Current Savers Blog

Half a million Magellanic penguins are among the critters to get protection in a new coastal marine park just established by Argentina.

“It is the first protected area in Argentina specifically designed to safeguard not only onshore breeding colonies but also areas of ocean where wildlife feed at sea,” the Bronx-based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) said on Tuesday.

“Researchers found that the area was in need of protection from increasing pressures by commercial fishing and the oil industry,” said WCS, which helped set up the park. Named the Golfo San Jorge marine park, it became official earlier this month.

Only a fraction of the planet’s coastlines and marine areas are protected, so any move in this area is bound to be welcomed by conservationists.

According to conservation group WWF for example, only 0.6 percent of the world’s oceans have been designated as protected - compared to almost 13 percent of the planet’s land area.

The new reserve is in Golfo San Jorge in Chubut Province, some 1,056 miles (1,700 kilometers) south of Buenos Aires. WCS said it covers approximately 250 square miles (647 square kilometers) of coastal waters and nearby islands strung along almost 100 miles (160 kilometers) of shoreline.

“The region serves as a nesting and feeding ground for some quarter million pairs of Magellanic penguin, estimated to represent 25 percent of the entire population in Patagonia. Its 50 small islands also support two nesting colonies of southern giant petrels that represent over 80 percent of its population on the entire Patagonian coast,” WCS said.

(Photo credit: Graham Harris/Wildlife Conservation Society)

My wife and I were walking on Christmas Day with our dog through some heavily forested trails in a suburban park north of Dallas when we came across a coyote cruising on the paths ahead of us.

We have seen coyotes in the same park before — it is part of an almost unbroken system of forest that wraps around Lake Grapevine near the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport — and it was a nice reminder that wildlife and humans in the early 21st century often live in close proximity if not always in peace. The same park contains deer, wild turkey and other critters.

The coyote is in many ways a classic example of an animal that has thrived because of human activities and has long fascinated me as a result. From their original hunting grounds in the North American west they have extended their range into virtually every ecosystem on the continent south of the tree line.

Some natural historians have speculated that they have rushed to fill niches opened up by the extermination of the wolf over much of its range. I remember the first reports of coyotes in my native province of Nova Scotia in the late 1970s; now they are a common feature of the environment back home (to the chagrin of deer hunters and sheep farmers among others).

The broader point is that some animals seem to do well because of human activities, finding opportunities (such as the elimination of larger competitors). Coyotes are predators and scavengers and will eat any and everything - including domestic cats. This seems to make them ideally suited to life in the deep bush as well as the edge of urban life. They are also a common sight in more urban areas of Dallas and other North American cities (as this picture from downtown Vancouver illustrates).

For many seeing wildlife so close to our urban homes is cause for celebration (unless of course they eat our pet cat!)  But their presence is also a reminder of the impact that humanity’s footprint can have on ecosystems. Some would argue that coyotes do not belong in some of the places where they now roam; but they are there only because of us.

More and more people are only dreaming of a “White Christmas” because of global warming.

That’s the conclusion by my colleague Erik Kirschbaum in a nice story from Berlin today about how climate change is making it less likely that people in the northern hemisphere will see snow at Christmas.

The picture above proves that this year there has been plenty of snow in some places — this snowman was pictured in Central Park, New York, on Dec. 19. According to one report, Canada may get its first country-wide white Christmas in four decades.

But the white Christmas is set to get ever rarer because of climate change.

And the UK Met Office says that a White Christmas isn’t necessarily even white any longer:

“For many a white Christmas means a complete covering of snow, ideally falling on the 25th. However, the definition of an official white Christmas used most widely, notably by those placing and taking bets, is for a single snow flake (perhaps amongst a shower of rain and snow mixed) to be observed falling in the 24 hours of 25 December.”)

So could climate change doom the White Christmas, especially if it’s just down to a single soggy snow flake?

What do you think?

Are those green jobs Obama has been promising already on their way? Really?

Despite a weak global economy and all the gloom that has brought to the solar industry of late, two solar companies this week quietly bucked the trend by announcing new manufacturing plants here in the United States.

On Monday, Hemlock Semiconductor said it would invest up to $3 billion to expand U.S. production of polysilicon, the key raw material used to make solar cells and semiconductors.  That will include $1.2 billion to build a new facility in Clarksville, Tennesee, and up to $1 billion to expand its current operations in Hemlock, Michigan. The company said the investment will create 800 permanent positions at the plants (and a few hundred more once Clarksville is expanded) and 1,800 construction jobs.

A day later, Signet Solar said it will build a solar panel manufacturing plant in Belen, New Mexico. The first phase of the plant will create 200 jobs, though ultimately it will employ about 600 people, the Menlo Park, California-based company said.

These announcements stand in stark contrast to the slew of dour news that has emanated from the industry in recent weeks.  Just yesterday, Hemlock rival MEMC became the latest solar player to cut its sales forecast for the current quarter.

Hemlock acknowledged the dismal state of the economy in its statement, saying “the exact scale of this investment will be determined by market conditions.”

It’s too soon, of course, to know how those “conditions” will play out, and things look pretty grim at the moment. But with Barack Obama’s inauguration around the corner, there is palpable optimism that more alternative energy companies will be setting up shop here.

How do you think this will play out? Are “green jobs” for real?

Photo: REUTERS

Few animal welfare issues are as emotive as trapping. For some people it is a barbaric relic of an unenlightened past that inflicts needless cruelty on wild animals.

For others especially in places such as the Canadian and American countryside it is a way of life passed down through generations as well as a welcome, seasonal supplement to rural incomes.

Photographer Jessica Rinaldi and I went out recently with an east Texas trapper to take a first-hand look at the industry. You can see our story, pegged to the U.S. recession and global economic downturn, here.

Traps come in different forms and sizes. Many are designed to kill instantly; others to restrain an animal until the trapper comes by to dispatch them with a bullet or a smack over the head with a blunt object.

Critics would be quick to point out that things don’t always go according to plan; some animals drown by mistake while some have been known to chew off a paw in a bid to escape from a snare or restraint. And simply restraining a wild animal is regarded by some activists as beyond the pale.

Most of the five beavers which Renfro recovered while I accompanied him appeared to have died relatively painless deaths. But a racoon did drown by mistake in one of his beaver sets that weekend. Renfro would be the first to admit that these things happen but insists that he does what he can to minimize suffering; groups such as the Humane Society of the United States maintain there is no way to really do this. And so the debate goes on.  

It is a debate that highlights broader issues related to animal welfare. Everyone has lines that they draw. Some people have nothing against wearing fur (an industry that relies on farmed animals for about 85 percent of its raw product, the rest from wild-trapped critters). For some it is appalling. Some hunters and anglers don’t like trapping for the same reasons they dislike dog or cock fighting, because they think it is cruel; other people would say hunting and fishing should also be banned. And there are folks out there who believe all exploitation of wildlife is unjust.

The tide is clearly turning against trapping, thanks in large part to well-orchestrated campaigns by animal welfare and rights groups. Fox-hunting with hounds was banned in Britain a few years ago; cock fighting is now banned all across America. Everyone regards dog-fighting as sadistic.

Renfro himself is an animal control officer who investigates dog fighting and most of his family’s many, many cats and dogs were adopted from shelters. He has his own animal welfare lines in the sand.

Then there is the issue of problem animals, as trapping is not just about the fur business. The beaver populations in east Texas and west Louisiana are up, in part because of the destruction of old-growth forests (second-growth trees are smaller and easier to chew on). They dam drainage ditches and farm ponds which then cause flooding. Racoons get into people’s homes and wreak havoc; coyotes prey on livestock. The nutria, a large aquatic rodent introduced from South America for its fur, is said to have weakened the levies at New Orleans because of its borrowing, thereby contributing to the city’s destruction when Katrina struck. It is all part of a seemingly endless cycle of animal/human conflict.

Animal welfare groups would say that there are humane ways of removing problem animals (for example cage traps which do not harm them). Others say sometimes there is no alternative but the trap’s steel jaws.

What do you think? Is trapping a legitimate activity and source of rural income or should it only be tolerated as a necessary evil to deal with problem animals? Or is it simply beyond the pale?

Kenyan blogger Juliana Rotich is the editor of Green Global Voices, which monitors citizen media in the developing world, and is a regular contributor to this page. Thomson Reuters is not responsible for the content - the views are the author’s alone.

African bloggers have been highlighting water related issues, from the politics in South Africa that led to suspension of a water quality expert, new devices for collecting and cleaning water, to the ’scramble for fish’ in the East African lake region.
We start with South Africa where the blog Urbansprout highlights the suspension of Dr. Anthony Turton.

Dr Turton is a researcher who was set to deliver a presentation at the conference “Science Real and Relevant” in Pretoria. He was barred from delivering the presentation, and later suspended by The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). The blogger includes the presumed reason for his suspension as communicated by the CSIR, but also looks at the content of  Dr. Turton’s paper [pdf on environment.co.za], noting…

“Taking a brief look at Dr Turton’s paper, he argues that a lack of investment in science, engineering and technology (SET) since the early 1990’s, the termination of important research projects and the shift to a contract driven income model has had a “catastrophic effect” on our national scientific capacity to deal with the technical challenges our water quality is facing.”

There is also the question of academic freedom of scientists to present their findings. Urbansprout quotes a science journalist reacting to news of Dr. Turton’s suspension.

“Science journalist and former Journalism head of department of the University of Stellenbosch, Dr George Claassen asserted that the withdrawal of the presentation by the CSIR was an ‘absolute disgrace’. ‘This is a very serious encroachment on academic freedom and the right of scientists to announce their results, no matter how bad those results are for our view of things,’ he commented. Claassen noted that academic and research freedom was protected under Section 16 of the constitution, which states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.”

Urbansprout provides the link for an online petition in support of Dr. Turton and concludes:

“Turton’s report highlighted that South Africa could be headed for a water supply and water quality crisis that could negatively impact on the economic growth and development of the country, as well as lead to social unrest. The findings conflicted starkly with recent government assurances that South Africa was not facing a water crisis similar to the one prevailing in the electricity-supply sector.”

A previous post on Urbansprout give more information about the water crisis in South Africa, which is characterized by sewage seeping from municipal treatment works to rivers. The water from the rivers feeds into the local tap water system. A Watermill is described on the BLDG blog as a device that “uses the electricity of about three light bulbs to condense moisture from the air and purify it into clean drinking water.” <em>Rory</em> of The Carbon Smart  links to the BLDG post, and considers ‘micro devices’ like the WaterMill, and whether this could be a source of clean drinking water for urban areas. He writes:

“Discussion about The WaterMill — a small-scale dehumidifier that collects and cleans water from the air — leads to conjecture not only about how much of our drinking water could come from the air, but also about whether the urban microclimate could be significantly altered by installing thousands of these low-energy devices. Could we do away with a significant number of energy-sapping air conditioners by making our environment more comfortable through a combination of better building design, appropriate clothing, vegetating the landscape and reducing the ambient humidity with thousands of WaterMills?”

In East Africa, the Kenyan blog Kenvironews highlights  highlights a piece by Namhla Matshanda of the African Security Analysis Programme. The piece looks at the conflict over Migingo island in Lake Victoria , which is claimed by both Uganda and Kenya. The piece warns:

“The so-called ‘scramble for fish’ in Lake Victoria is turning out to be a source of conflict between nations bordering the lake and could potentially threaten regional stability. In the past month alone there have been several incidents around the lake that have heightened tensions between Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya. It is now apparent that the main source of these incidents is the lack of a clearly delimited and demarcated border between the three countries sharing Lake Victoria. 

Since 2003, a number of Kenyan fishermen have been arrested and their boats and equipment confiscated by either Tanzanian or Ugandan authorities for “illegally crossing the common borders.” The latest incident happened when about 400 Kenyan fishermen were kicked out of Migingo island by Ugandan authorities. Migingo is claimed by both Uganda and Kenya. This incident has exacerbated the already strained relations between the two countries. The Kenyan fishermen have appealed to their political leaders to intervene, some even threatening violence.”

Stuart Gaffin is a climate researcher at Columbia University and a regular contributor with his blog “Exhausted Earth”. ThomsonReuters is not responsible for the content - the views are the author’s alone.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York City is running a new exhibit on Climate Change. Prior to seeing the exhibit I had read one of the few reviews of it in the New York Times, which was very harsh and essentially described it as a version of ‘apocalypse now.’ Without having seen the exhibit, the review made me shake my head in disappointment that the Museum may have really overdone it and perhaps blown it.

However I just spent 3 hours going through the exhibit carefully and want to report that the NY Times review is incredibly misleading and even arrogant. It’s the kind of review I would have expected from the conservative Weekly Standard. The exhibit does not at all make one ” … feel like an agnostic attending church and listening to sermons about damnation …”

Instead, it was a vast compilation of basic science information and very well presented, with plenty of caveats. Although I know the subject matter intimately, I came away feeling anew the vastness of the “CO2 problem” which literally will impact every corner of the planet, from the depths of the oceans, to the top of the stratosphere to every living thing on Earth. On top of this of course are all the socio-economic and technological issues.

Contrary to the NY Times review, there was nothing wrong with showing historical CO2 concentrations, using a room-long red neon light — rising from “… a level below a child’s knees and end[ing] … far over an adult’s head.”

Indeed the CO2 data looks far more alarming when you compare it with the last few 100,000 years of data from ice core data (as Al Gore did and the exhibit does as well elsewhere). Then it looks to an atmospheric scientist like we have literally whacked the atmosphere with a greenhouse gas sledgehammer:

Similarly the museum graphic of month-by-month warming over the last century is absolutely fine, and interesting. The NY Times criticizes the exhibit’s use of 1951-1980 as the baseline for that graphic as ‘arbitrary,’ whereas in fact it is standard scientific practice for the data, as seen for example in the following NASA GISS graphic:

The exhibit also does a very good job at bringing in some of the relatively newer areas of research, such as on the acidic affects of CO2 in the oceans and the Princeton ‘wedge’ model for emissions control. The film explaining the basic physics of CO2 infrared absorption of surface heat is also very good and I saw little children watching it rather intently, which is remarkable in itself.

One serious shortcoming is that no mention is made of the major policy options of carbon taxes/prices or ‘cap and trade’ measures. After witnessing the rapid response of Americans to $4.00+ gasoline prices, I tend to agree with Yale economist William Nordhaus’ view that merely exhorting Americans to voluntarily reduce their consumption of carbon (via light-bulbs, choosing efficient technologies, etc) without mentioning raising the price of carbon is “largely fluff.”

Van Jones is founding president of Green For All, and author of “The Green Collar Economy,” In this interview with PopTech! he describes a plan to create millions of new jobs that can’t be outsourced, wean the country off its dependence on foreign oil, and take bold steps to address the climate crisis.

Was that a dig at outgoing President George W. Bush? President-elect Barack Obama introduced his new environmental team and insisted his administration would focus on “the facts” as it put together policy.

“We understand the facts demand bold action,” he said.

In case listeners didn’t get the point that the new administration thinks it’s different from that of outgoing President Bush, Veep-to-be Joe Biden gave it a try.

“There is no doubt about the challenges in front of us, but there is no putting our heads in the sand, either, as in my view we have done for some time. Particularly when it comes to science — welcome doctor,” he said, looking at Energy Department Chief-to-be Dr. Steven Chu.

PHOTO: Reuters

Has the global economic crisis got you feeling more blue than green? If so, you’re not alone.

U.S. consumers are pulling back spending on everything, and carbon-cutting products like hybrid cars and solar panels are no exception. After all, being green often requires us to pony up big chunks of change with the promise of cost savings later. That pitch, according to many green business owners, isn’t working so well these days.

“People are so scared about the future that they don’t want to commit to paybacks that have too long a window,” said Alan Finkel, owner of Santa Monica-based Green Life Guru, a company that helps homeowners reduce their gas and electricity usage.

A sharp drop in oil prices since this summer hasn’t helped the trend. After all, who needs a hybrid car when fill-ups cost less than $20 a pop?

Of course, there are ways to be green without spending money. We can drive less, recycle more, and resist the urge to crank up the thermostat.

Has the dour economy weakened your green resolve? If not, how are you able to do it without breaking the bank?

PHOTO: Reuters/Fred Prouser