Impacts of climate change for biodiversity: Planning for adaptation – Dr James Watson from Raffles Museum News
Spot the horse
from The annotated budak
Pulau Semakau (9 Apr 2011)
from Project Driftnet
Black-and-white Mannikin spotted
from Bird Ecology Study Group
The Shy Tortoise... Beetle!
from Macro Photography in Singapore
Answering a simple question - what is water quality?
from Water Quality in Singapore
Esther Ng Today Online 12 Apr 11;
SINGAPORE - Singapore will go ahead with its pre-feasibility study on nuclear energy, even as the tsunami in Japan knocking out the Fukushima power plant shows the shortcomings of such technology.
But even with the completion of the study, Singapore will still be a long way from making any decisions on nuclear energy for Singapore, Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S Iswaran told Parliament yesterday, responding to members of parliament who wanted to know if the Government would still proceed with a pre-feasibility study for nuclear power in Singapore.
Water pumps at the Fukushima power plant had failed when a tsunami last month knocked out its emergency generators, causing its nuclear reactors to overheat.
The Fukushima crisis made it all the more important Singapore conduct such a study, said Mr Iswaran, especially when Singapore's neighbours - Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand - have announced plans for nuclear energy.
Even if Singapore did not proceed with nuclear energy, the Republic must understand how nuclear technology works and its safety risks, so that Singapore could work with its neighbours to ensure the safe deployment of nuclear energy, he said.
Meanwhile, the Government is also exploring alternative energy options such as electricity imports, renewable energy and clean coal, and investing in research to improve energy efficiency and develop new energy technologies, said Mr Iswaran.
The completion of a liquefied natural gas terminal will also expand Singapore's geographical sources of energy beyond 2013.
Preliminary nuclear study will go ahead
Jessica Lim Straits Times 12 Apr 11;
NO STONE will be left unturned and critical issues will be studied assiduously before the Government makes any decision on nuclear energy for Singapore.
Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran yesterday took pains to assure Singaporeans after MPs, such as Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) and Mr Michael Palmer (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), asked about the Government's pre-feasibility study on nuclear energy and wanted to know if it would be shelved in the light of the nuclear plant crisis in Japan.
He said the study - a preliminary step to better understand nuclear energy - will go on and, even on its completion, Singapore will be a long way from making any decision on nuclear energy.
He added that 'what happened in Fukushima makes it all the more important that we conduct such a study, and build our knowledge and understanding of nuclear energy'.
Mr Iswaran listed a series of issues that would be studied, including essential elements for the safe operation of a nuclear plant, protection against terrorist attacks, radiation protection and emergency planning.
He also pointed out that several countries in the region, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, have announced plans for nuclear energy.'Therefore, even if we do not proceed with nuclear energy for Singapore, we need to understand its implications for the region, and for us in Singapore,' he said.
Emphasising the need for Singapore scientists and engineers to know how nuclear technology works, he added: 'Only then can we work constructively with our Asean partners and other partners to ensure that nuclear energy, whenever and wherever it is deployed in this region, is done so in a safe and secure manner.'
At an energy conference last November, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong identified nuclear power as 'an important part of the solution to mankind's energy problems'.
He said Singapore was building up its capabilities now as the nuclear option was one that it 'cannot afford to miss'.
He also said the MTI was carrying out a pre-feasibility study on nuclear power in Singapore, but it would be a long time before any decision was made.
Experts in the nuclear and energy field agree with the Government's position.
'Nuclear energy is a new science as far as Singapore is concerned. It is important to conduct a feasibility study from a domestic standpoint and to assess the impact of other nuclear plants that may be built in the region,' said Mr Ravi Krishnaswamy, vice-president of consultancy Frost & Sullivan's Asia-Pacific energy and power systems practice.
He said that conducting a feasibility study did not mean Singapore had chosen nuclear energy.
'Singapore does not sit on any fault lines and is insulated from natural disasters. But other things need to be looked at, for instance, the lack of space in the need of evacuation. The Government will look at all the risks, then decide.'
Others like energy specialist Stefan Adams, an associate professor of material science at the National University of Singapore, said it would take at least a year for the study to be completed and up to a decade before anything could be built.
'We are in the very initial stages. If a decision is made, you still need to find a suitable place, negotiate with countries to deliver nuclear fuel and construct the plant,' he said.
Imelda Saad Channel NewsAsia 11 Apr 11;
SINGAPORE: Singapore authorities have stressed that the country's food and water supply remains free from harmful radioactive material.
Minister of State for Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor gave the update in Parliament, a month after a massive quake hit Japan triggering a tsunami which damaged its Fukushima nuclear plant.
Authorities in Singapore say the current situation at Fukushima remains serious but they also stress that the likelihood of any radioactive plume reaching Singapore is very low.
Even though sea waters around Fukushima have been found to be radioactive, Singapore's coastal waters remain safe. Because Singapore is more than 5,000 kilometres away from Japan, even if any radioactive plume or sea water reaches the country, the impact is "inconsequential". That is because by then, any radioactive material would have been diluted to "insignificant levels"
Authorities continue to monitor drinking supply and food imports from Japan.
Singapore's water authority, the PUB, has found the country's inland and drinking water to be well within the safety level stipulated by the World Heath Organisation.
Meanwhile, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority is stepping up its food surveillance. Radiation was detected in a few shipments of vegetable from Japan, but these were disposed of. Fresh produce and milk from affected regions have been banned.
Still MPs point out that concerns among Singaporeans remain.
MP for West Coast GRC Ho Geok Choo asked: "The public has indeed been expressing reservations about eating seafood and I think we are also seeing Singaporeans shunning Japanese restaurants for fear of contaminated seafood. How safe is seafood imported from elsewhere?"
Dr Amy Khor, Minister of State with the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources, answered: "All shipments of fruits and vegetables, seafood, milk, meat, and milk products from Japan are subject to what we call hold and test policy. That means sample from each shipment are taken for testing and the shipment is only released when it is found to be safe for consumption. As such food imported from Japan, including seafood that is available from the market is safe for consumption".
The government has also stressed that at this point, it has only embarked on a "pre-feasibility" study on nuclear energy and what happened in Fukushima, it said, makes it all the more important that authorities conduct such a study.
Senior Minister of State with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, S Iswaran, said: "The aim is to gain a deeper insight into critical issues like the different technologies that are available and being developed; the international regulatory regime; the essential elements for the safe operation of a nuclear plant; the management of spent nuclear fuel; protection against terrorist attacks; radiation protection; and emergency planning."
Mr Iswaran added that even with the completion of the pre-feasibility study, it will be many years before Singapore makes any decision on nuclear energy. He explained that the study is important because even if Singapore does not proceed with nuclear energy, authorities need to understand its implications for the region and the country.
-CNA/ac
Singapore safe from radiation contamination
Straits Times 12 Apr 11;
SINGAPORE is safe from any effects of the nuclear fallout in Japan, and airtight plans are in place to prevent any contamination.
These were the reassurances Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources Amy Khor gave the House yesterday, in response to a question from Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC).
Madam Ho said residents were concerned about the possibility of radiation contamination, and asked what steps the Government was taking to ensure that Singapore remained radiation-free.
Modelling simulations carried out by the National Environment Agency and the World Meteorological Organisation show the likelihood of any radioactive plume reaching Singapore is 'very low', said Dr Khor.
Even if such a plume did reach the Republic, its impact would be 'inconsequential', as the concentration of radioactive substances in the plume would be diluted to insignificant levels, she said, adding that the same could be said of the possibility of radioactive seawater affecting the waters and coast of Singapore.
Radiation leaks from the tsunami-damaged Fukushima nuclear plant, which are seeping directly into the sea and affecting produce grown in its vicinity, have triggered global fears of radioactive contamination of food and water sources.
Singapore is more than 5,000km from the Japanese nuclear plant.
As a precaution, the Government is monitoring the radiation in coastal waters here, and in drinking water. No abnormal changes have been measured in water sources so far.
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority, however, has suspended food imports from 11 Japanese prefectures to date, after samples taken from shipments from those areas were found to contain higher- than-usual levels of radiation.
However, all food here is safe to eat, stressed Dr Khor, as imports from Japan are subject to a 'hold-and-test process'.
This means the products will be released for sale only after test results show them to be free of contamination.
'I'd like to assure the House that contingency plans are in place to deal with any deterioration of the situation in Japan,' she said.
More information on the Government's response to the crisis can be found at one-stop information portal www.gov.sg/japanquake
JESSICA LIM
No risk of radiation contamination in Singapore
Imelda Saad Aziz Today Online 13 Apr 11;
The authorities say there is no change in the assessment risk to the country, despite Japan's revised rating of the situation at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant.
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency raised its provisional rating of the situation at the plant to Level 7 -putting it on the same scale as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, after an estimate of the total amount of radioactivity released from the plant.
Singapore's Information, Communications and the Arts Ministry and the National Environment Agency said although the situation in Japan remains serious, it does not indicate it has worsened.
Radiation levels in various prefectures reported by the Japanese authorities and the International Atomic Energy Agency did not show any significant changes over the past few days.
Singapore is also located more than 5,000km away from the plant.
Even in the unlikely event that any radioactive plume reaches the country, the concentration of radioactive substances would be diluted to insignificant levels over the long distance.
The Government will continue with existing measures to safeguard against radioactive contamination being imported into Singapore, and stand ready to step up measures if necessary. IMELDA SAAD
Major seafood suppliers report drop in business amid radiation fears
Wayne Chan Channel NewsAsia 12 Apr 11;
SINGAPORE: Major seafood suppliers to Japanese restaurants in Singapore have said they are experiencing up to 40 per cent drop in businesses.
Addressing concerns over possible radiation contamination in seafood, they told MediaCorp that there is no need to fear.
Most seafood at Japanese restaurants here is sourced from outside Japan.
The assurance that Japanese seafood here is safe to eat was also given in Parliament on Monday.
Only three to five per cent of seafood served at Japanese restaurants in Singapore comes from Japan, according to seafood suppliers.
The rest is imported from elsewhere.
Mr Thomas Woo, sales manager at Huan Trading, which supplies seafood to 80 per cent of the over 1,000 Japanese restaurants in Singapore, said: "Salmon is from Norway, the tuna is from Indonesia, the Hiramasa (kingfish) is from Australia. The items that do come from Japan (are) like all the sea urchin, the Hamachi (yellowfin)...the flounder fish..."
But seafood suppliers said that with recent stepped-up checks by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), freshness of seafood has been affected.
Mr Woo said: "The difficulty is because all these have to be consumed within three days, fresh items. But they take one, two days to check, then you release it to the customer, then I think it is very difficult because it is not so fresh anymore."
And as Japanese restaurants turn to safer, alternative sources, seafood suppliers feel that it is the freshness that Japanese seafood lovers are going to miss.
Thomas Ng, sales director of Indoguna, said: "The Japanese way of killing the fish is to immediately kill. So it is not like the Europeans or the Western countries that leave the fish to die naturally. So it causes rigor mortis on the fish, the sweetness of the fish is all there, and the fishy smell of the fish is gone..."
Some suppliers said they will give discounts of up to 10 per cent, even though their business costs have been driven up by almost 10 per cent due to the shortage of seafood from Japan.
Jack Park, president of Todai Singapore, said: "Public education is necessary to reassure our customers about the origin of the food they eat. As fresh seafood is served at our restaurant, it is of utmost importance for us to take that step in telling our customers the source of origin of our seafood, so that our customers are aware that Todai does not serve any seafood from Japan."
The AVA said its ongoing surveillance programme ensures that food in Singapore is safe for consumption.
"As part of this programme, we routinely sample and test seafood for preservatives, drug residues and contaminants such as heavy metals (for example, mercury, cadmium, lead and arsenic)," an AVA statement said.
But it added that it tests for radioactive contamination in seafood imported from Japan only.
"We do not carry out such tests for other countries as the risk of radioactive contamination of seafood is negligible," it said.
- CNA/ms
Bernama 11 Apr 11;
SINGAPORE, April 11 (Bernama) -- The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, or MPA, will soon launch a new Port Operations Control Centre at Changi that will be equipped with a new Vessel Traffic Information System to enhance vessel traffic management in and around Singapore's waters.
Announcing this, the Minister in Prime Minister's Office, and second Minister for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua, said as a premier hub at the very heart of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, "we have placed a strong emphasis on navigational safety to prevent accidents that could lead to an oil or chemical spill."
As oil and chemical spills are often transboundary in nature, regional cooperation is vital.
Singapore works closely with the other littoral states to keep the Straits of Malacca and Singapore safe for international shipping," she said at the opening of International Chemical and Oil Pollution Conference and Exhibition 2011, at Resorts World Sentosa Monday.
She said through the Cooperative Mechanism on Safety of Navigation and Environmental Protection, the three littoral states regularly engage user states and industry players in dialogue and joint projects to enhance navigational safety and prevent pollution.
We have also established standard operating procedures under the Revolving Fund Committee to jointly combat oil spills in the Straits. These procedures proved useful when they were activated during last year's oil spill.
-- BERNAMA
Nisha Ramchandani Business Times 12 Apr 11;
THE brakes, it seems, are still in place. Piling work at the Changi Motorsports Hub site has not started back up as foundation specialist CSC Holdings has yet to receive the balance of the outstanding progress payment owed by consortium SG Changi.
Mainboard-listed CSC would only say yesterday that there were 'no new developments' and that CSC is 'still talking to (SG Changi) about a resolution'.
This is despite a media report in late March which said that SG Changi is in talks with a potential investor.
The report also quoted SG Changi's head of people innovations, Andrew Ujiie, as saying that it is 'confident in meeting (its) commitments to build the track'.
In its last update on the motorsports hub to the Singapore Exchange (SGX) dated Feb 23, CSC's wholly owned subsidiary, CS Construction & Geotechnic (CSCG), was still owed an outstanding amount of $5 million after receiving a partial payment from SG Changi.
The partial payment received had reduced the outstanding amount from $10 million (as at Feb 16) to $5 million.
CSCG was first awarded the $50 million piling contract by SG Changi in October last year but in mid-January, the foundation specialist ceased work on the 41-hectare site along Aviation Park Road after SG Changi failed to make payments that were due.
There is also talk that SG Changi is facing demands from other parties that have yet to be paid. Mr Ujiie did not return calls from BT yesterday.
SG Changi reportedly ran into funding difficulties after news broke in January that the $380 million project was being investigated by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
Sources had told BT previously that the probe relates to the award of the tender for the Changi Motorsports Hub to SG Changi and whether there was any information leakage during the tender process.
With piling works on hold for nearly three months now, the question remains whether the Changi Motorsports Hub will be ready by the end of this year as initially planned, and whether the first race will flag off in March 2012 as previously targeted.
The Singapore Sports Council - which called the tender for the motorsports hub - did not respond to queries by press time.
Mr Ujiie was quoted some weeks ago as saying that it has signed Japan's Formula Nippon to race here next year and that it is still in talks with MotoGP, Australia's V8 Supercars, and the Superleague Formula Series.
The Changi Motorsports Hub, seen as a key thrust in Singapore's bid to develop its motorsports industry, is expected to have features such as a 3.7km racetrack, a 1.2km karting track, food and beverage and retail outlets, as well as a hotel.
Cheong Suk-Wai Straits Times 12 Apr 11;
AS A boy, Mr James Leape would walk through America's Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks with his grandfather, who was a naturalist and would point this and that bird out to him.
Mr Leape, 55, recalls: 'I grew up wanting to be a park ranger - and then I discovered that I really liked arguing about conservation, so I went to law school!'
Harvard Law School, to be precise, after which he practised as an environmental lawyer for some years, counting among his many clients the United Nations Environment Programme.
Then, in 1989, he made good on his childhood dream by joining the United States office of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The WWF, which celebrates its 50th anniversary later this month, is one of the world's largest environmental organisations. Mr Leape directed WWF US' global conservation programmes for more than 10 years. In 2005, he was appointed director-general of WWF International, which is the WWF's global secretariat, coordinating the efforts of its more than 90 offices in 40 countries - including Singapore, where it is known as the World Wide Fund For Nature. It works with non-governmental bodies on 1,300 conservation projects, including the sustainable harvesting of palm oil and the protection of coral reefs.
In town for work last month, he told me why the WWF isn't just about saving endangered pandas any more:
What are some of your most pressing challenges in Asia today?
A big-time issue is reducing carbon emissions in Indonesia, whose burning forests are a major source of air pollution and climate change. We are also looking at making the region's fisheries sustainable and trying to transform markets, which means looking at the commodities that drive biodiversity in a big way, such as palm oil. We've amazing traction with that.
How so?
Well, eight years ago, we helped create the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. It now has more than 370 members, among which are 40 per cent of the world's palm oil producers. But the roundtable's members are also buyers and civil society groups like us.
This roundtable has developed standards for sustainable palm oil, which means eliminating deforestation from our supply chain. Oil palms should be grown only on land that is already set aside for agriculture. In the last two years, it's become possible for producers to get certified under those standards, sending sustainable palm oil production from 0 per cent to 6.5 per cent.
But isn't partnering such businesses like sleeping with the Devil?
What is sleeping with the Devil?
Partnering people with vested interests in staying alive.
This isn't about shutting down industries. This is about how we move industries on to a sustainable future.
But isn't there a fine line between that and encouraging industrialists to continue overproducing?
Well, yeah, but you've got a growing global population and growing demands, right? So yes, we have to reduce consumption, but the world needs to produce vegetable oil and palm oil production is a pretty efficient way to do that. So let's do it off lands that are already available for agriculture.
We also have a consumer goods forum made up of 400 companies and consumer groups, whose total revenues are US$2.8 trillion (S$3.5 trillion). So that's quite a lot of them, and they announced at the 2010 climate talks in Cancun, Mexico that they were committing themselves to zero nett deforestation by 2020. And a group of 20 companies within that, led by Mr Paul Polman of (Anglo-Dutch consumer goods giant) Unilever, said they were committed to sourcing only for palm oil, soya beans, beef, timber and so on that have been certified as sustainable either by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, the Marine Stewardship Council or the Forest Stewardship Council (all of which WWF International co-founded).
But won't producers pass their certification costs on to consumers?
First, let's not accept the premise that this needs to be a lot more expensive than it is. Second, we need to make sure that buyers are willing to pay what it takes for palm oil to be sustainable. There is in fact demand for this product that is produced to set standards. And third, it's important that we work from all sides (to move sustainability along); we're working with investors to support this shift.
You're also trying to shift consumers towards saving energy with your yearly Earth Hour campaign. But isn't it just a fad?
The fad concern is a concern that I had in 2007 when we started Earth Hour, and again in 2008, 2009 and 2010. But now it's 2011, and Earth Hour gets bigger every year. Last year, we had 128 countries taking part; the words 'Earth Hour' were entered into Google 800 times every second for the whole Earth Hour day. So now, the question is: How does this translate into their lives? Of course, there's no silver bullet. But if you put Earth Hour next to what some companies are doing, then people can see that, okay, bigger changes are happening. And when they go to a store, they have choices that they didn't have. They can actually be part of a solution that simply wasn't possible just five years ago. Then when you see them moving, that changes the politics.
All well and good, but aren't these efforts being roundly cancelled out by our excessive consumption?
The level of carbon in the atmosphere continues to go up. You have increasing water scarcity. We continue to lose forests at an astonishing rate. Several leading marine scientists in the US have predicted that all of the world's commercial fisheries would be gone by the middle of the century if the rate of current consumption continues. So the trend lines are going badly in the wrong direction. What I've now been talking about are efforts that actually have the promise of beginning to turn those around. The challenge for all of us is to deliver on that promise, by eating less meat so our diet is more easily sustained; by finding myriad ways to get more out of the land that we use; by reducing waste; and, fundamentally, by shifting the world to renewable energy.
suk@sph.com.sg
Wasteful living: One Earth isn't enough
SOFT-SPOKEN, down-to-earth and droll, lawyer James Leape says that saving the planet is simply about living mindfully:
The future of humanity
'Someone said to me, 'People talk about saving the planet but the planet's going to be just fine, thank you.' But humanity will not do so well and there are many species we will take with us if we don't get onto a better track.'
Singapore
'It's a natural place for us to have an office because it's such an important hub in a region of great and growing importance. We gather once a year in the Asia-Pacific and we gather here.'
His favourite factoid
'We have to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we produced in the last 8,000 years.'
How wasteful people are today
'If everyone on Earth lived as the average American does, we would need five planets. And the average European and average Singaporean live in a way that would require three planets to support.'
Antara 11 Apr 11;
Jakarta (ANTARA News) - Mangrove forests in Indonesia can function as a fortress against disaster and therefore they should be managed properly, a legislator has said.
Angelina Sondakh, a member of the House of Representatives (DPR)`s Commission X said here on Monday that a proper management of mangrove forest in the country should be stepped up.
She made the statement after getting an information about the examination results of Supreme Audit Board (BPK) concerning mangrove forest management performance at Malacca Strait area.
"BPK has disclosed that there are some weaknesses of policies and systems of internal control and non-compliance with the applicable provisions to the applicable provisions," said the legislator who is also an environment activist.
Consequently, she said mangrove forest rehabilitation, utilization, conservation, and protection had yet to be effective.
"The function of mangrove forest have to be improved and maintained as coastal ecosystem buffer," Angelina said.
(Uu.O001/HAJM)
Editor: Priyambodo RH
VietNamNet 10 Apr 11;
The legendary turtle living in Hoan Kiem (Sword) Lake is suffering from dermatitis, according to an investigation released by Hanoi’s Turtle Treatment Association April 9 morning.
The test results show that the turtle had been infected with four kinds of bacteria.
They said the open wounds on the turtle’s legs and shell have shown signs of good recovery after five days of treatment.
Dr. Bui Quang Te – Head of Treatment Association – said that the DNA test in laboratories shows that the creature doesn’t contract a serious illness as many people anticipated earlier.
From the results, experts claimed that the giant reptile living in Hoan Kiem Lake is a new kind of turtle in Vietnam, totally different from huge soft-shell turtles living in Shanghai, China.
“However, our greatest problem now is the lake’s water pollution,” Te said.
The Lake is also home to many kinds of poisonous seaweed and mushrooms, which could be harmful to the creature’s health once the government releases it to its natural habitat, Te said, adding it could take a long time to finish dredging sediments at the bottom.
Authorities earlier put a steel tank in the lake where veterinarians can treat the injured turtle.
The steel tank measures 5 meters across and is covered with non-toxic paint and its water level can be varied between 20cm to 120cm.
Authorities have decided to pump water into it from the lake and not other sources to save time and effort and to avoid shocking the giant turtle.
They also installed an advanced water treatment system at the site.
Hanoi government also installed a 15 m tank to house the turtle during its recuperation period.
The treatment is expected to last around 90 days, including preliminary treatment, taking a sample for testing, diagnosis, and final treatment.
Source: Tuoi Tre
Yereth Rosen PlanetArk 11 Apr 11;
Over 3,000 square miles of Alaska marine area will be protected as critical habitat for a population of endangered beluga whales, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service announced on Friday.
The critical habitat being designated to help the belugas encompasses most of the northern third of Cook Inlet, a glacier-fed saltwater channel that runs from the Anchorage area to the Gulf of Alaska.
Also designated as critical habitat is Kachemak Bay, off the fishing town of Homer, and most of the inlet's southwestern coastline, NOAA's Fisheries Service announced.
Those areas are heavily used by the small white whales for congregating and summer feeding, NOAA Fisheries said.
Cook Inlet belugas are famous for swimming in large groups along the coastline of Anchorage and other urbanized areas.
Scientists estimate the inlet population numbered up to 1,300 in the 1980s before numbers crashed in the 1990s due to over-hunting by the area's Alaska Natives, who are allowed under federal law to hunt marine mammals for traditional uses.
Even though hunting nearly ended over the past decade, NOAA analysis found the population continued to falter. Cook Inlet belugas were listed as endangered in 2008.
Currently, only 350 Cook Inlet belugas remain, and reproduction has been poor, according to NOAA analysis.
Under the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat must be designated and protected for any listed species, unless that habitat cannot be identified.
Scientists are still investigating the reasons for the whales' failure to recover population strength. Possible causes include underwater noise from commercial shipping or offshore oil and gas operations, pollutants swept into the inlet by urban runoff or depletion of the region's salmon, which is an important food source for belugas.
Environmentalists were pleased with the habitat designation, which will go into effect 30 days after the rule is published in the Federal Register on Monday.
"It's an excellent designation. It's good news for the belugas," said Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Critical habitat designation will likely mean additional protections to curb water and air pollution, helping local fishermen, tour operators and others, Noblin said.
"If we protect Cook Inlet for belugas, we're also protecting it for the people who live around Cook Inlet."
But business groups were unhappy with the designation and the development restrictions that may result from it. The designation of critical habitat, and the endangered listing that underlies it, could constrict oil and gas drilling, commercial fishing, shipping, urban construction and several major projects such as a planned bridge from Anchorage across Knik Inlet, they argue.
"This listing will have no positive effect on the belugas and it'll only have a negative impact on economic activities that have been going on since statehood," said Jason Brune, executive director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska.
(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Jerry Norton)
Kerry Sheridan Yahoo News 11 Apr 11;
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Young penguins in the Antarctic may be dying because they are having a tougher time finding food, as melting sea ice cuts back on the tiny fish they eat, US researchers suggested on Monday.
Only about 10 percent of baby penguins tagged by researchers are coming back in two to four years to breed, down from 40-50 percent in the 1970s, said the study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Chinstrap penguins, known for their characteristic head markings that resemble a cap with a black line just under the neck, are the second largest group in the area after the macaroni penguins, and are at particular risk because their population is restricted to one area, the South Shetland Islands.
"It is a dramatic change," lead researcher Wayne Trivelpiece, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division, told AFP.
"There are still two to three million chinstrap pairs in this region but there were seven to eight million two decades ago," he said.
"There is some concern now. We need to follow these animals and track them."
The 30-year study included chinstrap and Adelie penguins in the West Antarctic and tracked the abundance of their main food source, krill, which are the small shrimp-like crustacean mainly eaten by whales, seals and penguins.
Trivelpiece was a co-author on a study published in 1992 that suggested penguin populations were surging and subsiding according to changes in sea ice -- with the chinstrap doing better in warm years and the Adelie thriving in cold years.
Chinstrap penguins eat and make their nests away from the snow and ice and so are considered ice-avoiding animals, unlike their Adelie counterparts who feed in icy habitats and are seen as more vulnerable when there is less ice.
However, Trivelpiece and his co-authors now believe that krill are the real culprit for the disappearing penguin populations, and the damage affects both types of penguins.
Krill needs ice to survive, and as climate change causes more polar sea ice to melt, the tiny sea creatures cannot breed or feast on phytoplankton in the ice and their numbers fall, taking away an important source of nourishment for penguins.
"Under a scenario of global warming and increasing temperature we had prophesized that Adelies and ice-loving animals like Adelies should decline while chinstraps and ice-avoiding animals should increase," Trivelpiece said.
But shortly after the team's paper was published in the early 90s, the data began to change.
"From that point shortly thereafter onward, we lost those large fluxes and both species started behaving the same way and both started declining dramatically," he said.
"By the time we had enough data to realize what was going on with the youngsters, we realized that the big difference was between the early years when there was a lot of krill around, and the later years when there wasn't."
Over the past three decades, krill biomass has declined 38 to 81 percent, said the study.
"If warming continues, winter sea-ice may disappear from much of this region and exacerbate krill and penguin declines," it said.
The main driver of the decline in krill is climate change, but resurgent numbers of whales -- on the rise after cuts in hunting -- could be increasing the number of predators that eat krill as well, Trivelpiece said.
A large commercial fishery that is using the krill for aquaculture feeds could also be cutting back on the natural numbers, the study noted.
While the penguins are far from the verge of extinction, the researchers have urged the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to assess their status and possibly bump them higher on Red List of vulnerable species.
Penguins suffer as Antarctic krill declines
Mark Kinver BBC News 12 Apr 11;
A number of penguin species found in western Antarctica are declining as a result of a fall in the availability of krill, a study has suggested.
Researchers, examining 30 years of data, said chinstrap and Adelie penguin numbers had been falling since 1986.
Warming waters, less sea-ice cover and more whale and seal numbers was cited as reducing the abundance of krill, the main food source for the penguins.
The findings appear in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) is a shrimp-like creature that reach lengths of about 6cm (2in) and is considered to be one of the most abundant species on the planet, being found in densities of up to 30,000 creatures in a cubic-metre of seawater.
It is also one of the key species in the ecosystems in and around Antarctica, as it is the dominant prey of nearly all vertebrates in the region, including chinstrap and Adelie penguins.
Warming to change
In their paper, a US team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said a number of factors were combining to change the shape of the area's environment.
"The West Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) and adjacent Scotia Sea support abundant wildlife populations, many of which were nearly [wiped out] by humans," they wrote.
"This region is also among the fastest warming areas on the planet, with 5-6C increases in mean winter air temperatures and associated decreases in winter sea-ice cover."
They added that analysis of data gathered during 30 years of field studies, and recent penguin surveys, challenged a leading scientific idea, known as the "sea-ice hypothesis", about how the region's ecosystems was changing.
"(It) proposes that reductions in winter sea-ice have led directly to declines in 'ice-loving' species by decreasing their winter habitat, while populations of 'ice-avoiding' species have increased," they explained.
However, they said that their findings showed that since the mid 1980s there had been a decline in both ice-loving Adelies (Pygoscelis adeliae) and ice-avoiding chinstraps (Pygoscelis antarctica), with both populations falling by up to 50%.
As a result, the researchers favoured a "more robust" hypothesis that penguin population numbers were linked to changes in the abundance of their main food source, krill.
"Linking trends in penguin abundance with trends in krill biomass explains why populations of Adelie and chinstrap penguins increased after competitors (fur seals, baleen whales and some fish) were nearly extirpated in the 19th to mid-20th Centuries, and currently are decreasing in response to climate change," they wrote.
The team said that it was estimated that there was in the region of 150 million tonnes of krill for predators after the global hunting era depleted the world's whale population.
During this period, data shows that there was a five-fold increase in chinstrap and Adelie numbers at breeding sites from the 1930s to the 1970s, they reported.
"The large populations of Adelie and chinstrap penguins were not sustained for long, however, and are now declining precipitously."
They added that this was happening as rising temperatures and decreases in sea-ice was altering the physical conditions required to sustain large krill populations.
"We hypothesise that the amount of krill available to penguins has declined because of the increased competition from recovering whale and fur seal populations, and from bottom-up, climate-driven changes that have altered this ecosystem significantly during the past two to three decades."
The US researchers concluded that the penguin numbers and krill abundance were likely to fall further if the warming trend in the region continued.
They wrote: "These conditions are particularly critical for chinstrap penguins because this species breeds almost exclusively in the WAP and Scotia Sea, where they have sustained declines in excess of 50% throughout their breeding range."
Fewer Penguins Survive Warming Antarctic Climate
Deborah Zabarenko PlanetArk 12 Apr 11;
Two of the most well-known penguin species in Antarctica -- chinstraps and Adelies -- are under pressure because a warmer climate has cut deeply into their main food source, shrimp-like creatures called krill.
Fewer of the juvenile penguins survive what scientists call their "transition to independence" because there isn't enough krill to go around, according to a study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences.
The study found only 10 percent of young penguins survive the first independent trip back to their colonies from their winter habitat, said lead author Wayne Trivelpiece, a sea bird expert at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Antarctic Ecosystem Research Division.
When the study began, back in the mid-1970s, the chances that a two-to-four-year-old penguin would survive the trip was about 50 percent, Trivelpiece said in a telephone interview.
"What's changed is young penguins surviving their transition to independence," he said. "They're no longer able to do that anywhere near the way they used to do, and we think that's directly related to the fact that there's 80 percent less krill out there now."
Initially, scientists figured one of these two penguin species might actually benefit from climate change, since Adelies love ice and chinstraps avoid it. They theorized that the chinstrap penguins might flourish with less ice and more of the open water they favor.
But this latest research suggests it is less a question of vanishing penguin habitat -- though this is also occurring -- than it is a matter of vanishing habitat for krill.
Krill form the basis of the marine food web, supporting organisms ranging from fish and penguins to whales. Krill feed on phytoplankton -- basically, ice algae -- that grow lushly on the undersides of ice floes.
These tiny crustaceans are specially adapted to graze for the tiny plants among the ice crystals. But in the last few decades, winter ice has formed later in the season and has covered less area and spring melt comes earlier. Without ice, krill's feeding is disrupted and populations fall.
Trivelpiece's research focused on an area that is experiencing some of the most extreme climate warming on the planet: the Antarctic Peninsula and the islands around it.
Mean winter temperatures have risen 9 to nearly 11 degrees F (5-6 degrees C) in that area since the mid-20th century, compared to the rise in world mean temperatures of less than 2 degrees F (about 0.74 C) for all of the 20th century.
The study was funded in part by the Lenfest Ocean Program, which supports research on the global marine environment.
Wooded grasslands of the Cerrado suffering ongoing deforestation as soy agriculture expands to feed growing demand for meat
Dan J Lloyd guardian.co.uk 11 Apr 11;
The rising global appetite for meat is contributing to the destruction of enormous wooded grasslands in southern America, WWF warned on Monday.
While satellite data and stronger law enforcement have led to a decline in deforestation in the Amazon rainforest, the Cerrado, a savannah that covers more than one-fifth of Brazil, has experienced ongoing deforestation due to the expansion of soy agriculture, led by demand for soybean to produce feed for factory-farmed animals.
Human activity through agriculture and cattle rearing has devastated 50% of the Cerrado, with only 20% of it still intact.
During her visit to the region last week, UK environmental secretary, Caroline Spelman, said: "The Cerrado is a huge area – as big as France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK put together. It's globally important in terms of biodiversity and storing the world's carbon dioxide, but it doesn't receive the same attention from the international community. Because of that, people are not aware of the uncertain future it faces."
Cultivation of the protein rich soybean – used in products such as margarine, cosmetics and meat replacement dishes – is causing the carbon sink, home to 5% of the world's species, to lose its dense vegetation. Nearly one–third of all soybean exports goes to the EU. Brazil, the second largest soy exporter, after the US, has seen soy expansion soar over the last 10 years.
Michael Becker of WWF said: "If you want to make a comparison to the Amazon, it's like the inverted forest. I think that in the last decades, a lot of the attention has been driven to the Amazon region. Now I think we need to look at other biomes in Brazil, such as the Cerrado, the Pantanal and the Atlantic forest, where you have similar patterns that will affect the biodiversity of Brazil in the long-term."
Deforestation in the region runs at around 14.2 square km a year, with the annual rate between 2002-2008 running at 4%.
The Cerrado is also a vital water source, with the rivers generating electricity for nine in 10 Brazilians. There are fears locally that the rising agriculture industry in the region is polluting water supplies.
José Correia Quintal, 52, runs a co-operative near the second largest national park in the Cerrado, the Grande Sertão Veredas, and has lived in the area his whole life. His co-op provides work to local communities, as they use the Cerrado's vegetation to make local medicines and foodstuffs.
"Agrochemicals used in the Cerrado are affecting people's health," he said. "It is also contaminating the rivers. There is a concern that if this keeps the way it is there will be a problem with the water resources, and we will live as the people in the north-east region of Brazil live now, where water is now scarce."
One proposed solution is the Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS), an association of industry, civil society and producers focused on environmental, labour and health issues involving soy farmers and industries.
Sainsbury's, Asda, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer have agreed to become RTRS members when the scheme comes into place. However, guidelines are only now being presented to soybean producers.
John Landers promotes responsible farming techniques in the region, and although an RTRS member, says there are difficulties with the scheme.
"There's no premium currently developed for responsible soy ... we have to see a return for the extra effort the farmer has to put in to demonstrate that he is being responsible."
Due to the current lack of a premium – not dissimilar to the Fair trade model – RTRS has yet to make an substantial impact on soy farmers in Brazil. Yet expansion continues: agriculture company SLC Agricola, said it had identified 71m hectares of land in Brazil still available legally for agriculture, including former pasture land.
With illegal and irresponsible agriculture also an issue, the race is on to put RTRS guidelines into place before any further development continues. "Three percent of the Cerrado is protected effectively," Becker added. "The environmental ministry of Brazil has agreed to the UN target of 14% [protection] for the Cerrado. If we reach a 14% protective area, that's an achievement.'
Carey Gillam PlanetArk 11 Apr 11;
Critics say it's a chemical that could cause infertility or cancer, while others see it speeding the growth of super weeds and causing worrying changes to plants and soil. Backers say it is safe and has made a big contribution to food production.
It's glyphosate, the key - but controversial - ingredient in Roundup herbicide and the top selling weed killer used worldwide. For more than 30 years, glyphosate has been embraced for its ability to make farming easier by wiping out weeds in corn, soybean and cotton fields, and for keeping gardens and golf courses pristine.
But the chemical touted as a safe, affordable and critical part of global food production, is now at a crossroads.
Amid rising voices of alarm, regulators in the United States and Canada are conducting a formal review of glyphosate's safety, lawsuits are pending and some groups are calling for a global ban.
"Glyphosate's days are numbered," said Paul Achitoff, a lawyer for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that last month sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture in part over concerns about heavy glyphosate use.
Agricultural seeds and chemicals giant Monsanto Co introduced the chemical to the world in 1974 and has made billions of dollars over the years from Roundup as well as from the "Roundup Ready" corn, soybeans and cotton the company has genetically engineered to survive dousings of glyphosate.
Last year alone, Monsanto made more than $2 billion in sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides, though revenues have been in decline amid competition from generic makers since the company's glyphosate patent expired in 2000.
"I think it would be difficult to overstate the contribution that glyphosate has made and will continue to make to farming," said Monsanto executive vice president of sustainability Jerry Steiner. "It is a phenomenal product."
Many top U.S. farmer organizations say glyphosate is too beneficial to give up. But critics say glyphosate may not be as safe as initially believed, and farmers should be fearful.
Environmentalists, consumer groups and plant scientists from several countries are warning that heavy use of the chemical over the years is causing dangerous problems for plants, people and animals alike.
The Environmental Protection Agency is examining the issue and has set a deadline of 2015 for determining if glyphosate should continue to be sold or in some way limited. The EPA is working closely with regulators in Canada as they also assess the ongoing safety and effectiveness of the herbicide.
"The agency plans to re-evaluate risks from glyphosate and certain inert ingredients to humans and the environment during the registration review process," the EPA said in a written statement. The agency declined to make anyone available to discuss the review.
Meanwhile, Monsanto and its corporate agricultural rivals are scrambling to roll out different herbicides as well as new herbicide-tolerant crops that they hope will halt the advance of weed resistance and silence critics.
"Glyphosate resistance has built up to quite concerning levels in the United States," said John Ramsay, chief financial officer of Switzerland-based plant sciences company Syngenta, one of many companies introducing glyphosate alternatives.
"It is not surprising that with every single farmer pouring glyphosate over virtually every acre, plant life is going to have something to say about it," he said.
It all spells potentially big changes for world agriculture and the profits of those companies playing in the chemicals and seeds arena.
A FAVORITE WITH FARMERS
World annual spending on herbicide totals more than $14 billion, with more than $5 billion of that spent in the United States alone, according to the EPA.
Thanks to the spread of herbicide-resistant crops, herbicide use has been increasing rapidly, a factor environmental and consumer groups find particularly concerning.
More than 2 billion lbs of herbicide were used globally in 2007, with one quarter of that total - 531 million lbs - used in the United States in that timeframe, according to a report issued in February by the EPA.
And of the more than two dozen top herbicides on the market, glyphosate dominates all with more than 750 U.S. products containing the chemical.
The top users are farmers. In 2007 alone, for instance, as much as 185 million lbs of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used only six years earlier. The next most popular herbicide - atrazine - has less than half the amount of usage of glyphosate, according to EPA data.
Already more than 130 types of weeds have developed levels of herbicide resistance in more than 40 U.S. states, more resistant weeds than found in any other country. Experts estimate glyphosate-resistant weeds have infested close to 11 million acres (4.5 million hectares), threatening U.S. farmers' yields.
On March 18, a cross section of consumer and environmental groups filed another in a series of lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the agency's approval of more Roundup Ready crops.
The latest suit, which targets Roundup Ready alfalfa, involves a range of concerns, including "the cumulative impact of increased herbicide load on the environment... and the creation of Roundup Ready 'super weeds' that become immune to the herbicide Roundup because of overuse." Yet more Roundup Ready crops will "cause grave harm to neighboring crops, native plants, microorganisms and biodiversity," the suit states.
Monsanto has acknowledged the spreading weed resistance problems, which are particularly bad for U.S. cotton and soybean growers. And last month Monsanto and Germany-based BASF announced a new collaboration to develop alternative herbicide formulations using "dicamba" and to create dicamba-tolerant soybeans, corn, cotton and canola.
The advent of new herbicides isn't assuaging critics though. They worry that this may only make the problems with weed resistance worse, because the new herbicides are being used on top of glyphosate, not instead of it, putting even more chemicals into the soil.
"That is going to spell big problems... even larger problems with herbicide-resistant weeds," said Center for Food Safety analyst Bill Freese. "It will just accelerate this toxic spiral of increased pesticide use."
ASSESSING THE RISKS
Along with the problem of herbicide-resistant weeds, health-related alarms have been raised by several scientists.
In January, well-known plant pathologist and retired Purdue University professor Don Huber sent a letter to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack warning of tests that indicated glyphosate could be contributing to spontaneous abortions and infertility in pigs, cattle and other livestock.
Scientists in Argentina last year published a study saying glyphosate caused malformations in frog and chick embryos.
Other scientists, both from private institutions and from the federal government, have said research shows harmful effects of glyphosate products on soil organisms, on plants, and on certain animals. A 2008 lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity said glyphosate was harmful to California's red-legged frog and the EPA subsequently agreed it was "likely to adversely affect" the frog.
The Institute of Science in Society has called for a global ban on glyphosate, citing research showing the chemical has "extreme toxicity," including indications it can cause birth defects. It also submitted a report to EPA.
Another study being looked at by the EPA cited detectable concentrations of glyphosate in the urine of farmers and their children in two U.S. states. Higher levels were found in farmers who did not wear protective clothing when they used glyphosate or who otherwise improperly handled it. The EPA said it will consider data from that study "more fully" as part of its ongoing risk assessment.
The agency also said it is looking at a study partly sponsored by the EPA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that found some users of glyphosate were observed to have a higher risk of multiple myeloma, a cancer affecting bone marrow, than people who never used the chemical. The two-fold increased risk was considered "non-significant" and EPA said the findings were preliminary and based on a small number of cases but it is still part of the review.
Monsanto has said repeatedly that glyphosate is safe and it has said studies by Huber and other scientists are invalid.
The EPA also has discounted the validity of many of the studies cited in biomedical literature and by opponents. But it acknowledged there are areas that need more evaluation and has said it wants more data on human health risk and risks to certain endangered species.
"We look closely at every study to determine whether the results are scientifically sound, regardless of the source," EPA officials said in a written statement.
The EPA is not doing its own studies, instead evaluating information from others. Much of the data is coming from the agricultural chemicals industry as part of a registration review program that aims to examine each registered pesticide every 15 years.
The agribusiness giants, including Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow Chemical, and BASF, have formed a 19-member task force to generate the data the EPA is seeking.
Another factor rankling opponents is that the EPA is using a lower safety standard than they argue it should.
Though the Food Quality Protection Act requires the EPA to use an extra tenfold (10X) safety factor to protect infants and children from effects of the pesticide, the agency determined there was adequate data available to show that the margin of safety for glyphosate could be reduced to only a 1X factor.
The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is in charge of the review and has three main options -- continued approval of glyphosate with no changes; canceling the registration to ban its use in the United States; or continue as an approved product but with some modifications for its use.
The agency said it wants all the relevant data gathered by the summer of 2012 and expects to have a final decision no earlier than 2015.
Canada is likewise re-evaluating glyphosate and is coordinating with the United States to "harmonize the assessments," the EPA said.
Both supporters and detractors say it is uncertain what the future holds for the world's favorite weedkiller. Wellesley College professor and food expert Professor Robert Paarlberg said critics are fueled more by dislike for Monsanto than real evidence of harm.
"The critics would do well to spend more time talking to farmers, who continue find glyphosate a safe and convenient way to control weeds," Paarlberg said.
The science argues otherwise, according to Huber, who has asked USDA to conduct in-depth research on glyphosate's effects. Huber was heavily criticized by Monsanto after his January letter to the USDA but he sent a second letter to Vilsack on March 30, reiterating his concerns.
"We are experiencing a large number of problems in production agriculture in the U.S. that appear to be intensified and sometimes directly related to genetically engineered crops, and/or the products they were engineered to tolerate - especially those related to glyphosate," Huber wrote. "A large reduction in glyphosate usage would be a prudent consideration."
(Edited by Martin Howell and Lisa Shumaker)
Roger Harrabin BBC News 11 Apr 11;
Nitrogen pollution from farms, vehicles, industry and waste treatment is costing the EU up to £280bn (320bn euros) a year, a report says.
The study by 200 European experts says reactive nitrogen contributes to air pollution, fuels climate change and is estimated to shorten the life of the average resident by six months.
Livestock farming is one of the biggest causes of nitrogen pollution, it adds.
It calls for changes in farming and more controls on vehicles and industry.
The problem would be greatly helped if less meat was consumed, the report says.
Nitrogen is the most common element in the atmosphere and is harmless.
It is the reactive form - mainly produced by human activity - that causes a web of related problems.
The 600-page report relies on experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations. It estimates the annual cost of damage caused by nitrogen across Europe as being £55-£280bn.
Dr Sutton said nitrogen pollution was a serious issue not just in Europe but also N America, China and India.
Reactive nitrogen emissions from agriculture are the most intractable as they come from many diffuse sources.
The report says Europe needs nitrogen fertilisers for its own food security but blames many farmers for applying fertiliser carelessly to crops, so that excess nitrogen runs off to pollute water supplies.
Run-off from animal manure also fouls watercourses, and the release of nitrous oxides from uncovered dung heaps pollutes the air.
'Dominant driver'
Agriculture produces 70% of the nitrous oxide emissions in Europe.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
The big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together”
Mark Sutton Report author
New rules reducing nitrogen emissions from farms are introduced next year, but there are questions over whether these will be strict enough or properly enforced.
The report says more careful application of fertiliser will benefit farmers by saving money. It will benefit the climate by avoiding the energy used to create the fertiliser.
Lead editor, Mark Sutton from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology near Edinburgh, told BBC News that 80% of the nitrogen in crops feeds livestock, not people.
"It's much more efficient to obtain protein by eating plants rather than animals," he said.
"If we want to help the problem we can all do something by eating less meat. Eating meat is the dominant driver of the nitrogen cycle in Europe."
The report says government efforts to control emissions of reactive nitrogen from combustion sources have been more successful.
In the 1980s nitrogen controls were placed on industrial plant and vehicles, This has led to a cut in emissions of 30%, despite an increase in traffic and economic activity.
But the traffic increase has slowed progress in reducing emissions further, and people in many areas still suffer from nitrogen-related air pollution, including small particulates that get sucked deep into the lungs, and ground-level ozone - a strongly irritant gas formed by the action of sunlight on reactive nitrogen.
The authors note that industries have typically resisted controls on nitrogen, but that the benefits of reducing its emissions far outweigh the costs.
Dr Sutton said: "This report is the first time anyone has brought together the whole suite of environmental and human health issues from nitrogen on a Continental scale.
"There have been and still are many attempts to control nitrogen but we believe the big challenge is to link existing policy areas and make them work together."
Study reveals cost of nitrogen pollution
Yahoo News 11 Apr 11;
LONDON (AFP) – Nitrogen pollution costs Europe between 70 and 320 billion euros ($100bn-$460bn) per year in its impact on health and the environment, according to a major European study launched in Britain on Monday.
The first European Nitrogen Assessment, the result of a five-year research programme, found that the costs represented more than double the benefits for the continent's agriculture sector.
The ENA was to be launched Monday at a five-day international conference in Edinburgh.
The study was carried out by 200 experts from 21 countries and 89 organisations, who came up with recommendations on how to reduce the amount of nitrogen in water, the air, the earth and ecosystems.
The invention of synthethic fertiliser in the early 20th century revolutionised agriculture, multiplying yields and improving quality.
However, the amount of nitrogen in the environment has doubled on the world level, and tripled in Europe.
ENA coordinator Mark Sutton said: "More than half the world's population relies on synthetic nitrogen fertiliser for food production, but measures are necessary to reduce the impact of nitrogen pollution.
"The solutions include more efficient usage of mineral and organic fertiliser (manure, liquid manure and compost) and eating habits aimed at more moderate meat consumption.
"We have the know-how to reduce nitrogen pollution, but we must start applying these solutions at the European level in an integrated way."
The event in the Scottish capital will bring together scientists and policy makers to launch the ENA and discuss the latest scientific progress on nitrogen.
Arthur Max Associated Press 11 Apr 11;
DEN BOSCH, Netherlands – Farming is moving indoors, where the sun never shines, where rainfall is irrelevant and where the climate is always right.
The perfect crop field could be inside a windowless building with meticulously controlled light, temperature, humidity, air quality and nutrition. It could be in a New York high-rise, a Siberian bunker, or a sprawling complex in the Saudi desert.
Advocates say this, or something like it, may be an answer to the world's food problems.
"In order to keep a planet that's worth living on, we have to change our methods," says Gertjan Meeuws, of PlantLab, a private research company.
The world already is having trouble feeding itself. Half the people on Earth live in cities, and nearly half of those — about 3 billion — are hungry or malnourished. Food prices, currently soaring, are buffeted by droughts, floods and the cost of energy required to plant, fertilize, harvest and transport it.
And prices will only get more unstable. Climate change makes long-term crop planning uncertain. Farmers in many parts of the world already are draining available water resources to the last drop. And the world is getting more crowded: by mid-century, the global population will grow from 6.8 billion to 9 billion, the U.N. predicts.
To feed so many people may require expanding farmland at the expense of forests and wilderness, or finding ways to radically increase crop yields.
Meeuws and three other Dutch bioengineers have taken the concept of a greenhouse a step further, growing vegetables, herbs and house plants in enclosed and regulated environments where even natural light is excluded.
In their research station, strawberries, yellow peppers, basil and banana plants take on an eerie pink glow under red and blue bulbs of Light-Emitting Diodes, or LEDs. Water trickles into the pans when needed and all excess is recycled, and the temperature is kept constant. Lights go on and off, simulating day and night, but according to the rhythm of the plant — which may be better at shorter cycles than 24 hours — rather than the rotation of the Earth.
In a larger "climate chamber" a few miles away, a nursery is nurturing cuttings of fittonia, a colorful house plant, in two layers of 70 square meters (750 sq. feet) each. Blasts of mist keep the room humid, and the temperature is similar to the plants' native South America. After the cuttings take root — the most sensitive stage in the growing process — they are wheeled into a greenhouse and the chamber is again used for rooting. The process cuts the required time to grow a mature plant to six weeks from 12 or more.
The Dutch researchers say they plan to build a commercial-sized building in the Netherlands of 1,300 square meters (14,000 sq. feet), with four separate levels of vegetation by the end of this year. After that, they envision growing vegetables next to shopping malls, supermarkets or other food retailers.
Meeuws says a building of 100 sq meters (1,075 sq. feet) and 14 layers of plants could provide a daily diet of 200 grams (7 ounces) of fresh fruit and vegetables to the entire population of Den Bosch, about 140,000 people. Their idea is not to grow foods that require much space, like corn or potatoes. "We are looking at the top of the pyramid where we have high value and low volume," he said.
Sunlight is not only unnecessary but can be harmful, says Meeuws. Plants need only specific wavelengths of light to grow, but in nature they must adapt to the full range of light as a matter of survival. When light and other natural elements are manipulated, the plants become more efficient, using less energy to grow.
"Nature is good, but too much nature is killing," said Meeuws, standing in a steaming cubicle amid racks of what he called "happy plants."
For more than a decade the four researchers have been tinkering with combinations of light, soil and temperature on a variety of plants, and now say their growth rate is three times faster than under greenhouse conditions. They use no pesticides, and about 90 percent less water than outdoors agriculture. While LED bulbs are expensive, the cost is steadily dropping.
Olaf van Kooten, a professor of horticulture at Wageningen University who has observed the project but has no stake in it, says a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of tomatoes grown in Israeli fields needs 60 liters (16 gallons) of water, while those grown in a Dutch greenhouse require one-quarter of that. "With this system it is possible in principle to produce a kilo of tomatoes with a little over one liter of water," he said.
The notion of multistory greenhouses has been around for a while. Dickson Despommier, a retired Columbia University professor of environmental health and author of the 2010 book "The Vertical Farm," began working on indoor farming as a classroom project in 1999, and the idea has spread to several startup projects across the U.S.
"Over the last five year urban farming has really gained traction," Despommier said in a telephone interview.
Despommier argues that city farming means producing food near the consumer, eliminating the need to transport it long distances at great costs of fuel and spoilage and with little dependency on the immediate climate.
The science behind LED lighting in agriculture "is quite rigorous and well known," he said, and the costs are dropping dramatically. The next development, organic light-emitting diodes or OLEDs, which can be packed onto thin film and wrapped around a plant, will be even more efficiently tuned to its needs.
One of the more dramatic applications of plant-growing chambers under LED lights was by NASA, which installed them in the space Shuttle and the space station Mir in the 1990s as part of its experiment with microgravity.
"This system is a first clear step that has to grow," Van Kooten says, but more research is needed and people need to get used to the idea of sunless, landless agriculture.
"But it's clear to me a system like this is necessary."
Tom Zeller Jr. New York Times 11 Apr 11;
Natural gas, with its reputation as a crucial linchpin in the effort to wean the nation off of dirtier fossil fuels and reduce global warming, may not be as clean over all as its proponents say.
Even as natural gas production in the United States increases and Washington gives it a warm embrace as a crucial component of America’s energy future, two coming studies try to poke holes in the clean-and-green reputation of natural gas. They suggest that the rush to develop the nation’s vast, unconventional sources of natural gas is logistically impractical and likely to do more to heat up the planet than mining and burning coal.
The problem, the studies suggest, is that planet-warming methane, the chief component of natural gas, is escaping into the atmosphere in far larger quantities than previously thought, with as much as 7.9 percent of it puffing out from shale gas wells, intentionally vented or flared, or seeping from loose pipe fittings along gas distribution lines. This offsets natural gas’s most important advantage as an energy source: it burns cleaner than other fossil fuels and releases lower carbon dioxide emissions.
“The old dogma of natural gas being better than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions gets stated over and over without qualification,” said Robert Howarth, a professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University and the lead author of one of the studies. Mr. Howarth said his analysis, which looked specifically at methane leakage rates in unconventional shale gas development, was among the first of its kind and that much more research was needed.
“I don’t think this is the end of the story,” said Mr. Howarth, who is an opponent of growing gas development in western New York. “I think this is just the beginning of the story, and before governments and the industry push ahead on gas development, at the very least we ought to do a better job of making measurements.”
The findings, which will be published this week, are certain to stir debate. For much of the last decade, the natural gas industry has carefully cultivated a green reputation, often with the help of environmental groups who embrace the resource as a clean-burning “bridge fuel” to a renewable energy future. The industry argues that it has vastly reduced the amount of fugitive methane with new technologies and upgraded pipe fittings and other equipment. Mark D. Whitley, a senior vice president of engineering and technology with Range Resources, a gas drilling company with operations in several regions of the country, said that the losses suggested by Mr. Howarth’s study were simply too high.
“These are huge numbers,” he said. “That the industry would let what amounts to trillions of cubic feet of gas get away from us doesn’t make any sense. That’s not the business that we’re in.”
Natural gas is already the principal source of heat in half of American households. Advocates like the former oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens have also long sought to promote it as a substitute for coal in electricity generation or gasoline in a new generation of natural gas cars. And the development of new ways to tap reserves of natural gas means production is likely to increase sharply.
Two weeks ago, President Obama included natural gas in his vision for America. Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, said that the administration’s energy priorities were not about picking one energy source over another, but about diversifying the nation’s energy mix. “This process will continue to be based on the best science available to ensure our energy sources, including our nation’s natural gas reserves, are developed safely and responsibly,” Mr. Stevens said on Friday.
The ability to pull natural gas economically from previously inaccessible formations deep underground has made huge quantities of the resource available in wide areas of the country, from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Wyoming and Colorado.
Such unconventional gas production accounts for roughly nearly a quarter of total production in the United States, according to the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. That is expected to reach 45 percent by 2035.
But the cleanliness of natural gas is largely based on its lower carbon dioxide emissions when burned.. It emits roughly half the amount of carbon dioxide as coal and about 30 percent that of oil.
Less clear, largely because no one has bothered to look, are the emissions over its entire production life cycle — that is, from the moment a well is plumbed to the point at which the gas is used.
Methane leaks have long been a concern because while methane dissipates in the atmosphere more quickly than carbon dioxide, it is far more efficient at trapping heat. Recent evidence has suggested that the amount of leakage has been underestimated. A report in January by the nonprofit journalism organization ProPublica, for example, noted that the Environmental Protection Agency had recently doubled its estimates for the amount of methane that is vented or lost from natural gas distribution lines.
Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, a coalition of independent oil and natural gas producers, dismissed Mr. Howarth as an advocate who is opposed to hydraulic-fracturing or “fracking,” a practice associated with unconventional gas development involving the high-pressure injection of water, sand and chemicals deep underground to break up shale formations and release gas deposits. Mr. Howarth said his credentials as a scientist spoke for themselves.
Mr. Howarth included methane losses associated with flow-back and drill-out processes in hydraulic fracturing and other unconventional gas drilling techniques.
The study combined these emissions with studies of other methane losses along the processing and distribution cycle to arrive at an estimated total methane loss range from 3.6 to 7.9 percent for the shale gas industry.
The researchers also include a recent study from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA suggesting that an interaction of methane with certain aerosol particles significantly amplifies methane’s already potent greenhouse gas effects, particularly over a 20-year time horizon. When all is factored together, Mr. Howarth and his colleagues conclude that the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas can be as much as 20 percent greater than, and perhaps twice as high as, coal per unit of energy.
David Hughes, a geoscientist and research fellow at the Post Carbon Institute, an energy and climate research organization in California, used Mr. Howarth’s research as part of a broader look at natural gas as a substitute for coal in electricity generation and oil in transportation.
Mr. Hughes’s full report is scheduled to be released in May, but in a draft version shared with The New York Times, Mr. Hughes suggested that while natural gas would play an important role in the nation’s energy mix, both cases were practical impossibilities.
“I think it’s going to be very challenging, to put it mildly, to ramp up shale gas production by fourfold, which is the federal government’s projection for 2035,” Mr. Hughes said. “I’m not saying it can’t be done, but if it was done, the amount of drilling you’re looking at to make that happen is staggering.”
Mr. Hughes, using Mr. Howarth’s calculations, also concludes that replacing coal with natural gas for base load electricity production will most likely make greenhouse gas emissions worse. It would be better, he argues, to improve energy efficiency, rely on natural gas in niche vehicle markets and balance continued construction of wind and solar power to produce electricity.
David Hawkins, the director of climate programs with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that much could be done by regulators to nudge drillers to capture more of the fugitive methane, but that it’s often more economical for industry to simply let it escape.
Mr. Hawkins also said that too little was known about just how much methane was being lost and vented, and that studies like Mr. Howarth’s, while needed, relied on too slim a data set to be considered the final word.
“This is a huge and growing industry, and we just don’t have the information we need to make sure that this resource is being developed as cleanly as it can be,” Mr. Hawkins said.
“We view his shining a flashlight into this dark closet to be a service,” Mr. Hawkins added, “but the flashlight is still a dim one, and we still can’t see everything in the closet.”
Shale gas as dirty as 'oil, coal': study
Yahoo News 12 Apr 11;
PARIS (AFP) – Shale gas, an energy source enjoying a boom in North America and Europe, carries a greater carbon footprint than oil, coal and conventional gas over at least a 20-year period, according to a study released on Tuesday.
Scientists led by Robert Howarth from New York's Cornell University looked at greenhouse-gas emissions from the extraction of shale gas in the US, drawing on data from the oil and gas industry and from a federal auditing agency, the General Accountability Office (GAO).
Shale gas holes up in a dense sedimentary rock which is fractured by large volumes of water and chemicals that are piped in horizontally under high pressure.
After the fracturing, large amounts of water returns to the surface within a few days, along with significant amounts of methane, which comprises the bulk of the shale gas.
The problem, though, is that methane is a potent greenhouse gas as well as as a fuel, and large amounts of it leak from shale-gas extraction, said the study.
During the life cycle of an average shale-gas well, between 3.6 percent and 7.9 percent of the well's total production is emitted to the atmosphere as methane, it said.
This comes through routine venting, equipment leaks and emissions that are included in the water flowback.
These leaks are at least 30 percent more than -- and perhaps more than twice as great as -- those from conventional gas, although their emissions from routine production and downstream operations are the same, it said.
Methane is more than 20 times more efficient than carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas emitted by fossil fuels, for trapping solar heat.
But it lingers in the air for only between nine and 15 years, whereas a molecule of CO2 stays around for a century or more.
"The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years," said the paper.
"Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."
The study is published online in Climatic Change Letters, part of the Springer stable of journals.
Major investments are being made in shale gas in the United States and in Europe.
They are based in part on the goal of reducing geopolitical risk from imported conventional gas but also on the contention that shale is cleaner than oil and coal because it releases less CO2 for every unit of energy it provides.
It thus can be a useful transitional energy towards a low-carbon economy, according to this argument.
According to the US Department of Energy, total domestic production of natural gas will grow by 20 percent by 2035. Shale gas alone will increase its share of production from 16 percent in 2009 to 45 percent in 2035.
"The large greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming," said Howarth.
"The full footprint should be used in planning for alternative energy futures that adequately consider global climate change."
Shale Gas Pollutes More Than Coal, Study Finds
Daniel Trotta PlanetArk 13 Apr 11;
An abundant source of U.S. natural gas widely seen as a cleaner alternative to oil and coal is in reality the fossil fuel that creates the most greenhouse gas emissions, a study concludes.
The paper led by Cornell University ecology professor Robert Howarth raised howls of protest from the gas industry, which said the document was political.
The study contends that so much methane escapes from the extraction of shale gas over the life of a well that it allows more heat-trapping greenhouse gas into the atmosphere than coal.
The report acknowledged that natural gas is cleaner to burn than other fuels but that greater pollution derives from leakage, whether accidental or purposely designed to relieve well pressure.
Improved technology could solve the problem but Howarth in an interview doubted whether that was economical considering stubbornly low natural gas prices. A North American boom in the production of shale gas, billed as an alternative to foreign oil, has depressed gas prices even while oil has soared.
Industry representatives criticized the work as sloppy and incomplete advocacy against shale gas. The shale boom previously had raised more alarm from environmentalists because of the threat of chemicals seeping into ground water through the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."
For an index of shale gas companies, double-click on.
Some 3.6 percent to 7.9 percent of the methane from shale gas production leaks into the atmosphere, releasing a greenhouse gas that is especially potent over the first 20 years, the study said.
"The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years," said the study, which can be seen here%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf.
"Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20 percent greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."
Such conclusions break conventional thinking and sound outrageous to industry representatives, who said Howarth exaggerated the amount of highly valuable gas purportedly allowed to escape.
"The problems with the study boil down to two basic areas: the data and the assumptions. Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, it's a terrific study," Chris Tucker, spokesman for the industry group Energy In Depth, said in a statement.
"This isn't a serious academic pursuit, but rather a serious political one," Tucker said.
A more detailed response can be seen here
Howarth defended his work as meeting strict academic and scientific standards."It's being published in a highly respected journal and has been rigorously peer-reviewed," Howarth said. "This is not advocacy. This is science."
The criticism of Howarth work began more than a year ago when he reported preliminary findings in a two-page summary. Since then Howarth has issued periodic updates.
The final paper, co-written with Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, had been due to be published in the journal Climatic Change Letters on Thursday but was made available on Tuesday after it was released by The Hill newspaper.
(Editing by Alden Bentley)
Shanti Ayadurai Bernama 11 Apr 11;
KUALA LUMPUR, April 11 (Bernama) -- A country's rapid economic development accompanied by their adoption of higher environmental standards can be an effective way to face climatic change, says an energy expert and former top climate negotiator for India.
Although it seemed a route off the usual course for the protection of the environment, Ambassador Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, Distinguished Fellow at The Energy Research Institute (TERI) of India, contends how developed nations coped better with environmental disasters than less developed countries.
The developed countries have higher environment standards with superior sanitation systems, less water and air pollution and this has been possible through the financial resources that came with development, Chandrashekhar said when explaining his stand to participants at a recent forum organised by the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS).
Developing countries were more vulnerable to the onslaught of weather events linked to climate changes, and unlike the developed countries which were more prepared or have the resources to respond better, these countries were less equipped to face these events, he said in his his talk on "Harnessing Development To Protect The Environment."
"Traditional farmers in developing countries are most vulnerable to these events and those living in flimsy dwellings sometimes cannot even take seasonal changes," he said.
He said that the "environment cannot be improved amid poverty, and indeed financial resources are needed for a better environment and this can be attained through rapid development."
While changes in environment cannot be fully reversed, remedial measures could be taken both by the developed and developing countries, Chandrashekhar, who has been involved in climate negotiations for India for 15 years, said.
The reality is that the environment is continuously evolving, mainly from natural causes, and the view held by the romantics that mankind has basically brought about the climate change calamities lacked basis, he said.
While the contribution of human activities to climate change had accelerated in the recent decades especially with the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels, economic development on the whole has benefited mankind, he opined.
Chandrashekhar also said besides adhering to environment regulations, development projects should consider using the profits from projects to offset any environment damage.
He said companies and governments would have to adopt more green policies in business operations.
While developing countries should adapt and adopt measures that would leave them more equipped to handle challenges of climate change, the developed countries' focus should be on using their financial resources towards the research and development of renewable energy sources such as solar, as well as nuclear, Chandrashekhar said.
While there was no argument that the climate was changing, questions raised at the end of the talk reflected less consensus on whether more development or less development would be the better way to face climate change.
Nithi Nesadurai, Coordinator of Malaysian Climate Change Group and also President of Environmental Protection Society Malaysia, said taking on a course of rapid development would be following the very footsteps taken by the developed countries of "living beyond the earth's ability to support their lifestyles", and leaving serious ecological footprints.
While the poorer countries have a right to development, rapid development would be an ecologically unsuitable economic model to follow, he said.
-- BERNAMA
Posts
visitors since Nov 07