," Emanuel said.

Cold water that churns up during a storm slows down a hurricane naturally. But the coldest water is usually at the rear of the storm, so sometimes it's too late to weaken [the storm], Emanuel said.

"The key is doing it a little sooner than the storm itself does it and make [the hurricane] weaker than it would have been," he said. "There are enough experiments to find out whether hurricanes' natural cooling could steer the storm in a different location, and the answer is no, or it's a very small chance."

While Emanuel believes the physics are conceivable, he says the cost of implementing the system shouldn't outweigh the benefit.

"This would only be practical if the amount [of money] you spend doing this would be less than the damage caused by the hurricane," Emanuel said.

Gates and scientist Ken Caldeira, both listed as inventors on the patents, did not respond to CNN's requests to comment about their venture.

The patents, which were only made public last month by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office, were filed in January by Searete LLC. The company is a subsidiary of Intellectual Ventures, an invention firm run by Microsoft's former chief technology officer Nathan Myhrvold.

A spokeswoman for Intellectual Ventures, which holds about 27,000 technology patents, didn't elaborate on the cost associated with the patent.

"At this point, there are no plans for deployment, so there is no talk of funding," she said, adding that it could take up to 18 months for the patent application to be approved.

Regardless, inventors say that this technology is not something they'll be rushing to use anytime soon.

"This type of technology is not something humankind would use as a 'Plan A' or 'Plan B,'" Paul "Pablos" Holman, an inventor in the Intellectual Ventures laboratory, wrote on the company blog.

"These inventions are a 'Plan C,' where humans decide that we've exhausted all our behavior changing and alternative energy options and need to rely on mitigation technologies. If our planet is in this severe situation, then our belief is that we should not be starting from scratch at investigating mitigation options."

Hurricane expert Gray agrees.

"I don't think this is anything that's going to be done in the next few decades in a practical sense, but maybe further down the line," Gray said. "I would love to see Bill Gates, with all his money, use some of it to experiment."


Read more!

Poor nations need 'wartime' support against climate change: UN

Yahoo News 1 Sep 09;

GENEVA (AFP) – Developing nations need a 600-billion-dollar "Marshall Plan" annually to tackle climate change with support from rich nations on a scale not seen outside wartime recovery, a UN report said Tuesday.

The World Economic and Social Survey called for a "Global Sustainable New Deal" to overcome the "woefully inadequate" estimate of 21 billion dollars currently set aside internationally to adapt to and cope with climate change.

Touching on a core stumbling block in global climate talks, the report said that poor nations needed a huge investment programme from rich nations to shift to clean energy, and to adapt to the weather changes and damage wrought by global warming.

The transformation would require "a level of international support and solidarity rarely mustered outside a wartime setting," according to the survey by the UN's department of economic and social affairs.

"What we're arguing for given the kind of money we're talking about is a new Marshall Plan to tackle climate change and development," said author Richard Kozul-Wright.

"The ballpark figure in this report is one percent of world GDP, something in the order currently of 500 billion to 600 billion dollars (419 billion euros) annually is what developing countries will need in terms of international support to make this kind of shift sooner rather than later," the UN economist told journalists.

World leaders will meet in the Danish capital Copenhagen in December in a bid to seal a new international accord against climate change, aimed primarily at setting new emissions cuts and drawing developing nations into the deal.

But industralised, emerging and developing nations are at loggerheads in the negotiations, including over the issue of additional funding to help poor countries mitigate and adapt to global warming.

The latest UN figure is well above previous estimates.

"The kind of adjustments required have been seriously underestimated," said Kozul-Wright, calling for more "leadership" from high polluting rich nations and "much more frank and open discussions about burden sharing at the international level."

The report acknowledged that the required public investment push for climate action was "substantial and daunting," but pointed to the trillion dollar support given to banks and the financial system over the past year.

"This is a systemic threat," said the senior UN economist.

The report warned that incremental, market-based solutions such as emissions trading were not enough.

Instead they needed to find a way to pursue high economic growth as well as low emissions simultaneously, rather than to stifle industrial activity in order to cut energy use.

Investment within the next decade followed by rapid growth would sustain a wholesale transition to clean energy in poor nations and gradually help them to stand alone in coping with changing weather patterns, it added.

The report endorsed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: "The idea of freezing the current level of global inequality over the next half century or more, as the world goes about trying to solve the climate problem, is economically, politically and ethically unacceptable."

It pointed out that while the world needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 to 80 percent over 1990 levels by 2050, the energy generating capacity of developing countries was projected to be double that of their developed counterparts.

The report firmly laid the burden for current cuts on wealthy nations, noting that carbon emissions from China's booming economy were equivalent to those of the United States before World War I.


Read more!

UN chief 'alarmed' at Arctic glacier melt

Jacqueline Pietsch Yahoo News 1 Sep 09;

NY-AALESUND, Norway (AFP) – UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Tuesday he was "alarmed" by the rate at which the Arctic's glaciers are retreating as he visited the region ahead of key climate talks in December.

Ban said world leaders had a "moral political responsibility" to safeguard the future of the planet.

"I am very much alarmed and surprised to have seen these glaciers all worn," he told journalists as he visited the Ny-Aalesund climate change research station in the Svalbard archipelago, located 1,200 kilometres (745 miles) from the North Pole.

"Unless we take urgent action to stem this trend, we maybe virtually ice-free by 2037, even by 2030," he said.

Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister, is on a two-day trip to the Arctic to see first-hand the effects of climate change ahead of international climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

He is the first UN chief to visit the Ny-Aalesund research station, an advisor at the Kings Bay company which runs the site, Bendik Eithun Halgunset, told AFP.

World leaders will gather at a UN climate summit in December to try to seal a new international accord on fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol requirements expire in 2012.

Ban, who visited the Polar Ice Rim aboard a Norwegian coastguard vessel on Tuesday, said politicians must act now.

"We have a moral political responsibility for our future and for the whole of humanity, for even the future of our planet."

"This Arctic is the place where this global warming is happening much faster than any other region in the world. It looks like it's seemingly moving in slow motion but it's moving faster and faster. Much faster than expected," he added.

The UN chief visited the Zeppelin atmospheric measuring station on Ny-Aalesund which records the level of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and pollutants in the air.

"Over the past two years, we've suddenly seen a very big increase in methane gas," Kim Holmen, research director at the Norwegian Polar Institute, told Ban as he showed him around the station. Methane is one of the greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming.

Anywhere between 15 and 180 international researchers work at the research station depending on the season, in fields often linked to climate change such as atmospheric studies, land and marine biology, glaciology, geodesy and oceanography.

Ten countries have scientific bases at the station, where mobile phones are prohibited so as not to disturb the measurement instruments: Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway and South Korea.

Holmen warned that glaciers are melting at an increasing rate, releasing massive amounts of fresh water in the oceans and disrupting the Gulf stream -- a flow of water in the Atlantic that has a major impact on the planet's weather system.

Ban hopes to use his experience in Svalbard to convince the international community about the dangers of climate change at the Copenhagen summit, a meeting he has described as "crucial."

"One of the very important reasons for my coming to Norway is to see first-hand the dramatic changes to the Arctic and to learn what that means for mankind," he said in Oslo on Monday before departing for Svalbard.

In order to prepare for the Copenhagen talks, the UN plans to organise a high-level international meeting in New York on September 22, he said.

"I will take all I have learned to the high-level summit meeting."

Accompanied by his wife and Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim, Ban is also due to travel to Longyearbyen, the main town in the archipelago, on Wednesday to tour a vault carved into the Arctic permafrost and filled with samples of the world's most important seeds.

Dubbed the "Noah's Ark" of food, the vault can hold up to 4.5 million samples that can provide food crops in the event of a global catastrophe.

A 1920 international treaty which placed the Svalbard archipelago -- also known as Spitzberg -- under Norwegian sovereignty allows broad access to citizens from signatory countries.

Svalbard is twice the size of Belgium.

UN chief urges leaders over climate change
Jacqueline Pietsch Yahoo News 2 Sep 09;

LONGYEARBYEN, Norway (AFP) – UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday urged world leaders to act now to halt global warming, as he saw first-hand its effects in the Arctic ahead of a key climate change summit in December.

The UN will organise a high-level international meeting in New York on September 22 to prepare for the Copenhagen summit.

In Copenhagen, world leaders will try to seal a new accord to fight climate change after the Kyoto Protocol requirements expire in 2012.

"I will tell world leaders that this is the time to act before it is too late," Ban told reporters during a visit to Norway's Svalbard archipelago, just 1,200 kilometres (745 miles) from the North Pole.

"The Arctic is similar to sending a canary into a coalmine -- this is a danger warning for the global climate," he said.

If world leaders fail to "take urgent action ... we will regret it deeply for the future of humanity and the future of the world," he added.

His comments came a day after he visited the Ny-Aalesund climate change research station in Svalbard and took a walk on the polar ice rim, saying he was "very much alarmed" by the rapid rate of melting ice.

Researchers studying atmospheric conditions in the Arctic had told him Tuesday that they had over the past two years suddenly seen a large increase in emissions of methane gas, one of the most aggressive greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming.

"This Arctic is the place where this global warming is happening much faster than any other region in the world. It looks like it's seemingly moving in slow motion but it's moving faster and faster. Much faster than expected," Ban said Tuesday.

Norwegian Environment Minister Erik Solheim, who accompanied the UN secretary general on his tour of the Arctic region, echoed Ban's concerns.

"There is absolutely no doubt of the challenge facing the world today. Hundreds of thousands of people will die if we don't act," he told a seminar attended by Ban at Longyearbyen University in Svalbard.

"The magnitude of the task is enormous," he added.

Speaking to AFP, Ban criticised world leaders for often acting in the interests of their own countries.

"Climate change affects everyone. It doesn't respect borders. So political leaders should act as world leaders," he said.

Earlier Wednesday, Ban toured a vault carved into the Arctic permafrost, filled with samples of the world's most important seeds in case food crops are wiped out by a catastrophe.

"The world faces many daunting challenges today, one of the greatest of which is how to feed a growing population in the context of climate change," a bundled-up Ban told reporters after he visited the site.

"The seeds stored here in Svalbard will help us do just that. Sustainable food production may not begin in this cold Arctic environment, but it does begin by conserving crop diversity," he said.

Aimed at safeguarding biodiversity in the face of climate change, wars and other natural and man-made disasters, the seed bank has the capacity to hold up to 4.5 million batches of seeds, or twice the number of crop varieties believed to exist in the world today.

The vault was inaugurated in February 2008, and so far some 25 international and national institutes from 22 countries have deposited some 400,000 batches of seeds, according to the Norwegian government.

Ban was to leave the Arctic later Wednesday.


Read more!