Current Savers Blog

Add quieter U.S. forests, woods, and backyards to the list of changes our lives could face from climate change. A piece by my colleague Deborah Zabarenko explores the movement of American birds northward, sometimes hundreds of miles into Canada.

An Audubon Society study of citizen observations that took place over 40 years found that 58 percent of 305 bird species found on the continental U.S. shifted significantly to the north as temperatures warmed. Forest and feeders birds, like finches and chickadees, moved deep into the Canadian Boreal Forest.

Besides the loss of chittering and chirps, what else do you think might be lost from climate-related migrations?

Photo of Purple Finch/National Audubon Society handout

 If you come up with an idea for saving the planet from global warming, you may be the lucky winner of a T-shirt emblazoned with your design.

A group opposed to large-scale intervention in nature to change the climate – such as placing vast mirrors in space to reflect the sun’s rays or fertilising the oceans with iron to promote the growth of algae that soak up greenhouse gases from the air – wants to hear of any zany ideas by April Fool’s Day.

Canada-based ETC Group, which says it works for conservation of ecological diversity and human rights, says the winner of what it calls the “pie-in-the-sky” contest will get a T-shirt and ETC will publish a cartoon of the winning entry on its website.

“The winning submission will be original, ludicrous and contain at least a nano-shred of perverse logic,” ETC says. “Industrialization geo-engineered us into the climate mess in the first place, and some companies and scientists are crazy enough to  think they can geoengineer us out of it,” said Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group.

But are all these ideas really so daft?

Proponents of geo-engineering says that short-cut fixes are worth studying in a world where governments are failing to rein in rising emissions of greenhouse gases, from factories, power plants and cars.

And warming already under way could cause far bigger damage — from heatwaves to rising sea levels — than any impact from the novel technologies. The picture at the right shows chimneys at a chemical factory at Tianjin in China.

Serious proposals from scientists include deploying a vast thin metallic barrier between the earth and the sun, with 100 space shuttle flights, or spraying a smoke of tiny polluting particles high in the sky to dim sunlight.

(Volcanic eruptions can, at least temporarily, cool the planet by spewing out smoke that masks the sun — the picture at the top is of the Llaima volcano in Chile last year, taken by Ivan Alvararo. One suggestion in the spirit of ETC’s contest: drop atom bombs down a remote volcano to trigger eruptions: that would fix the climate and help get rid of ageing Cold War stockpiles)

The U.N. Climate Panel, drawing on climate research by about 2,500 experts, advised caution about geo-engineering in a report two years ago. Such technologies “remain largely speculative and unproven, and with the risk of unknown side-effects”, it said.

Who’s right? Is geo-engineering the way to save the planet or a dead end? 

And if you have any ideas (zany or not), try them out below:

President Barack Obama has pledged to “restore science to its rightful place” and educate a new generation of scientists able to transform America into an environmentally sustainable “green economy.”

But with endowments and private donations falling and public funds under pressure, the recession is making it harder for zoos and aquariums to keep inspiring kids in science.

My colleague Claudia Parsons has done a report on this issue which you can read here.

A new report by the National Academy of Sciences said informal learning — such as visits to zoos or other outdoor activities such as fishing or gardening — is a powerful tool in science education.

What do you think? Do zoos play a vital inspirational role for budding young scientists? And should they receive public funds at a time of crisis when needs are many and funds are few?

(Photo Credit: San Diego Zoo’s Wild Animal Park/Handout)

Sarah Palin has struck back at Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, which is running a video accusing the Alaska governor of planning to expand the aerial hunting of wolves in her state.

The graphic video, part of the group’s “Eye on Palin” campaign, is narrated by Hollywood star Ashley Judd and has generated a lot of media attention this week.

Here is the full text of Palin’s brief statement, which was released late on Tuesday:

“It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money.”

“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs. Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife. These audacious fundraising attempts misrepresent what goes on in Alaska, and I encourage people to learn the facts about Alaska’s positive record of managing wildlife for abundance.”

“Shame on the Defenders of Wildlife for twisting the truth in an effort to raise funds from innocent and hard-pressed Americans struggling with these rough economic times.”

What is perhaps most revealing about the statement is that Palin, who shot to national prominence last year as the Republican Party’s vice presidential candidate, did not address one of the group’s key allegations: that she plans to introduce legislation shortly that would expand the aerial predator hunting program.

Whether the program is expanded or not, what do you think? is this kind of predator control cruel and inhumane? Or are most if not all efforts at the control of wild predators cruel? Can it ever be justified on scientific grounds? Or to, say, protect humans from man-eaters such as crocodiles? And is Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund using Palin to raise cash during a recession? What do you think?

(Photo Credit: REUTERS/Hans Deryk, USA, Nov 13, 2008)

Sarah Palin still has environmentalists howling.

The Alaska governor and former Republican vice presidential hopeful is the target of a campaign by the Washington-based Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund which claims she is pushing for an expanded program for the shooting of wolves from the sky.

In a graphic video narrated by Hollywood star Ashley Judd, the group claims Palin even offered a $150 bounty for the left foreleg of each dead wolf collected. You can view the video here.

“When Sarah Palin came on the national scene last summer, few knew that she promotes the brutal aerial killing of wolves. Now, back in Alaska, Palin is again casting aside science and championing the slaughter of wildlife,” Judd says in the video, which features footage of a wolf howling in pain after apparently being shot from the sky.

(Photo: Palin works a crowd, Dec 1, 2008. REUTERS/Tami Chappell, USA)

On its web site, the group said in a statement that: “Governor Palin is expected shortly to introduce state legislation that would dramatically expand the aerial killing program by removing the few remaining scientific requirements from the program. ” Palin’s office was contacted by Reuters and was not immediately available for comment.

Palin, an avid hunter and angler like many Alaskans, has frequently clashed with environmentalists on issues ranging from artic oil drilling to the delisting of endangered species.

After suing last year to keep polar bears off the U.S. threatened species list, Alaska’s government said in January it plans to issue a similar challenge to block federal protections for a struggling population of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, a mature oil-producing basin.

(Photo: Judd has an eye on Palin REUTERS/Ramin Rahimian, Jan 17, 2009, USA)

Palin was credited with galvanizing the Democratic Party base and raising money for abortion rights causes last year because of her social and religious conservatism and strong opposition to abortion rights.

It seems Palin can still galvanize activsists on the left and in this case perhaps help raise money for a conservation group.

(Photo Credit: Wolves on the prowl. Canon USA Handout, Undated)