Will you need to pay an emissions tax for your flight?

Industry mulls EU plan to make planes pay for climate change impact
Karamjit Kaur, Straits Times 11 Aug 09;

AIRPORT tax, security tax, insurance and a fuel levy - these all add to the total fare an air traveller pays before even boarding his flight.

Pretty soon, one more could be added to the list - an emissions charge.

The European Union (EU) has declared that from 2012, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Emirates and all other carriers that fly to Europe will have to keep to a stipulated amount of carbon emissions, or pay extra.

This is expected to cost the industry about US$3.4 billion (S$4.9 billion) when the scheme takes off.

Will consumers have to pay?

Etihad Airways and Delta Air Lines-Northwest Airlines both said that in a competitive industry, it will be tough to pass the costs on to travellers.

Singapore Airlines said its fares are based on market demand, while a spokesman for Malaysia Airlines said that in the end, it will be up to travellers to decide if the total cost of travel is reasonable.

Aviation adviser Paul Ng, of Singapore-based international transport law firm Stephenson Harwood, said it is likely that consumers will bear the extra levies: 'At the end of the day, airlines will have to find a way of mitigating the cost.'

While 2012 is still some years away, airlines have until the end of this month to submit clear plans on how they intend to monitor their load - a measure of the total weight carried over the entire distance travelled - and carbon emissions. If they miss the deadline, they risk losing free carbon allowances and could end up paying for all their emissions from 2012.

Other countries such as Australia and the United States are also considering carbon emissions and trading schemes.

This worries the International Air Transport Association (Iata) because a patchwork of different schemes and charges is inefficient and will put significant cost pressures on the industry, said Mr Paul Steele, its environmental head.

But there is hope yet and all eyes are now on the United Nations' civil aviation arm - the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao).

Its president Roberto Kobeh Gonzalez, interviewed by The Straits Times during his four-day visit to Singapore last week, is well aware of the situation.

He is confident that a members' meeting in October will end with a consensus on how the industry intends to tackle environmental issues like carbon emissions.

The EU plan is not the way to go, said the head of the 190-member grouping:'Emissions is a global problem that requires a global solution. This is what Icao is about. It is a global organisation.'

Iata, which represents 230 airlines, is fully behind Icao. Speaking to The Straits Times, Mr Steele said of the EU plan: 'Quite frankly, it is all a bit of a mess.'

Even within the group, member states who each have a list of airlines they are supposed to be monitoring, are unclear about what they have to do. Now, there is talk that some countries may extend the Aug 31 deadline that has been set for affected carriers to file their plans.

Critics have pointed out other flaws in the proposal.

Said Mr Ng: 'It is a seemingly unfair situation for long-haul carriers especially. If you fly from Singapore for example, you are not in the EU's airspace for the entire flight, yet you have to be accountable to the EU for the full 12 or 13 hours.'

Etihad's chief executive officer James Hogan said: 'The concern is that the regulation is not necessarily fair, and as such, we are wasting precious resources on a scheme which we hope will be replaced by something global and which takes account of our industry operations.'

A Delta spokesman suggested that the EU does not have the legal right to enforce its current scheme.

The issue remains unclear at this stage, said Mr Ng.

Despite the industry turbulence, Icao understands that there is significant public pressure on the EU, as well as other governments and organisations, to take action to manage climate change.

That is why it is important for Icao member states to agree on an action plan when they next meet in October, Mr Kobeh said. 'I am confident that if we have a global solution, maybe Europe and all the international community will join a global effort to tackle the challenge.'

An Icao environment task force set up in 2007 has suggested among other measures, that the industry cut fuel consumption by 2 per cent every year until 2050 - using 2005 as a benchmark.

Also up for discussion at the October meeting are economic measures like a carbon trading scheme put forth by the EU.

Meanwhile, Iata will continue to work with the civil aviation and air navigation communities, and aircraft makers, to push for more fuel efficiency and lower consumption, Mr Steele said.

New planes like the Airbus A-380 superjumbo are over 20 per cent more efficient than aircraft that came before them.

The Iata board has also approved a plan to improve fuel efficiency by 1.5 per cent every year, and to stop growing carbon emissions after 2020. Any excess will be offset by purchasing carbon credits.

Alternative fuel is another important area, said Mr Steele: 'Two years ago people thought this was just a vision - a pie in the sky.'

But tests have shown that existing jet fuel and aviation biofuel can be mixed with no impact on operations or safety.

Biofuel, which could emit up to 80 per cent less carbon, should find its way into aircraft fuel tanks by 2012 or 2013.

Even as airlines and Icao work towards lower emissions, both Mr Steele and Mr Kobeh pointed out that aviation accounts for just 2 per cent of global man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Still, the industry will do its part, Mr Steele said. 'If aviation continues to grow and we believe it will, it means emissions are set to grow. In today's world where everybody is focused on climate change, that is not really an acceptable profile to have.'


Greener flights, bluer skies, cleaner air

THE EU's PLAN

# To include aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in 2012.

# To cap carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from aircraft operators in 2012, to 97 per cent of average 2004-2006 levels. This will be further cut to 95 per cent for the 2013-2020 period.

# Of the emissions granted, 85 per cent will be for free. Airlines will pay for the remaining 15 per cent. Like other commodities, the cost of carbon depends on market demand and supply.

# It will be a cap and trade scheme, so airlines that do not use all of the emission allowances granted to them can sell the excess. Those who are short, will have to pay for the extra they need.

WHAT THE INDUSTRY HAS DONE

# Technology: New planes like the A-380 use at least 20 per cent less fuel than older aircraft. New wing designs that reduce drag are also more fuel-efficient.

# Operations: International Air Transport Association (Iata) teams have visited about 100 airlines so far, to suggest ways to cut fuel use, such as shedding weight and flying more optimally, for example when taking off and landing.

The association, working with air navigation service providers, has also worked out more than 200 more direct routings so that flight times are reduced.

Last year, such efforts saved 15 million tonnes of carbon emissions. The target this year is to cut another 10 million tonnes.


Read more!

Reviving the Lost Art of Naming the World

Carol Kaesuk Yoon, The New York Times 10 Aug 09;

One spring when I was a graduate student, I would go each Monday down into the bowels of the entomology building. There I would meet Prof. Jack Franclemont, an elderly gentleman always with little dog in tow, to be tutored in the ordering and naming of life — the science of taxonomy.

Professor Franclemont, a famed moth specialist, was perfectly old school, wearing coat and tie to give the day’s lecture even though I was the only member of the audience. Quaintly distracted, he never quite got my name right, sometimes calling me Miss Loon or Miss Voon. After the talk, I would identify moths using a guide written in 1923, in silence or listening to stories of his dog’s latest antics. I enjoyed the meditative pleasure of those hours, despite the fact that as the lone (and not terribly proficient) student of an aging teacher, I could not help feeling that taxonomy might be dying, which, in fact, it is.

Despite the field’s now blatant modernity, with practitioners using DNA sequences, sophisticated evolutionary theory and supercomputers to order and name all of life, jobs for taxonomists continue to be in steady decline. The natural history collections crucial to the work are closeted or tossed.

Outside taxonomy, no one is much up in arms about this, but perhaps we should be, because the ordering and naming of life is no esoteric science. The past few decades have seen a stream of studies that show that sorting and naming the natural world is a universal, deep-seated and fundamental human activity, one we cannot afford to lose because it is essential to understanding the living world, and our place in it.

Anthropologists were the first to recognize that taxonomy might be more than the science officially founded by Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist, in the 1700s. Studying how nonscientists order and name life, creating what are called folk taxonomies, anthropologists began to realize that when people across the globe were creating ordered groups and giving names to what lived around them, they followed highly stereotyped patterns, appearing unconsciously to follow a set of unwritten rules. Not that conformity to rules was at first obvious to anthropologists who were instead understandably dazzled by the variety in folk taxonomies. The Ilongots, for example, a people of the Philippines, name gorgeous wild orchids after human body parts. There bloom the thighs, there fingernails, yonder elbows and thumbs. The Rofaifo people of New Guinea, excellent natural historians, classify the cassowary, a giant bird complete with requisite feathers and beak, as a mammal. In fact, there seemed, at first glance, to be little room even for agreement among people, let alone a set of universally followed rules. More recently, however, deep underlying similarities have begun to become apparent.

Cecil Brown, an anthropologist at Northern Illinois University who has studied folk taxonomies in 188 languages, has found that people recognize the same basic categories repeatedly, including fish, birds, snakes, mammals, “wugs” (meaning worms and insects, or what we might call creepy-crawlies), trees, vines, herbs and bushes.

Dr. Brown’s finding would be considerably less interesting if these categories were clear-cut depictions of reality that must inevitably be recognized. But tree and bush are hardly that, since there is no way to define a tree versus a bush. The two categories grade insensibly into one another. Wugs, likewise, are neither an evolutionarily nor ecologically nor otherwise cohesive group. Still, people repeatedly recognize and name these oddities.

Likewise, people consistently use two-word epithets to designate specific organisms within a larger group of organisms, despite there being an infinitude of potentially more logical methods. It is so familiar that it is hard to notice. In English, among the oaks, we distinguish the pin oak, among bears, grizzly bears. When Mayan Indians, familiar with the wild piglike creature known as peccaries, encountered Spaniards’ pigs, they dubbed them “village peccaries.” We use two-part names for ourselves as well: Sally Smith or Li Wen. Even scientists are bound by this practice, insisting on Latin binomials for species.

There appears to be such profound unconscious agreement that people will even concur on which exact words make the best names for particular organisms. Brent Berlin, an ethnobiologist at the University of Georgia, discovered this when he read 50 pairs of names, each consisting of one bird and one fish name, to a group of 100 undergraduates, and asked them to identify which was which. The names had been randomly chosen from the language of Peru’s Huambisa people, to which the students had had no previous exposure. With such a large sample size — there were 5,000 choices being made — the students should have scored 50 percent or very close to it if they were blindly guessing. Instead, they identified the bird and fish names correctly 58 percent of the time, significantly more often than expected for random guessing. Somehow they were often able to intuit the names’ birdiness or fishiness.

The most surprising evidence for the deep-seatedness of taxonomy comes from patients who have, through accident or disease, suffered traumas of the brain. Consider the case of the university student whom British researchers refer to simply as J.B.R. Doctors found that upon recovering from swelling of the brain caused by herpes, J.B.R. could no longer recognize living things.

He could still recognize nonliving objects, like a flashlight, a compass, a kettle or a canoe. But the young man was unable to recognize a kangaroo, a mushroom or a buttercup. He could not say what a parrot or even the unmistakable ostrich was. And J.B.R. is far from alone; doctors around the world have found patients with the same difficulty. Most recently, scientists studying these patients’ brains have reported repeatedly finding damage — a deadening of activity or actual lesions — in a region of the temporal lobe, leading some researchers to hypothesize that there might be a specific part of the brain that is devoted to the doing of taxonomy. As curious as they are, these patients and their woes would be of little relevance to our own lives, if they had merely lost some dispensable librarianlike ability to classify living things. As it turns out, their situation is much worse. These are people completely at sea. Without the power to order and name life, a person simply does not know how to live in the world, how to understand it. How to tell the carrot from the cat — which to grate and which to pet? They are utterly lost, anchorless in a strange and confusing world. Because to order and name life is to have a sense of the world around, and, as a result, what one’s place is in it.

Today few people are proficient in the ordering and naming of life. There are the dwindling professional taxonomists, and fast-declining peoples like the Tzeltal Maya of Mexico, among whom a 2-year-old can name more than 30 different plants and whose 4-year-olds can recognize nearly 100. Things were different once. In Linnaeus’s day, it was a matter of aristocratic pride to have a wonderful and wonderfully curated collection of wild organisms, both dead and alive. Darwin (who gained fame first as the world’s foremost barnacle taxonomist) might have expected any dinner-party conversation to turn taxonomic, after an afternoon of beetle-hunting or wildflower study. Most of us claim and enjoy no such expertise.

We are, all of us, abandoning taxonomy, the ordering and naming of life. We are willfully becoming poor J.B.R., losing the ability to order and name and therefore losing a connection to and a place in the living world.

No wonder so few of us can really see what is out there. Even when scads of insistent wildlife appear with a flourish right in front of us, and there is such life always — hawks migrating over the parking lot, great colorful moths banging up against the window at night — we barely seem to notice. We are so disconnected from the living world that we can live in the midst of a mass extinction, of the rapid invasion everywhere of new and noxious species, entirely unaware that anything is happening. Happily, changing all this turns out to be easy. Just find an organism, any organism, small, large, gaudy, subtle — anywhere, and they are everywhere — and get a sense of it, its shape, color, size, feel, smell, sound. Give a nod to Professor Franclemont and meditate, luxuriate in its beetle-ness, its daffodility. Then find a name for it. Learn science’s name, one of countless folk names, or make up your own. To do so is to change everything, including yourself. Because once you start noticing organisms, once you have a name for particular beasts, birds and flowers, you can’t help seeing life and the order in it, just where it has always been, all around you.

Adapted from “Naming Nature: The Clash Between Instinct and Science” by Carol Kaesuk Yoon.


Read more!

Flying frog among hundreds of new species discovered in Eastern Himalayas

WWF 10 Aug 09;

Kathmandu, Nepal - Over 350 new species including the world’s smallest deer, a “flying frog” and a 100 million-year old gecko have been discovered in the Eastern Himalayas, a biological treasure trove now threatened by climate change.
A decade of research carried out by scientists in remote mountain areas endangered by rising global temperatures brought exciting discoveries such as a bright green frog (Rhacophorus suffry) which uses its red and long webbed feet to glide in the air.

One of the most significant findings was not exactly “new” in the classic sense. A 100-million year-old gecko, the oldest fossil gecko species known to science, was discovered in an amber mine in the Hukawng Valley in Himalayan regions of far northern Myanmar.

The WWF report The Eastern Himalayas – Where Worlds Collide details discoveries made by scientists from various organizations between 1998 and 2008 in a region reaching across Bhutan and north-east India to the far north of Myanmar as well as Nepal and southern parts of Tibet Autonomus Region (China).

“This enormous cultural and biological diversity underscores the fragile nature of an environment which risks being lost forever unless the impacts of climate change are reversed,” said Tariq Aziz, the leader of WWF's Living Himalayas Initiative.

“People and wildlife form a rich mosaic of life across this rugged and remarkable landscape, making it among the biologically richest areas on Earth. But the Himalayas are also among the most vulnerable to global climate change.”

In December world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to reach an agreement on a new climate deal, which will replace the existing Kyoto Protocol.

“Only an ambitious and fair deal based on an agreement between rich and poor countries can save the planet and its treasures such as the Himalayas from devastating climate change,” said Kim Carstensen, the Leader of the WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.
The Eastern Himalayas report also mentions the miniature muntjac, also called the “leaf deer” (Muntiacus putaoensis) which is the world’s oldest and smallest deer species.

Scientists initially believed the small creature found in the world’s largest mountain range was a juvenile of another species but DNA tests confirmed the light brown animal with innocent dark eyes was a distinct and new species.

The Eastern Himalayas are now known to harbour a staggering 10,000 plant species, 300 mammal species, 977 bird species, 176 reptiles, 105 amphibians and 269 types of freshwater fish. The region also has the highest density of the Bengal tiger and is the last bastion of the charismatic greater one-horned rhino.

WWF aims to conserve the habitat of endangered species such as the majestic snow leopard, Bengal tigers, Asian elephants, red pandas, takins, golden langurs, rare Gangetic dolphins and one-horned rhinos as well as thousands of plant and animal species left to discover in the Eastern Himalayas region.

Eastern Himalayas- Where Worlds Collide describes more than 350 new species discovered - including 244 plants, 16 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 14 fish, 2 birds, 2 mammals and at least 60 new invertebrates.

Historically, the rugged and largely inaccessible landscape of the Eastern Himalayas has made biological surveys in the region extremely difficult. As a result, wildlife has remained poorly surveyed and there are large areas that are still biologically unexplored.

Today further species continue to be unearthed and many more species of amphibians, reptiles and fish are currently in the process of being officially named by scientists. The Eastern Himalayas is certainly one of the last biological frontiers of Asia with many new discoveries waiting to be made.

Flying frogs and the world's oldest mushroom: a decade of Himalayan discovery
The 350 new species found over past 10 years under pressure from demand for land and climate change, warns the WWF
Felicity Carus, The Guardian 10 Aug 09;

A pretty ultramarine blue flower which changes colour in response to temperature, a flying frog and the world's oldest mushroom preserved in amber are among the 350 new species discovered in the Eastern Himalayas over the past 10 years. But experts warn the new discoveries are under pressure from demand for land and climate change.

A report published today by the WWF, The Eastern Himalayas – Where Worlds Collide, lists 242 new types of plants, 16 amphibians, 16 reptiles, 14 fish, two birds and two mammals and 61 new invertebrates. The cache, quality and diversity of species newly discovered between 1998 and 2008 make the mountainous region one of the world's most important biological hotspots.

The WWF is asking the governments of Bhutan, India and Nepal to commit to cooperate on conservation efforts in the geographic region that transcends the borders of the three countries to protect the landscape and the livelihoods of people living in the Eastern Himalayas.

Population growth, deforestation, overgrazing, poaching, the wildlife trade, mining, pollution, and hydropower development have all contributed to the pressures on the fragile ecosystems in the region, the report says. Only 25% of the original habitats in the region remain intact and 163 species that live in the Eastern Himalayas are considered globally threatened.

Because the region sits at the biogeographical crossroads of two continental plates, it contains a wide range of biodiversity and landscapes from both worlds. The Indo-Malayan lowlands are home to Asian elephants, clouded leopards, wild water buffalo, gaur, hornbills, cobras and geckos. The elevated Palearctic to the north is home to snow leopards, red pandas, black bears, and wolves.

The world's highest mountains sit in close proximity to some of the world's deepest gorges in a region that also contains the world's most northerly tropical jungles, temperate forests, tall grasslands, savannas and rich alpine meadows. A great deal of the rugged region, which also includes small areas of China and Burma, is difficult to access and has made biological surveys extremely difficult and left large areas biologically unexplored. But the intrepid are richly rewarded with new discoveries.

Impatiens namchabarwensis, or the blue diamond impatiens, is one of the 242 new plant species to have been discovered in the past 10 years. The highly endemic ultramarine blue flower was discovered during an epic expedition undertaken by Chinese botanists who trekked 60 miles from the nearest road and descended into the Namcha Barwa canyon, a gorge measuring almost 402 miles long and, in places, twice as deep as the Grand Canyon, which can reach depths of up to 6,000 feet. The rare plant can grow as tall as 60cm and flowers all year round.

The flower is perhaps the best symbol of the effects of climate change in the region as its colour changes according to temperature and exposure. In a cool climate, its appears pure blue, but darkens to a purple when the temperature rises.

A bright green, red-footed tree frog was described in 2007, and called a "flying frog" because its long, webbed feet allow it to glide when falling.

An amber mine in far north Burma has also thrown up some important new discoveries: a 100m-year-old gecko, the oldest-known mushroom and fern have all been unearthed preserved in amber.

Mark Wright, WWF's conservation science adviser said: "These exciting finds reinforce just how little we now about the world around us. In the Eastern Himalayas we have a region of extraordinary beauty and with some of the most biologically rich areas on the planet. Ironically, it is also one of the regions most at risk from climate change, as evidenced by the rapid retreat of the glaciers, and only time will tell how well species will be able to adapt – if at all."

Flying frog among 353 new Himalayan species: WWF
Claire Cozens Yahoo News 10 Aug 09;

KATHMANDU (AFP) – A flying frog, the world's smallest deer and the first new monkey to be found in over a century are among 350 new species discovered in the eastern Himalayas in the past decade, the WWF said Monday.

But the environmental group said the vital habitats of the mountain range were facing growing pressures from unsustainable development in the region, which spans Nepal, China, India, Bhutan and Myanmar.

In a report released here, it said climate change, deforestation, overgrazing by domestic livestock and illegal poaching and wildlife trading threatened one of the biologically richest areas of the planet.

"In the last half-century, this area of South Asia has faced a wave of pressures as a result of population growth and the increasing demand for commodities," said the report, "The Eastern Himalayas -- Where Worlds Collide."

"Only 25 percent of the original habitats in the region remain intact. For the unique species of the Eastern Himalayas, this means that today 163 are considered globally threatened," it said.

The WWF said 353 new species were discovered in the region between 1998 and 2008, among them a red-footed tree frog known as a "flying frog" because its large webbed feet allow it to glide when falling.

Another new species was a kind of caecilian, a limbless amphibian that resembles a giant earthworm and lives underground -- a significant discovery because caecilians are among the planet's least-studied creatures.

Other highlights were the world's smallest deer -- a miniature muntjac standing just 60-80 centimetres (25-30 inches) tall that was found in northern Myanmar -- and the first new monkey species to be discovered in over a century.

The WWF said the new species of macaque was one of the highest-dwelling monkeys in the world, living in India's Arunachal Pradesh state at between 1,600 and 3,500 metres (5,000 and 11,500 feet) above sea level.

Among the 242 new plant varieties discovered was an ultramarine blue flower found by two intrepid Chinese botanists who descended into a gorge in Tibet that is twice as deep as the Grand Canyon in places.

The WWF described the rare bloom as "dramatic in both colour and form" and said its colour changed with the temperature, making it particularly remarkable.

The eastern Himalayas is home to 10,000 plant species, 300 mammal species and nearly 1,000 bird species, and is the last place on earth where the greater one-horned rhino can still be found.

"This enormous cultural and biological diversity underscores the fragile nature of an environment which risks being lost forever unless the impacts of climate change are reversed," said Tariq Aziz, leader of the WWF's Living Himalayas initiative.

The report's findings come as world leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen in December to reach agreement on a new climate deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

Photos of the discoveries on National Geographic


Read more!

"Cove" Movie Seeks to End Japan's Dolphin Hunt

Patrick Walters, National Geographic Magazine 10 Aug 09;

But dolphin hunting is a complex issue, and focusing solely on ending it leaves some important questions unanswered: How widespread is dolphin hunting? When and why did it start, and why does it persist? And what effect, if any, is the hunt having on the health of dolphins globally?

Every year on the first of September, in a small town called Taiji on the southeast coast of Japan's Honshu Island, a new fishing season begins: the dolphin season.

Twenty-six fishermen in 13 boats corral a few dozen dolphins into a small cove, where they kill the animals by stabbing them repeatedly with long harpoons and knives. The 50-square-foot (4.6-square-meter) inlet turns crimson, as if filled only with blood.

In the course of a six-month season, fishermen kill roughly 2,000 dolphins and sell the meat to local supermarkets for about U.S. $500 a dolphin. The fishermen supplement their income by taking about a hundred dolphins alive and selling them for tens of thousands of dollars each to aquariums in Japan, China, South Korea, Iran, and Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

(Related: "Captured Dolphin With Four Fins Spotlights Controversial Hunt.")

International media have not been kind to Taiji in the past, and the documentary The Cove, a Sundance Film Festival award winner released nationwide in the United States on August 7, is reopening old wounds. The film follows an international team of photographers, divers, and activists on their mission to document the dolphin hunt, facing opposition from Taiji town officials, police, and fishermen.

(Read an interview with The Cove's director from Adventure magazine.)

The activists are led by Ric O'Barry, who trained the bottlenose dolphins featured in the popular 1960s TV series Flipper. After the show ended in 1967, O'Barry became one of the world's most radical activists against keeping dolphins in captivity. For the past several years he's been trying to stop the hunt in Taiji, one of Japan's iconic whaling towns.

Others have also been outspoken: Blue Voice, a collaboration between filmmaker Hardy Jones and actor Ted Danson, has opposed the Taiji hunt for years. So has a Japanese environmental organization, Elsa Nature Conservancy. Heroes star Hayden Panettiere protested in the Taiji cove in 2007.

Many scientists are also opposed to the hunt. Since 2005, Hunter College animal behaviorist Diana Reiss—famous for discovering that dolphins can recognize themselves in mirrors—has been collecting signatures from hundreds of scientists around the world for a petition she plans to present to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton next month.

(Read a National Geographic magazine article on animal intelligence.)

"This [hunt] is an extreme case of animal cruelty," said Reiss, who receives funding from National Geographic's < ahref="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/field/grants-programs/cre.html">Committee for Research and Exploration. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)

Reiss, The Cove's filmmakers, and other activists working in Taiji all have a clear mission: Stop this dolphin hunt. But dolphin hunting is a complex issue, and focusing solely on ending it leaves some important questions unanswered: How widespread is dolphin hunting? When and why did it start, and why does it persist? And what effect, if any, is the hunt having on the health of dolphins globally?
An Age-Old Local Tradition

People in Japan have hunted dolphins and their larger cetacean relatives, whales, for hundreds if not thousands of years. Glacial melting made Japan an island chain 10,000 years ago, and as its population grew, the country became highly dependent on the sea.

"Pretty much any edible sea creature has been exploited for food," said Harvard University anthropologist and Japanese fishing-culture expert Theodore Bestor. Whales and dolphins became ingrained in Japanese food, culture, and religion. The animals were the subjects of celebrations, rituals, and art. Ancient tombs and memorials for whales and dolphins can be found across the country.

Unlike whaling—which became a large-scale commercial industry in the 20th century, before a 1986 international moratorium —dolphin hunting has always been primarily a local activity, said University of Oslo anthropologist Arne Kalland. Traditionally dolphin hunts have been isolated to a handful of small fishing towns, where dolphin meat is well liked.

Ironically, a Japanese town where dolphin wasn't popular became the first to draw international attention to drive hunting, the practice of corralling the dolphins into a cove. In the late 1970s fishermen in Iki, a small town on an island west of Taiji, had come to believe that dolphins were depleting stocks of a popular fish called yellowtail, though there's no data to suggest dolphins have ever significantly reduced yellowtail stocks. In April 1979 National Geographic magazine published a picture of Iki's bloody cove, showing bottlenose dolphins strewn on the beach.

The following year Hardy Jones visited Iki and filmed the slaughter. He sent his tape to CBS, and after the network ran the footage, more than 200 reporters from all over the world showed up to cover the story. Iki hasn't had a dolphin hunt since.

By the mid-1980s, Jones said, most other towns with drive hunts also gave up the practice. Some stopped because they ran out of dolphins, which were overfished, scared off, or both—but most were driven to quit by all the negative attention. The drive hunts weren't worth the trouble.

Still, Taiji refused to stop: In 1980, fishermen killed 11,017 dolphins in drive hunts.

Dolphin Hunts Persist Outside Japan

Over the past 25 years, Taiji (population 3,600) has become a flashpoint for animal-rights activists. But it's not the only place where fishermen kill dolphins. It's not even the only place with a blood-drenched cove.

Every year, fishermen in the Faroe Islands, an autonomous province of Denmark, also corral and kill hundreds of dolphins in small coves. Just as in Taiji, the water runs red.

So why hasn't the Faroese hunt attracted the same kind of negative international attention? For starters, it's only half the size of Taiji's and sometimes smaller. In addition, the fishermen kill pilot whales, which are technically dolphins but aren't as recognizable as their bottlenose cousins. The hunt is also less commercial. The meat is divided evenly among local families instead of being sold to supermarkets, and no animals are sold to aquariums.

What's more, the Faroe Islands respect a worldwide commercial whaling ban, though Denmark wants it lifted. So does Japan, and Tokyo's outspoken opposition to the ban has made Japan a lightning rod for anti-whaling activists —and, by extension, dolphin activists.

Even within Japan, the Taiji hunt is small compared to one that happens in the north, where harpooners kill more than 10,000 Dall's porpoises every year for food—five times the recent annual take in Taiji. But because the hunt happens out at sea, it's hard to photograph and has received far less attention than Taiji's bloody cove.

Dolphin hunts also take place at a small subsistence level in the Caribbean and the Arctic. Fishermen kill dolphins frequently in Peru—where it's illegal—but data on how many are killed are hard to come by.

Solomon Islands Hunt "Completely Unsustainable"

In the Solomon Islands, dolphins are regularly killed for their meat and their teeth, which are used decoratively. As in Taiji, fishermen sell a small number of dolphins to aquariums.

The Solomon Islands hunt is one of the smallest in the world —less than a hundred are killed every year, and about a dozen are sold into captivity —but it presents an urgent problem for conservationists since the local dolphin population may number only in the hundreds.

"It's completely unsustainable," said Natural Resources Defense Council staff attorney Taryn Kiekow. Former Flipper trainer Ric O'Barry and the Earth Island Institute have lobbied officials in the Solomon Islands to end the hunt.

Globally, most dolphin populations are safe. Dall's porpoises may number more than a million, and according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are likely more than six million dolphins worldwide. A few species are at risk of extinction, but most number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

"Anybody who tells you these animals are going to go extinct because of these hunts, there's no data to support that," said NRDC marine mammal scientist Liz Alter. Still, she cautions that it's possible that the Dall's porpoise hunt in Japan may harm subpopulations of that animal.

"We Never Say 'Don't Eat a Cheeseburger'"

Shigeki Takaya, assistant director of the Far Seas Fisheries Division of Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries in Tokyo, which oversees dolphin hunting, said he hasn't seen The Cove yet — just the trailer. But Takaya knows what the filmmakers want, and he says they should give up.

"What difference is there between a cow, a pig, and a dolphin?" he said. "There's no difference. There is a market for dolphin in Japan. It's not a major market, but it's a market. Dolphin is a resource, and people have to respect each other's cultures. In other countries they eat cow. But we never say to Americans, 'Don't eat a cheeseburger.' We never, ever say that."

Hunter College's Reiss counters that the Taiji hunt must stop simply because it's inhumane. Dolphins are extremely intelligent creatures that experience pain and suffering, she emphasizes. She has listened to underwater recordings from the Taiji drive hunt and says the dolphins issue sophisticated distress calls.

"Science has got to transcend cultural borders," she said.

The Switzerland-based World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA) has forbidden its members from taking dolphins from the Taiji hunt. The Japanese Association of Zoos and Aquariums is a WAZA member, but most Japanese aquariums don't belong to the national association.

WAZA director Gerald Dick has visited several Japanese aquarium directors and said it's hard to convince them to stop buying dolphins from Taiji when doing so costs so much less than breeding them in captivity.

"They don't regard [the hunt] as particularly cruel," he said. "They've been doing it for years."

The makers of The Cove argue that if Japanese aquarium-goers knew where the aquariums were getting their dolphins, people might stop visiting. The Taiji drive hunt is not widely publicized in Japan, the filmmakers say, but they are seeking a Japanese distributor for the documentary.

Could Mercury Fears End the Hunt?

Like most forms of fishing, dolphin hunting isn't regulated by any international organization.

The International Whaling Commission has for years debated whether it should limit the hunting of small cetaceans like dolphins, but it's been deadlocked. The commission was created in 1946 to control the market for whale oil and later took on the duty of protecting whales from being hunted to extinction. But global dolphin populations are healthy.

In the end, it might be Japanese consumers who stop the Taiji hunt. Activists, scientists, and the Japanese press have documented high levels of mercury contamination in Japan's dolphins. The Cove features Oregon State University marine biologist Scott Baker, a past National Geographic Society grantee who tested Japanese striped dolphin meat and reported in 2005 it had nearly a hundred times the amount of mercury permitted by Japanese regulations.

But mercury poisoning doesn't show its effects immediately, and although the Japanese government has warned pregnant women to limit their consumption of dolphin meat, it would probably take awhile for people to give up completely a food tied so closely to their history and culture.

So far, Japan—home to the world's largest dolphin hunt—has done nothing to suggest it will stop this age-old practice.


Read more!

The future of coral reefs and the human communities that depend on them

Science Alert 6 Aug 09;
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies

Leading Australian scientists today released the following call for action to save the world’s coral reefs, at a scientific symposium in Brisbane:

• Coral reefs are irreplaceable and far too valuable for human societies to allow their continued destruction. It is a moral imperative that coral reefs are not simply abandoned as an overly fragile casualty of the world’s appetite for coal and oil. Reefs are threatened, not doomed - if we can take steps to avoid extreme climate change. We know what to do to maintain healthy reefs, and we should get on with it.

• Because of their sensitivity to temperature and acidification of oceans, coral reefs are in the front line of the effects of climate change. For reefs, climate change is not some distant threat that might come to pass in the future – scientists and reef managers have already clearly documented the impacts of accelerating climate change on the Great Barrier Reef and elsewhere around the world. The evidence is irrefutable.

• Without targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ongoing damage to coral reefs from global warming will soon be irreversible. Substantial global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must be initiated immediately, not in 10 or 20 years.

• Substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are consistently with steadily growing improving standards in both developed and developing countries. The best estimate of the change in the rate of economic growth associated with a program to hold the change in global temperature below 2 degrees C over the next century is less than 0.1 percentage points.

• The coral reef crisis represents a policy and governance failure. Improved outcomes for reefs will require unprecedented coordination and integration across jurisdictions. People from developing countries who are highly dependent on reefs for their livelihood are the most vulnerable to change. Australia’s support for the Coral Triangle Initiative and for Pacific Nations, represents a sound approach that combines conservation objectives with sustainable development. These efforts need to be much better supported by all governments.

• In many places, we need to move beyond the usual measures to involve communities in conservation- things like consultation, participation, and compensation. We need to understand the social, cultural, political and economic conditions the same way we understand ecological conditions such as the types of corals and fish in a park. In some areas, the capacity of communities to cope with change will have to be built up, which will require donors and governments to make real and meaningful investments in poverty alleviation, education, and reducing dependence on coral reef resources.

• Development aid, particularly for education, capacity-building and alternative livelihoods will increase the capacity coral-reef nations to adapt to climate change. The higher the level of education and the broader the range of economic prospects available to people, the greater the appeal of long-term management for sustainability, as opposed to extraction of resources to meet immediate demands for survival.

• The world has a narrow window of opportunity to save coral reefs from the destruction of extreme climate change. Local action can help to re-build the resilience of reefs, and promote their recovery from coral bleaching. It is critically important to prevent the replacement of corals by algal blooms, by reducing runoff from land and by protecting stocks of herbivorous fishes. However, reefs cannot be “climate-proofed” except via reduced emissions of greenhouse gasses


Read more!

The Earth Is Warming? Adjust the Thermostat

John Tierney, The New York Times 10 Aug 09;

President Obama and the rest of the Group of 8 leaders decreed last month that the planet’s average temperature shall not rise more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above today’s level. But what if Mother Earth didn’t get the memo? How do we stay cool in the future?

Two options:

Plan A. Keep talking about the weather. This has been the preferred approach for the past two decades in Western Europe, where leaders like to promise one another that they will keep the globe cool by drastically reducing carbon emissions. Then, when their countries’ emissions keep rising anyway, they convene to make new promises and swear that they really, really mean it this time.

Plan B. Do something about the weather. Originally called geoengineering, this approach used to be dismissed as science fiction fantasies: cooling the planet with sun-blocking particles or shades; tinkering with clouds to make them more reflective; removing vast quantities of carbon from the atmosphere.

Today this approach goes by the slightly less grandiose name of climate engineering, and it is looking more practical. Several recent reviews of these ideas conclude that cooling the planet would be technically feasible and economically affordable.

There are still plenty of skeptics, but even they have started calling for more research into climate engineering. The skeptics understandably fear the unintended consequences of tampering with the planet’s thermostat, but they also fear the possibility — which I’d call a near certainty — that political leaders will not seriously reduce carbon emissions anytime soon.

The National Academy of Sciences and Britain’s Royal Society are preparing reports on climate engineering, and the Obama administration has promised to consider it. But so far there has been virtually no government support for research and development — certainly nothing like the tens of billions of dollars allotted to green energy and other programs whose effects on the climate would not be felt for decades.

For perhaps $100 million, climate engineers could begin field tests within five years, says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science. Dr. Caldeira is a member of a climate-engineering study group that met last year at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics under the leadership of Steven E. Koonin, who has since become the under secretary for science at the United States Department of Energy. The group has just issued a report, published by the Novim research organization, analyzing the use of aerosol particles to reflect shortwave solar radiation back into space.

These particles could be lofted into the stratosphere to reproduce the effects of sulfate aerosols from volcanic eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, which was followed by a global cooling of nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit. Just as occurred after that eruption, the effects would wane as the particles fell back to Earth. Keeping the planet cooled steadily (at least until carbon emissions declined) might cost $30 billion per year if the particles were fired from military artillery, or $8 billion annually if delivered by aircraft, according to the Novim report.

The idea of even testing such a system scares many people, and some scientists argue that climate-engineering research should remain theoretical. But Dr. Caldeira says that small-scale testing — perhaps an experiment intended to slightly cool the Arctic — could be safer than the alternative.

“The worst-case scenario,” he says, “is one in which you have an untested system that you need to deploy quickly at large scale in a desperate attempt to ward off some sort of climate crisis. It could be much better to start testing soon at small scale and to observe what happens as the system is deployed.” The sooner we start, he reasons, the more delicately we can proceed.

“Because of natural variability in weather and climate, the smaller the experiment, the longer it needs to be observed for the signal to rise out of the noise,” Dr. Caldeira says. “With short testing periods, you would need to hit the system with a hammer.”

Another way to cool the globe would be to spray seawater mist from ships up toward low-lying clouds, which would become brighter and reflect more sunlight away from Earth. (For details, see nytimes.com/tierneylab.)

This cloud-brightening technology might counteract a century’s worth of global warming for $9 billion, according to J. Eric Bickel and Lee Lane. They identified it as the most promising form of climate engineering in a report published Friday by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which is sponsoring cost-benefit analyses of strategies for dealing with climate change.

Other researchers say that it is impossible to do a cost-benefit analysis of these engineering proposals because the potential downside is so uncertain — and large. Injecting aerosols into the stratosphere or brightening clouds would do more than just cool the planet. In a paper in the current Science, Gabriele C. Hegerl and Susan Solomon point to a drop in global precipitation after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo, and warn that climate engineering could lead to dangerous droughts.

A less risky form of climate engineering would be to gradually remove enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to keep the planet cool. Some experts argue that the technology already exists to make this “air-capture” method reasonably economical, and that its political advantages make it the most realistic long-term strategy. What politician wants to tamper directly with the climate and risk getting blamed for the next hurricane or drought?

But if the climate does become dangerously warm, there could be enormous political pressure to do something quickly. And while it wouldn’t be easy reaching international agreement on how to reset the planet’s thermostat, in some ways it is less daunting than trying to negotiate a global carbon treaty.

If rich European countries with strong green constituencies cannot live up to their own promises to cut carbon, how much hope is there of permanently enforcing tough restrictions in the United States, much less in poor countries like India and China? If even a few nations demur or cheat, the whole system can break down.

By contrast, climate engineering does not require unanimous agreement or steadfast enforcement throughout the world. Instead of relying on politicians’ promises, we might find it simpler to deal directly with Mother Earth’s hot air.


Read more!

Supermarket offers and food waste targeted in UK goverment's food strategy

All aspects of food – production, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and waste – must be addressed, says Hilary Ben
Martin Wainwright, guardian.co.uk 10 Aug 09;

Fewer cut-price supermarket gimmicks and other measures to help target food waste are central to a new government food security strategy to maintain UK food supplies for the next 40 years.

The strategy is highly critical of bogof - "buy one get one free" - offers and heavily reduced "loss leader" lines that encourage shoppers to buy food they don't need which eventually ends up in the bin. And it calculates that reducing food waste has the potential to cut carbon emissions equal to taking a fifth of the country's traffic off the roads. It also promotes leaner and healthier diets, along with higher crop yields and a move towards accepting genetically modified crops.

The series of reports called Food 2030 had been expected last month but was delayed by internal disagreement within the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and foot-dragging over measures that would potentially be unpopular with voters.

Launching the strategy the environment secretary Hilary Benn said: "Last year the world had a wake-up call with the sudden oil and food price rises, but the full environmental costs and the costs to our health remain significant and hidden. We need to tackle diet-related ill health that already costs the NHS and the wider economy billions of pounds each year.

"We need everyone in the food system to get involved — from farmers and retailers to the health service, schools and consumers. Our strategy needs to cover all aspects of our food — production, processing, distribution, retail, consumption and disposal."

It was welcomed by some food specialists who argue that government must provide a brake to consumer-driven market forces. But there was criticism that action with real bite, including curbs on the power of supermarkets over suppliers, and carbon emissions from farming, remained too vague.

There was also frustration that the government was still producing policy strategies and consultations a year on from a major report commissioned at the height of global food price rises from the Cabinet Office called Food Matters. Many felt the new strategy did not include enough substantial changes.

Meredith Alexander, head of food policy at the charity ActionAid UK, said: "The government launched an inquiry into ways supermarkets abuse their market power in May 2006. Three years later, they are only now considering whether or not to actually do something about these bullying practices that contribute to poverty wages overseas."

Professor Tim Lang of City University, a specialist on food policy and member of the Sustainable Development Commission, said: "The issue is how radical or slight will changes for consumers be, and how soft or hard will the policy changes be?

"It's good to see Defra at last championing the view that the UK's food system needs to become very different. But I predict that some very uncomfortable and unpopular decisions will lie ahead for governments in coming years.

"The dominant policy language of recent years has centred on markets, choice and consumer sovereignty. These are too simplistic now. Politics needs to move fast."

Apart from targeting wasteful supermarket offers the reports also promise further action on reducing "tempting" packaging and encouraging restaurants to highlight calorie counts. Food waste in the UK is currently running at average of £420-worth per household, rising to £610 in families with children.

Benn also said that food producers in Britain would have to adapt to climate change, and perhaps grow crops in different areas where they were previously difficult to grow. The report warns that the face of the countryside will have to continue to change to guarantee food security, with GM crop experiments part of the strategy.

"We need to think about the way in which we produce our food, the way we use water and fertiliser," Benn said. "We will need science and we will need more people to come into farming because it has a bright future." He added that global food production had to increase by 70% to feed a world population of 9bn in 2050.

The National Farmers' Union welcomed the strategy's 'joined-up' approach, involving all government departments linked to food production, including the Treasury. NFU president Peter Kendall called for a similar improvement in co-ordinating food research, as well as monitoring GM's effect on the animal feed market as well as pig and poultry production.

He also appealed for a level playing field on sustainability, with strict measures applying to imports as well as home-grown food. He said: "It would make no sense to insist that our production was sustainable but increasingly rely on imports that are not."

Dr Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council, complimented Defra on "taking a systematic approach to assessing food security" and getting on with the job. But he questioned whether the department had enough clout to tackle wider issues involved in food waste and poor diet.

"For instance, a big factor in food insecurity is income inequality, and you can't crack that by fiddling about with food prices. It calls for better social protection in the UK and internationally," he said. "Another big question mark is over climate change. One of government's most important commitments in Food Matters [a government report published in July 2008] was to push for European climate agreements to take account of methane and nitrous oxide from farming, yet so far all that's happened is a seminar with the French.

"To achieve its aims, the department needs a stronger mandate from the government."

David Adam

Hilary Benn yesterday reignited the debate on growing GM crops in Britain when he suggested the controversial plants could contribute to increased food security. He said: "If GM can make a contribution then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology."

GM: feeding the world with science

No GM crops are grown commercially in Britain, although several varieties are farmed extensively in mainland Europe, the United States and elsewhere. This is less down to UK government policy than a reluctance among seed companies to apply for the relevant permits, given the high-profile backlash in Britain against GM food a decade or so ago.

Ministers have never ruled out GM in the UK and a series of comments from inside Whitehall in recent years have prompted speculation that a new industry charm-initiative is preparing to sprout.

In 2008, then environment minister Phil Woolas, said Britain was rethinking its position on GM due to a "growing question" of whether it could help feed the developing world.

Industry bodies have also used the recent food crisis as leverage, though Martin Taylor, head of GM firm Syngenta, told the Guardian last year: "GM won't solve the food crisis, at least not in the short term".

David Adam

From allotment to table in 50 years

With the appetite for home-grown food growing like, well, bindweed, it is good to see urban balconies and backyards groaning under the weight of courgettes and tomatoes. But with National Allotment Week starting today, it is hard to see how the government can meet the demand.

The waiting list in Camden and Islington for an allotment now stands at a staggering 40 and 25 years respectively. With more than 80,000 people nationwide facing an average three-year wait, this isn't all due to middle-class demand – or the Observer Organic Allotment. Research released today by home insurance firm LV shows that 56 per cent of allotment users use their plot to save money, while more than a third do so because of concerns about pesticides.

London food czar Rosie Boycott has promised 2012 new plots by (you guessed it) 2012 and even the venerable National Trust is promising 1,000 new plots in the next three years to help meet this growing demand to grow your own. And if you get your name down today in Camden, your first crop will be ready just in time for 2050.

Allan Jenkins is allotment gardener-in-chief and editor of Observer Magazine

Britain wants "rethink" on food production
Peter Griffiths, Reuters 10 Aug 09;

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain must find ways to grow more food while using less water, energy and fertilizers to help feed a growing world population and offset the effects of climate change on agriculture, the government said on Monday.

A senior minister said last year's sharp rise in the cost of food and oil and a severe drought in Australia showed the urgent need to develop a food security plan.

"Last year the world had a wake-up call with the sudden oil and food price rises," Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said in a statement to launch a national debate on food security. "We need a radical rethink of how we produce and consume our food.

Food and agriculture rose to the top of the political agenda at the G8 meeting in Italy in July. Leaders of the world's richest countries pledged $20 billion in farm aid to help poor countries feed themselves.

A sudden rise in the price of staple foods like rice, maize and wheat in the first half of 2008 triggered riots and hoarding in some parts of the world. Scientists say global warming could lead to devastating droughts and crop failures.

Farmers will have to adopt new methods to grow bigger crops while being more careful with increasingly valuable commodities such as water and fuel for machinery and fertilizers, Benn said.

"Globally we need to cut emissions and adapt to the changing climate that will alter what we can grow and where we can grow it," he said.

Global food production needs to rise by 70 percent by 2050 to meet the demands of a growing world population of 9 billion people, according to estimates from the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization.

Food production and consumption accounts for about 18 percent of Britain's greenhouse gas emissions, while generating 7 percent of its GDP on sales worth 172 billion pounds ($287 billion) in 2007.

Britain, which imports 37 percent of its food, must find ways of cutting the amount of food that is wasted and making the food and drink sector more sustainable, Benn said.

Environmental group Friends of the Earth said the government had failed to address the global impact of food production and consumption, overplayed the importance of genetically modified crops and failed to establish a supermarket watchdog.

Shadow Environment Secretary Nick Herbert accused the government of letting Britain become increasingly dependent on imports of foods which could be grown domestically.

The government's consultation on how the sector should look in 2030 will examine the whole supply chain, from farming and distribution to retail and disposal. The findings will be published later this year at www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/security

(Additional reporting by Nina Chestney; editing by Andrew Roche)

UK food research 'needs a boost'
Pallab Ghosh, BBC News 10 Aug 09;

The world's food production needs to double by 2050 to feed the world's growing population.

But over this period, climate change, reduced access to water and changing land use are likely to make growing crops harder rather than easier.

Scientists are trying to find new ways of using fewer resources to produce more food.

Dr Chris Atkinson, head of science at East Malling Research in Kent, UK, said that in the next few years the UK would not be able to rely on imports of cheap food.

"A number of places where the UK sources food, like southern Spain, Greece and Italy, are going to find it very difficult in the next 50 years to continue to produce the levels of food they currently do," he said.

"That's in part due to the predictions of the scarcity of water in those parts of Europe."

The work at East Malling Research has focused on refining traditional agricultural techniques. But Dr Atkinson believes that GM technology will eventually be needed to produce enough food to feed the world.

"The concept of using tools like GM to improve water use efficiency are a reality. It is a matter of whether people want to accept that technology," he explained.

Currently, many people refuse to accept the technology - particularly in Europe, where it is effectively banned.

Professor Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), believes that food production has to be doubled over the next 50 years.

That can only be done by developing all relevant technologies - including GM.

"We need science and technology to [find] ways to double food production over the next 50 years in a way that is environmentally sound," he said.

Professor Watson said there were a number of key issues which needed to be tackled.

One of the most important was how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from farming, such as methane from rice production and nitrogen oxide from use of fertilisers.

He added that thought also needed to be given to how agricultural systems should be adapted to a changing climate.

The government's chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, has set up a food strategy task force to answer these very questions.

He has also commissioned a "foresight study" into food and farming, due out later this year.

BBC News understands it will highlight concerns that the UK's agricultural research has been cut back by 70% since the 1980s. Professor Ian Crute, the former director of Rothamsted Research, is among those involved in producing the report.

"Over the last 20 years or so, we have been extremely complacent. We have really eroded our capability in research and development focused on agriculture and food," he said.

"Having wound it down over the last 20 years, we have to really begin to wind it back up again. We have to invest in skills, our research and development.

"If we are to get this increase in efficiency we just have to make these investments. I think it is quite urgent."

'Radical rethink' needed on food
Mark Kinver, BBC News 10 Aug 09;

A "radical rethink" of how the UK produces and consumes its food is needed, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has warned.

He was speaking at the launch of the government's assessment of the threats to the security of what we eat.

The food supply was currently secure but population growth and climate change could have an impact, he warned.

Producers, supermarkets and consumers have been invited to suggest how a secure food system should look in 2030.

Some of the findings from the consultation are expected to be published in the autumn.

As well as launching the consultation process, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has published a scorecard-style assessment of the current state of the UK's food supply.

"It is to stimulate a debate within the UK on what a food policy should be, and how do we define and look at food security more broadly," said Defra's chief scientific adviser Professor Robert Watson.

"Food is absolutely essential, and over the past few years we did see a food price increase - not only in the UK, but across the globe," he told BBC News.

"We think it is time to have a debate with consumers, farmers, the private sector... on what the food policy should be for the UK.

"We are clearly food secure in the UK today," he observed. "We produce about 60-65% of our own food [and] import about 20% from Europe.

"So the [test] for us will be, as the Earth's climate changes, what will be the challenges not only in the UK but throughout the world?"

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said while Britain was more self-sufficient now than it was in the 1930s and 1950s, everyone had to start thinking ahead about how to produce more using less water and less fertiliser.

He said last year's sudden jump in the price of food and oil, which most fertilisers are based on, was a "wake-up call".

"We saw last year when the oil price went up and there was a drought in Australia, which had an impact on the price of bread here in the UK, just how interdependent all these things are," he said.

"We have to feed another two and a half to three billion mouths over the next 40 to 50 years, so I want British agriculture to produce as much food as possible."

He also encouraged British consumers to buy more UK-grown produce and called for a re-think on best before or sell by dates to reduce waste.

Food for the future

Today's food security assessment focuses on six areas, including global availability, UK food chain resilience and household food security.

It assesses the current situation in each area, and the likely situation in 5-10 years time.

One sector identified as "very unfavourable" and showing no sign of improving is global fish stocks.

Yet other areas, such as the diversity of the UK's suppliers of fresh fruit and vegetables are deemed "favourable" and likely to improve even more.

In July, the Sustainable Development Commission - the government's environmental watchdog - warned that the current food system was failing.

In its report, the commission warned that the current approach was a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and paid little attention to soil quality and water use.

Responding to the Defra publications, the British Retail Consortium said that any strategy had to be centred around consumers.

"Without their buy-in, no plan will work," said food policy director Andrew Opie.

"We do need a sustainable supply chain, but retailers do not need government statements to wake them up to these issues, they are already taking action.

"What we need is joined-up policy with government agreeing what it wants from food across all its departments and agencies."

GM crops set for role in Britain's food revolution
Environment Secretary says new techniques will help increase production
Martin Hickman, The Independent 11 Aug 09;

Ministers left open the door for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops yesterday as part of a new green revolution to transform food production.

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, declined to rule out commercial GM planting in Britain as he stressed that new scientific techniques were needed to raise crop yields and ensure future generations could eat. His department published a food security assessment yesterday, warning that climate change, water and energy scarcity and low fish stocks were likely to place strains on the global food system that Britain could not ignore.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the UK would "play a full part" in hitting a UN target of raising food production by 70 per cent by 2050 to feed a projected global population of nine billion.

Friends of the Earth and other green groups suspect the Government may see food security as an opportunity to introduce GM crops, which have so far proved unpopular with the public.

None are currently grown commercially here despite large-scale farm trials between 1999 and 2003. In 2004, ministers denied permission for GM beet and oilseed rape because they lessened food for farmland birds, while a herbicide-resistant maize they approved was later abandoned by its manufacturer.

Proponents of GM crops say they have the potential to raise yields dramatically by making crops resistant to drought, herbicides and pesticides. However, they have been fiercely opposed by environmentalists who say higher yields have not been proven and fear they could cause uncontrollable damage to animals and other plants.

Asked whether GM crops were part of the solution to what he called "a new green revolution," Mr Benn said that farmers would decide what to grow but stressed the importance of new techniques. "If GM can make a contribution, then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology – and an increasing number of countries are growing GM products," he told the BBC Today programme.

"And the truth is we will need to think about the way in which we produce our food... because one thing is certain: with a growing population, the world is going to need a lot of farmers and a lot of agricultural production in the years ahead."

As a result of public opposition, no major British supermarket stocks own-brand products with GM ingredients, although non-GM ingredients are becoming increasingly expensive because the US produces so many GM crops.

The Government will publish its plans for inceasing production this Autumn. In a draft document, Food Matters: One Year On, Defra said the Food Standards Agency would "take forward a programme of consumer engagements on genetic modification over the next 12 months." The section was omitted from the published version.

"Every time the UK gets the opportunity to vote on GM at European level, it votes in favour. We have no doubt that the Government is fully behind GM growing," said Clare Oxborrow, senior food campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

Pete Riley, of GM Freeze, said: "The Government has always been very pro-GM. They would like to see GM crops grown here. I suspect they will say we need GM crops on a case by case basis and will base it around science," he said, adding that there were political and economic arguments against GM.


Read more!

Natural resource trade 'still under-regulated'

Nirmal Ghosh, Straits Times 11 Aug 09;

BANGKOK: Trade in natural resources is still largely under-regulated, World Trade Organisation (WTO) chief economist Patrick Low warned yesterday.

He underscored the necessity of a successful conclusion to the Doha Round of negotiations on an international trading system. Natural resources range from hydrocarbons to forestry and fishery products.

'Resource competition is intensifying, and our task is to try and find synergies for international cooperation,' Dr Low said at a panel discussion on the future of the world trading system.

Citing unregulated hydrocarbon trade, he said the WTO would be considering what could be done to make it less likely a flashpoint for conflict in trade among nations. The WTO's flagship study next year would focus on the issue of natural resources, he said.

'There are some real differences of view on what needs to happen. But basically what seems to be happening is the underlying conditions of supply and demand are changing quite fast. (though) we got a breather because of the recession in this respect.'�

But there are countries that believe the WTO should have a much stricter doctrine on access to supplies of raw materials, he said.

He added that they are in direct opposition to those who think this is like any other resource and it belongs to the country where it is located.

The Doha Round has been stalled for years mainly over differences between developing countries and the developed world regarding agriculture.

Meanwhile, a slew of countries and regional blocs have entered into bilateral or regional trade agreements, which offer quick gains but are seen by those in favour of the WTO as undermining the concept of a rules-based world trading system born of global consensus.

A minister-level meeting of the 153-member WTO is scheduled for December, but many analysts see little scope for progress as basic issues remain unresolved.

Dr Low warned against protectionist measures in response to the current global recession.

But he acknowledged that despite some 'protectionist noises', governments have so far been restrained.

The crisis, however, has underscored that international trade remains fragile in the absence of the rules base that the Doha Round was supposed to establish.

He added that the challenge of climate change could not be managed in the trade context without a multilateral framework.


Read more!

Australia opposition proposes rival carbon scheme

James Grubel, Reuters 10 Aug 09;

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's opposition rolled out what it said was a cheaper and greener plan to cut carbon emissions on Monday, just days before it was expected to vote down the government's stalled carbon trade legislation.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong dismissed the scheme as a "mongrel" offshoot of a failed Canadian plan, and said the government was determined to pass its own emissions trading scheme (ETS), which is being watched around the world in the lead up to December's global climate talks in Copenhagen.

Laws for an emissions trading scheme (ETS) are set to be defeated in parliament's upper house Senate on Thursday, and could become a trigger for an early election if the opposition and minor parties reject the plan a second time later this year.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, who is struggling in the polls and wants to avoid an early election, on Monday proposed a plan that would promise a carbon emissions reduction of 10 percent by 2020, based on 2000 levels.

That target, which hasn't yet been endorsed by his party, would put one of the world's most carbon-intensive economies at the low end of global efforts to roll back climate change.

The government is fighting to push through its own ETS scheme that includes a pledge to cut emissions by at least 5 percent -- or as much as 25 percent if other countries take equally firm action -- but needs an extra seven votes to pass its plan through a hostile Senate, which appears unlikely.

"We will press on with this reform for as long as we have to," Wong told the National Press Club. "One way or the other, we are going to get this through."

Rudd is due to face elections in late 2010, but could have the option of a poll in early 2010 if the Senate continues to block the ETS laws. The latest opinion polls show Rudd well ahead of the opposition, which is divided over climate policy.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Under Turnbull's plan, Australia's coal industry and major export industries would receive full protection from the cost of purchasing carbon permits, compared to up 95 percent of free permits for major polluters under the government scheme.

Turnbull's scheme would see only 30 percent of Australian carbon permits auctioned, compared to 70 percent of permits auctioned under the government's plan.

"It shows with relatively modest changes, the proposed emissions trading scheme can be made far less harmful to jobs, investments, regions and the Australian economy," Turnbull said.

But Wong said Turnbull's proposals were a copy of a failed Canadian plan to set up a baseline for carbon emissions.

"It is not a credible alternative, it is a smokescreen," Wong said. "Rehashing the failed Canadian experiment puts at risk Australia's ability to meet its national targets."

Australia wants carbon trading to start in July 2011. Companies would have to buy permits for every tonne of pollution they produce, putting a price on emissions and providing a financial incentive to clean up pollution.

Meanwhile, Wong again ruled out separating laws for a 20 percent target for renewable energy from the ETS laws.

The renewable energy laws have wide political support, but remain locked in the Senate because compensation measures are linked to carbon trade laws. The Clean Energy Council said delays are costing business A$2 million ($1.7 million) a week.

The opposition and the Greens have said they would use their numbers in the Senate to remove the link between the two sets of laws, so the renewable energy target could pass, but Wong on Monday said the government wanted to keep the link.

"We need both. Australia needs both," Wong said.

Australia, the world's largest coal exporter, accounts for 1.5 percent of global emissions, but is one of the largest per-capita emitters due to a reliance on coal for 80 percent of electricity generation.

($1=A$1.20)

(Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

SCENARIOS: Possible outcomes for Australian carbon trade laws
Reuters 10 Aug 09;

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's carbon trading laws are set to be defeated in the Senate this week, with conservatives, Greens and two independent lawmakers in rare agreement to oppose it.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's government needs seven more votes to pass the 11 bills through the Senate. If the laws are rejected twice, Rudd could call a snap election.

Here are some possible outcomes for the government.

HOLD FIRM, SET UP ELECTION TRIGGER (Likely)

If the government forces a vote in the Senate on Thursday, the laws in their current form will fail. If the Senate blocks or rejects the laws a second time, after an interval of three months, it will hand Rudd a trigger for a possible snap election. Rudd, who is well ahead in opinion polls, has repeatedly said he does not want an early election, but refuses to rule out the option.

Rudd could call a snap election in early 2010 and current opinion polls suggest he would win with an increased majority. He could then pass the carbon trade laws through a joint sitting of the lower house and the Senate to clear the political deadlock. The danger for Rudd is that while the carbon laws would pass a joint sitting, a future Senate could be more unpredictable with increased numbers of Greens and independents.

DEAL WITH OPPOSITION (Unlikely)

The government's best hope of passing the laws is to get the opposition, which has the largest voting bloc in the Senate, to change its stand and support the laws. The opposition wants to postpone a vote on the laws until after global climate talks in Copenhagen in December. But political pressure on the opposition is growing, and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull's poll rating has collapsed.

Turnbull now wants to avoid forcing an early election on the carbon trade laws and has proposed negotiations on amendments.

The government is refusing to negotiate, but might be willing to make some concessions later in the year to get its laws passed ahead of the Copenhagen climate talks.

DEAL WITH GREENS, INDEPENDENTS (Unlikely)

The government's only other hope of passing the laws is to negotiate with the five Greens and two independents, who themselves pull in different directions. The Greens will only support the plan if the government makes a stronger commitment to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Independent Nick Xenophon also wants stronger emissions targets. The final independent, Steve Fielding, has said he does not believe human activity is responsible for global warming, and he is unlikely to support the legislation.

RENEWABLE TARGET SPLIT (Likely)

The conservatives and five Green senators also want to split off separate Renewable Energy Target laws, tied to the carbon trade scheme by the government through promised industry compensation for electricity generators.

The laws set a renewable energy target of 20 percent by 2020. The government joined the two pieces of legislation to pile more political pressure on Turnbull's conservatives.

The government could reject splitting the bills in the lower house where it dominates, even if the Senate decides to separate the two issues. But Wong and Rudd may be willing to accept the split next week, to unlock around $22 billion in planned solar and wind energy investment, once the carbon trade legislation is dealt with.

(Reporting by Rob Taylor; Editing by James Grubel and David Fogarty)


Read more!

New Zealand sets 10-20 percent CO2 cut by 2020 target

Adrian Bathgate, Reuters 10 Aug 09;

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand set itself a goal on Monday to cut carbon emissions by between 10 and 20 percent by 2020, holding off setting a hard target until a broader global climate pact now under negotiation takes shape.

Business groups said it was a sensible range -- broadly in line with major emitters like Japan and the United States, as well as neighboring Australia -- but environmentalists said it was not tough enough to tackle climate change.

While New Zealand's emissions comprise less than 0.5 percent of mankind's greenhouse gas pollution, it is one of fewer than 40 rich nations bound by the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol to curb emissions and thus has an important role in helping shape the debate of a post-Kyoto deal due to be agreed at year's end in Copenhagen.

"This target is internationally credible and both environmentally and economically responsible," Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said in a statement.

"It is an ambitious but achievable goal," he said, adding the target would be achieved through domestic emission reductions, the storage of carbon in forests and the purchase of emission reductions from other countries.

New Zealand is also being closely watched since it is one of a handful of nations outside Europe trying to develop a national emissions trading scheme, a key measure in meeting its target and something it hopes to have in place by the end of this year.

A parliamentary committee that has been reviewing a package of laws on the proposed trading scheme is expected to release its report within a few weeks. A similar set of bills in Australia, which has said it could cut emissions by as much as 25 percent, has been stalled by political opposition.

"USEFUL FIRST STEP"

New Zealand faces a trickier task than most, with emissions already far above its current U.N. target and because about half of its greenhouse gas pollution comes from agriculture, which in turn provides about half its $29 billion in annual export earnings.

Emissions increased 24 percent from 1990 to 2008. Under Kyoto, its greenhouse gas emissions are supposed to show no increase from 1990 levels during the 2008-12 Kyoto period.

Smith made no mention of any concessions for agriculture, which is responsible for large amounts of methane emissions. Methane is about 20 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Poorer states want rich nations to agree to 2020 emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels. But most rich nations say this range is too tough to meet.

"The 2020 emissions targets announced today represented a useful first step in the current international negotiations for a post-2012 climate change agreement," said Jonathan Boston, director of the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.

But he said New Zealand and many other developed countries would need take responsibility for reductions in emissions by 2020 of more than 20 percent to try to avoid the worst of the impacts from global warming.

"It is to be hoped that the 10-20 percent target range is not the government's final position."

Greenpeace said the 10-20 percent range would mean New Zealand was not a constructive player at the Copenhagen meeting.

However, lobby group Business NZ said the target was a sensible balance, given New Zealand's unique status as a developed but agriculture-reliant economy.

($1 = NZ$1.49)

(Editing by David Fogarty)

FACTBOX: New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions profile
Adrian Bathgate, Reuters 10 Aug 09;

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand said on Monday it will aim to cut its carbon emissions between 10 and 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels.

The exact size of reductions will depend on the target adopted by developed countries during negotiations on a broader global climate pact due to be finalized in the Danish capital later this year.

New Zealand's total emissions increased by 24 percent from 1990 to 2008, which the government had previously said would make setting a target difficult.

NEW ZEALAND EMISSIONS BREAKDOWN AS AT 2006

AGRICULTURE - 48 PERCENT: Primarily methane emissions from cattle and sheep, which number about 10 million and 33 million respectively. New Zealand is unique among developed countries for having such a high proportion of emissions from agriculture, with the average for developed countries about 12 percent.

ENERGY - 44 PERCENT: Mainly transport (19 percent) and electricity generation (11 percent) and manufacturing (7 percent). Transport is mostly made up from burning fuel for cars and trucks while electricity generation is from power stations fueled mostly by gas and coal.

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES - 5 PERCENT: The bulk of this comes from the production of iron, steel and aluminum.

WASTE - 2 PERCENT

RENEWABLES: The country relies on hydro, geothermal and wind power to supply more than 60 percent of the nation's electricity.

Sources: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, New Zealand government

(Editing by David Fogarty)

New Zealand sets greenhouse gas reduction at 10-20 pct
Yahoo News 10 Aug 09;

WELLINGTON (AFP) – New Zealand has set a target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by between 10 and 20 percent from 1990 levels, the government announced Monday, according to press reports.

The target, which falls short of demands by environmentalists, would be met by reducing domestic emissions, expanding forests and buying emission reductions from other nations.

Prime Minister John Key said the country had a long way to go if it was to fulfill the pledge.

"It seeks to balance our economic opportunities with our environmental responsibility," he said, in comments reported by the New Zealand Press Association.

"The target is going to be a big ask for New Zealand because our gross emissions are already 24 per cent above our 1990 levels," Key said.

The announcement forms part of Wellington's bargaining position in talks scheduled for the end of the year in Copenhagen, when nations will meet to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

New Zealand will cut its emissions by 10 percent if other developed nations sign a comprehensive treaty and by 20 percent if developing countries also get on board.

Environmental group Greenpeace has been campaigning for New Zealand to slash its emissions by 40 percent, but Key rejected this call, saying the economic and social cost would be unacceptable.

Business groups had urged the government to set a target below 10 percent, while opposition parties said the announcement did not go far enough.

Green Party MP Jeanette Fitzsimons said more needed to be done before the year-end international meeting.

"Our opening bid is too low. Hopefully, New Zealanders will convince the government to up its game as the negotiations progress towards Copenhagen. This debate has only just begun, and it's time we had a real conversation about what is possible," she said.


Read more!

Global 2008 CO2 emissions rose 2 percent: German institute

Reuters 10 Aug 09;

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Global carbon dioxide emissions in 2008 rose 1.94 percent year-on-year to 31.5 billion metric tons, German renewable energy industry institute IWR said on Monday, based on official information and its own research.

The private institute, which is based in Muenster and advises German ministries, said climate-harming carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose for the tenth year in succession, running counter to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol aimed at trying to cut CO2 emissions by 5.2 percent by 2012.

IWR recommends linking measured emissions to individual countries' renewable energy investment commitments.

It said if negotiators adopted this approach, it could stabilize overall fossil fuels consumption and related CO2 emissions.

"Kyoto is not working out," said IWR Managing Director Norbert Allnoch. Global emissions are 40 percent above those in 1990, the basis year for the treaty.

"(Our recommendation) is a better approach than trying to persuade countries to curb their industrial activities, which inevitably creates hostility and bickering over who should be doing what to protect the climate," he said.

The approach would involve linking the CO2 output of each of the 65 countries and some other regions to investments in renewable energy industries such as wind, solar or biofuels.

Some 120 billion euros ($170.3 billion) were invested in renewables in 2008, IWR said.

It said this should at least be quadrupled to total around 500 billion euros a year for the world to reverse the runaway trend in CO2 pollution.

"The higher the CO2 emissions, the higher the renewables investment in each country should be," Allnoch said.

Carbon dioxide emissions from heavy industry participating in the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme fell 3.1 percent last year compared with 2007, the EU's executive Commission said in mid-May.

This was due to falling industrial output from the global economic slowdown, it said.

(Reporting by Vera Eckert; editing by Nina Chestney and James Jukwey)


Read more!

Time running out for December climate pact: U.N.

Alister Doyle, Reuters 10 Aug 09;

BONN, Germany (Reuters) - About 180 nations met for U.N. climate talks on Monday amid warnings that time was running out for them to reach agreement on a hugely complex pact, due for completion at the end of the year.

About 2,400 delegates at the Aug 10-14 negotiations in Bonn will try to shorten a draft text, outlining options for combating global warming, that has swollen to about 200 pages from 50 just a few months ago.

"Time is running out," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told Reuters in a conference hall where a large clock is ticking down the 118 days left until a meeting of environment ministers in Copenhagen in December.

"The challenge of this session is to narrow (the) text down," he said. "We have an enormous amount of ground to cover."

The Bonn meeting, the third in Germany this year, was added because of scant progress with the deadline looming. After Bonn, talks before Copenhagen are in Bangkok from September 28-October 9 and in Barcelona, Spain, from November 2-6.

The 200-page text outlines ideas such as ways to register curbs on greenhouse gas emissions by developing nations, how to help the poor adapt to climate change, ways to protect forests and how to raise billions of dollars in new finance.

Among the most important issues for Bonn was "how rich countries are going to show leadership to reduce their emissions," de Boer said.

Leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations agreed in Italy last month to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and limit global warming to no more than a two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise over pre-industrial times."

NOT ON 2 CELSIUS TRACK

"We are absolutely not on track" to stay below two degrees Celsius, de Boer said.

Temperatures have risen by 0.7 Celsius in the past century and the U.N. Climate Panel projects further rises that will spur heatwaves, droughts, floods, and raise world sea levels.

New Zealand on Monday set a goal of cutting carbon emissions by between 10 and 20 percent by 2020 below 1990 levels, but said the targets hinged on goals by other nations in Copenhagen.

"It's a long way below the levels of ambition needed," said Kim Carstensen, leader of the WWF environment group's global climate initiative, said of New Zealand's goal.

Developing nations such as China and India want the rich to cut by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Average cuts outlined so far work out at about 10-14 percent.

Michael Zammit Cutajar, chairing talks on the 200-page text, said that roughly 30 pages would be a goal for the document's length by the end of the meeting in Bangkok.

De Boer said that there was still a willingness to reach an agreement despite recession that has made many countries unwilling to do more to cut emissions. "There's still a huge political will to come to an agreement in Copenhagen," he said.

Developing nations also said it was vital to have more talks on the financing of any deal in Copenhagen. African nations, for instance, say that at least $267 billion a year will be needed by 2020 to help the poor combat climate change.

With time pressing, Elliot Diringer of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said Copenhagen would, at best, agree a framework for a deal with many details to be filled in later.

And he said it was "highly unlikely" that the U.S. Congress would agree on a climate bill by Copenhagen.

-- For Reuters latest environment blogs click on: blogs.reuters.com/environment/

(Editing by Jon Boyle)


Read more!