Women, particularly those living in the mountainous regions in developing countries, face disproportionately high risks to their livelihoods and health from global warming, says a U.N. report on Climate Change.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report titled ‘Women at the Frontline of Climate Change: Gender Risks and Hopes' says investing in low-carbon and efficient green technologies, water harvesting and fuel wood alternatives can strengthen climate change adaptation and improve women's livelihoods.
The report was released at the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, according to a press release issued by the ICIMOD (International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development) headquartered in Kathmandu.
Impacts of climate change, such as droughts, floods and mud slips are affecting a growing number of people worldwide, according to the report.
“From 1999-2008, floods affected almost one billion people in Asia, 28 million in the Americas, 22 million in Africa and four million in Europe.”
In parts of Asia and Africa, where the majority of the agricultural workforce are women, such disasters have a major impact on their income, food security and health.
“Women often play a stronger role than men in the management of ecosystem services and food security. Hence, sustainable adaptation must focus on gender and the role of women if it is to become successful,” said U.N. Under Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.
“Women's voices, responsibilities and knowledge on the environment and the challenges they face will need to be made a central part of governments' adaptive responses to a rapidly changing climate,” he added.
The reports also highlights how organised human trafficking, especially that of women, is emerging as a potentially serious risk associated with climate-related disasters; as floods or landslips disrupt social safety nets.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2695894.ece
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming. Show all posts
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Monday, December 5, 2011
Whales, dolphins, seals: newcomers crowd into British waters in pursuit of their prey
Scientists predicts cetaceans from as far away as the Pacific will live here as climate change heats up our waters.
The waters around the British Isles could soon be home to several new species of mammals as a rising number of foreign visitors are being reported around our coasts. Experts believe the rare sightings of cetaceans from tropical climes could mean sea creatures are scouting for new territories to settle as global warming takes effect on sea temperatures.
Animals from the tropics, including the dwarf sperm whale, the pygmy sperm whale, and the Fraser's dolphin have all made recent appearances here, and the Cuvier's beaked whale, another warm-water species, has been recorded increasingly regularly in the west of Britain. The melon-headed whale, a squid-loving relative of the killer whale, has been seen in the Channel, off the coast of Brittany.
Before too long we may see giants such as the 16-metre gray whale nudging into deep water around Cornwall and into the Irish Sea.
"We are now seeing a number of species far from home, and they probably will continue to recur with increasing frequency," said Peter Evans, director of the Sea Watch Foundation. "Several are normally found off west Africa. For the moment they tend to be seen at times of year when our sea temperatures are at their warmest. Whales and dolphins can cope with a wide range of temperatures but their fish and squid prey tend to be more constrained, and their ranges are extending significantly northwards."
He said cetaceans would follow their favourite food, and many species rare in colder waters just a decade ago had moved into British seas. This autumn a dwarf sperm whale was spotted in Mounts Bay, Cornwall, while a pygmy sperm whale, its close relative, was found beached on Seil island, near Oban.
"They were both very big surprises: they are rarely seen even where the populations are known to exist," said Evans. "If the fish are extending their range, as we know many are, then the whales and dolphins will follow. Anchovies, for example, were really quite scarce in the North Sea 10-20 years ago. Now they are widespread and may be why the common dolphin is now a regular in the North Sea.
"The behaviour of different fish, if they shoal or don't shoal, for example, requires a fair bit of understanding, so once a species has learned a feeding strategy they will follow rather than learn a new technique for a new prey."
Evans believes we may soon see a visitor that disappeared from the Atlantic in the 17th century – the grey whale. "They migrate up the west coast of north America, from Mexico and California up to the Arctic and, of course, could go no further. But now the Northwest Passage is open it is very possible they may cross the North Atlantic.
"Gray whales were seen last year off the coast of Israel and off Barcelona this year. Such a remarkable appearance in such a strange location reinforces the pattern we are seeing."
Twenty-nine species of dolphin and whale have been recorded this century in British or Irish territorial waters. The common dolphin, striped dolphin, minke whale and humpback whale are among those species where numbers sighted have increased since 1980.
But it is not just the whales moving north into warmer seas; we are also seeing mammals coming down from colder climes. Bearded seals from the Arctic have been seen off the coast of Fife, east Scotland, said Callan Duck, a senior research scientist at the Scottish Oceans Institute at St Andrews University.
"The change in climate and the food chains is definitely having an impact in the species we are seeing, but I think you have to remember to factor in how much better we are at spotting and recording these mammals. Good digital cameras are really accessible now, and so everybody has the opportunity to identify what they have seen – so the whole process of reporting sightings is much more accurate and efficient."
Tracy McVeigh
The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/04/whales-new-species-britain
The waters around the British Isles could soon be home to several new species of mammals as a rising number of foreign visitors are being reported around our coasts. Experts believe the rare sightings of cetaceans from tropical climes could mean sea creatures are scouting for new territories to settle as global warming takes effect on sea temperatures.
Animals from the tropics, including the dwarf sperm whale, the pygmy sperm whale, and the Fraser's dolphin have all made recent appearances here, and the Cuvier's beaked whale, another warm-water species, has been recorded increasingly regularly in the west of Britain. The melon-headed whale, a squid-loving relative of the killer whale, has been seen in the Channel, off the coast of Brittany.
Before too long we may see giants such as the 16-metre gray whale nudging into deep water around Cornwall and into the Irish Sea.
"We are now seeing a number of species far from home, and they probably will continue to recur with increasing frequency," said Peter Evans, director of the Sea Watch Foundation. "Several are normally found off west Africa. For the moment they tend to be seen at times of year when our sea temperatures are at their warmest. Whales and dolphins can cope with a wide range of temperatures but their fish and squid prey tend to be more constrained, and their ranges are extending significantly northwards."
He said cetaceans would follow their favourite food, and many species rare in colder waters just a decade ago had moved into British seas. This autumn a dwarf sperm whale was spotted in Mounts Bay, Cornwall, while a pygmy sperm whale, its close relative, was found beached on Seil island, near Oban.
"They were both very big surprises: they are rarely seen even where the populations are known to exist," said Evans. "If the fish are extending their range, as we know many are, then the whales and dolphins will follow. Anchovies, for example, were really quite scarce in the North Sea 10-20 years ago. Now they are widespread and may be why the common dolphin is now a regular in the North Sea.
"The behaviour of different fish, if they shoal or don't shoal, for example, requires a fair bit of understanding, so once a species has learned a feeding strategy they will follow rather than learn a new technique for a new prey."
Evans believes we may soon see a visitor that disappeared from the Atlantic in the 17th century – the grey whale. "They migrate up the west coast of north America, from Mexico and California up to the Arctic and, of course, could go no further. But now the Northwest Passage is open it is very possible they may cross the North Atlantic.
"Gray whales were seen last year off the coast of Israel and off Barcelona this year. Such a remarkable appearance in such a strange location reinforces the pattern we are seeing."
Twenty-nine species of dolphin and whale have been recorded this century in British or Irish territorial waters. The common dolphin, striped dolphin, minke whale and humpback whale are among those species where numbers sighted have increased since 1980.
But it is not just the whales moving north into warmer seas; we are also seeing mammals coming down from colder climes. Bearded seals from the Arctic have been seen off the coast of Fife, east Scotland, said Callan Duck, a senior research scientist at the Scottish Oceans Institute at St Andrews University.
"The change in climate and the food chains is definitely having an impact in the species we are seeing, but I think you have to remember to factor in how much better we are at spotting and recording these mammals. Good digital cameras are really accessible now, and so everybody has the opportunity to identify what they have seen – so the whole process of reporting sightings is much more accurate and efficient."
Tracy McVeigh
The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/04/whales-new-species-britain
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Urgent need for action to save polar bears
Bears' habitats are literally melting away...October 2011: A dramatic reduction in polar-bear habitats in the next ten to 50 years has been predicted. The study by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) warns this is due largely to global warming.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assesses polar bears as Vulnerable, with trends that suggest the population is decreasing. Polar bears rely almost entirely on the marine sea ice environment for their survival, so much so that large scale changes in their habitat will have a devastating impact on the population.
'They will disappear from many areas they are found today'‘Now is the time to act in order to save the waning polar bear population,' says Dag Vongraven, who heads up IUCN's polar bear specialist group, the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI). ‘If we fail to make a stand to save this species we risk having the population become severely decimated, and quite certainly they will have disappeared from many areas where they're found today.'
Climate change poses the most substantial threat to polar bear habitats. Recent trends for sea ice extent and thickness predict dramatic reductions over coming years- declines of roughly ten to 50 per cent of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100. A recent study by the NPI suggests that summer sea ice in the Polar Basin might be gone in a decade, not 50 to 100 years as most models have projected in the past. The long-term trends reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the length of time ice when is present each year.
There must be strong commitments to cut greenhouse gases – now‘Climate change will be one of the major drivers of species extinctions in the 21st century,' says Simon Stuart, chairman of IUCN's Species Survival Commission. ‘In order to slow the pace the adverse effects of climate change are having on species around the world, we must work to reduce use of energy from fossil fuels and ensure that our leaders make and adhere to strong commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions now.'
Polar bears live throughout the ice-covered waters of Canada, Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Alaska. Their range is limited by the southern extent of sea ice. Polar bears that have continuous access to sea ice can hunt throughout the year, but in areas where the sea ice melts completely each summer, the bears are forced to spend several months on land fasting on stored fat reserves until freeze-up.
Other population stress factors that also impact the species survival include toxic contaminants, shipping, recreational viewing and oil and gas exploration. The polar bear is unique among species protected under the Endangered Species Act because it is the first to be designated as threatened due to global warming.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/polar-bear-decline.html
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species assesses polar bears as Vulnerable, with trends that suggest the population is decreasing. Polar bears rely almost entirely on the marine sea ice environment for their survival, so much so that large scale changes in their habitat will have a devastating impact on the population.
'They will disappear from many areas they are found today'‘Now is the time to act in order to save the waning polar bear population,' says Dag Vongraven, who heads up IUCN's polar bear specialist group, the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI). ‘If we fail to make a stand to save this species we risk having the population become severely decimated, and quite certainly they will have disappeared from many areas where they're found today.'
Climate change poses the most substantial threat to polar bear habitats. Recent trends for sea ice extent and thickness predict dramatic reductions over coming years- declines of roughly ten to 50 per cent of annual sea ice are predicted by 2100. A recent study by the NPI suggests that summer sea ice in the Polar Basin might be gone in a decade, not 50 to 100 years as most models have projected in the past. The long-term trends reveal substantial global reductions of the extent of ice coverage in the Arctic and the length of time ice when is present each year.
There must be strong commitments to cut greenhouse gases – now‘Climate change will be one of the major drivers of species extinctions in the 21st century,' says Simon Stuart, chairman of IUCN's Species Survival Commission. ‘In order to slow the pace the adverse effects of climate change are having on species around the world, we must work to reduce use of energy from fossil fuels and ensure that our leaders make and adhere to strong commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions now.'
Polar bears live throughout the ice-covered waters of Canada, Greenland, Norway, the Russian Federation and Alaska. Their range is limited by the southern extent of sea ice. Polar bears that have continuous access to sea ice can hunt throughout the year, but in areas where the sea ice melts completely each summer, the bears are forced to spend several months on land fasting on stored fat reserves until freeze-up.
Other population stress factors that also impact the species survival include toxic contaminants, shipping, recreational viewing and oil and gas exploration. The polar bear is unique among species protected under the Endangered Species Act because it is the first to be designated as threatened due to global warming.
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/polar-bear-decline.html
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Ice sheet in Greenland melting at record rate
The Greenland ice sheet is melting at a record rate due to global warming, according to a British-led expedition currently taking measurements from the treacherous glaciers.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 13 Aug 2010
The University of St Andrews team said 106 square miles broke away from the Petermann Glacier at the beginning of August.
The massive ice island is is the largest single area loss observed for Greenland and suggests the effect of rising temperatures is affecting the Arctic faster than anticipated.
The finding immediately raises fears about the long term effect on rising sea levels and ultimately ‘positive feedbacks’ as water absorbs more heat than ice, therefore speeding up the warming effect.
Dr Richard Bates, who is monitoring the ice alongside researchers from America, said the expedition had expected to find evidence of melting this year after “abnormally high” temperatures in the area. Climate change experts say that globally it has been the warmest six months globally since records began.
But he was “amazed to see an area of ice three times the size of Manhattan Island had broken off.
“It is not a freak event and is certainly a manifestation of warming. This year marks yet another record breaking melt year in Greenland; temperatures and melt across the entire ice sheet have exceeded those in 2007 and of historical records.”
The Petermann glacier, one of the largest glaciers in the northern hemisphere, has now retreated to a level not seen since 1962.
Dr Bates and his team are currently in Greenland trying to determine whether the breakup has led to a further acceleration and thinning of ice.
The geophysicists uses time-lapse cameras overlooking the glacier from the top of its towering 900m cliffs, as well as risking their lives trying to get as close as possible to the icebergs.
“It is very difficult logistically and expensive to get back,” he said. “The idea at present is to try and sail to close to the glacier with helicopter support on the passage up there and then for getting around when there. It could be a bit tricky doing this as it’s not only a long way but there will be ever increasing ice to negotiate on the way north,” he said.
The new research comes as scientists from Pennsylvania State University warned that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause the entire ice mass of Greenland to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7941035/Ice-sheet-in-Greenland-melting-at-record-rate.html
(Submitted by Lawrie Williams)
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 13 Aug 2010
The University of St Andrews team said 106 square miles broke away from the Petermann Glacier at the beginning of August.
The massive ice island is is the largest single area loss observed for Greenland and suggests the effect of rising temperatures is affecting the Arctic faster than anticipated.
The finding immediately raises fears about the long term effect on rising sea levels and ultimately ‘positive feedbacks’ as water absorbs more heat than ice, therefore speeding up the warming effect.
Dr Richard Bates, who is monitoring the ice alongside researchers from America, said the expedition had expected to find evidence of melting this year after “abnormally high” temperatures in the area. Climate change experts say that globally it has been the warmest six months globally since records began.
But he was “amazed to see an area of ice three times the size of Manhattan Island had broken off.
“It is not a freak event and is certainly a manifestation of warming. This year marks yet another record breaking melt year in Greenland; temperatures and melt across the entire ice sheet have exceeded those in 2007 and of historical records.”
The Petermann glacier, one of the largest glaciers in the northern hemisphere, has now retreated to a level not seen since 1962.
Dr Bates and his team are currently in Greenland trying to determine whether the breakup has led to a further acceleration and thinning of ice.
The geophysicists uses time-lapse cameras overlooking the glacier from the top of its towering 900m cliffs, as well as risking their lives trying to get as close as possible to the icebergs.
“It is very difficult logistically and expensive to get back,” he said. “The idea at present is to try and sail to close to the glacier with helicopter support on the passage up there and then for getting around when there. It could be a bit tricky doing this as it’s not only a long way but there will be ever increasing ice to negotiate on the way north,” he said.
The new research comes as scientists from Pennsylvania State University warned that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause the entire ice mass of Greenland to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7941035/Ice-sheet-in-Greenland-melting-at-record-rate.html
(Submitted by Lawrie Williams)
Ice sheet in Greenland melting at record rate
The Greenland ice sheet is melting at a record rate due to global warming, according to a British-led expedition currently taking measurements from the treacherous glaciers.
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 13 Aug 2010
The University of St Andrews team said 106 square miles broke away from the Petermann Glacier at the beginning of August.
The massive ice island is is the largest single area loss observed for Greenland and suggests the effect of rising temperatures is affecting the Arctic faster than anticipated.
The finding immediately raises fears about the long term effect on rising sea levels and ultimately ‘positive feedbacks’ as water absorbs more heat than ice, therefore speeding up the warming effect.
Dr Richard Bates, who is monitoring the ice alongside researchers from America, said the expedition had expected to find evidence of melting this year after “abnormally high” temperatures in the area. Climate change experts say that globally it has been the warmest six months globally since records began.
But he was “amazed to see an area of ice three times the size of Manhattan Island had broken off.
“It is not a freak event and is certainly a manifestation of warming. This year marks yet another record breaking melt year in Greenland; temperatures and melt across the entire ice sheet have exceeded those in 2007 and of historical records.”
The Petermann glacier, one of the largest glaciers in the northern hemisphere, has now retreated to a level not seen since 1962.
Dr Bates and his team are currently in Greenland trying to determine whether the breakup has led to a further acceleration and thinning of ice.
The geophysicists uses time-lapse cameras overlooking the glacier from the top of its towering 900m cliffs, as well as risking their lives trying to get as close as possible to the icebergs.
“It is very difficult logistically and expensive to get back,” he said. “The idea at present is to try and sail to close to the glacier with helicopter support on the passage up there and then for getting around when there. It could be a bit tricky doing this as it’s not only a long way but there will be ever increasing ice to negotiate on the way north,” he said.
The new research comes as scientists from Pennsylvania State University warned that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause the entire ice mass of Greenland to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7941035/Ice-sheet-in-Greenland-melting-at-record-rate.html
(Submitted by Lawrie Williams)
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 13 Aug 2010
The University of St Andrews team said 106 square miles broke away from the Petermann Glacier at the beginning of August.
The massive ice island is is the largest single area loss observed for Greenland and suggests the effect of rising temperatures is affecting the Arctic faster than anticipated.
The finding immediately raises fears about the long term effect on rising sea levels and ultimately ‘positive feedbacks’ as water absorbs more heat than ice, therefore speeding up the warming effect.
Dr Richard Bates, who is monitoring the ice alongside researchers from America, said the expedition had expected to find evidence of melting this year after “abnormally high” temperatures in the area. Climate change experts say that globally it has been the warmest six months globally since records began.
But he was “amazed to see an area of ice three times the size of Manhattan Island had broken off.
“It is not a freak event and is certainly a manifestation of warming. This year marks yet another record breaking melt year in Greenland; temperatures and melt across the entire ice sheet have exceeded those in 2007 and of historical records.”
The Petermann glacier, one of the largest glaciers in the northern hemisphere, has now retreated to a level not seen since 1962.
Dr Bates and his team are currently in Greenland trying to determine whether the breakup has led to a further acceleration and thinning of ice.
The geophysicists uses time-lapse cameras overlooking the glacier from the top of its towering 900m cliffs, as well as risking their lives trying to get as close as possible to the icebergs.
“It is very difficult logistically and expensive to get back,” he said. “The idea at present is to try and sail to close to the glacier with helicopter support on the passage up there and then for getting around when there. It could be a bit tricky doing this as it’s not only a long way but there will be ever increasing ice to negotiate on the way north,” he said.
The new research comes as scientists from Pennsylvania State University warned that temperature rise of between 2C and 7C would cause the entire ice mass of Greenland to melt, resulting in 23ft rise in sea level.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7941035/Ice-sheet-in-Greenland-melting-at-record-rate.html
(Submitted by Lawrie Williams)
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Curry fed to sheep could curb global warming
Jul 6th 2010 By Tom Cullen
Scientists have claimed that coriander and turmeric - spices traditionally used to flavour curries - can reduce the amount of methane produced by sheep by up to 40 per cent, thus significantly reducing global warming.
The findings are part of a study by Newcastle University research student Mohammad Mehedi Hasan and Dr Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry who suggest that the two ingredients work like an antibiotic, the spices were found to kill the methane-producing ''bad'' bacteria in the animal's gut while allowing the ''good'' bacteria to flourish.
Mr Hasan told the Telegraph: ''Methane is a major contributor to global warming and the slow digestive system of ruminant animals such as cows and sheep makes them a key producer of the gas.
''What my research found was that certain spices contain properties which make this digestive process more efficient so producing less waste - in this case, methane.''
Odd, then, that last night's curry appears to have done the exact opposite to us.
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2010/07/06/curry-for-sheep-could-curb-global-warming/#ixzz0t0J3SipS
Scientists have claimed that coriander and turmeric - spices traditionally used to flavour curries - can reduce the amount of methane produced by sheep by up to 40 per cent, thus significantly reducing global warming.
The findings are part of a study by Newcastle University research student Mohammad Mehedi Hasan and Dr Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry who suggest that the two ingredients work like an antibiotic, the spices were found to kill the methane-producing ''bad'' bacteria in the animal's gut while allowing the ''good'' bacteria to flourish.
Mr Hasan told the Telegraph: ''Methane is a major contributor to global warming and the slow digestive system of ruminant animals such as cows and sheep makes them a key producer of the gas.
''What my research found was that certain spices contain properties which make this digestive process more efficient so producing less waste - in this case, methane.''
Odd, then, that last night's curry appears to have done the exact opposite to us.
http://www.asylum.co.uk/2010/07/06/curry-for-sheep-could-curb-global-warming/#ixzz0t0J3SipS
Friday, March 19, 2010
Polar bear trade ban is rejected
QATAR: A plan to outlaw the trade of skins, claws and teeth of polar bears was rejected at a UN meeting yesterday. The US-backed plan was turned down at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species because a ban would affect indigenous peoples' economies and the trade does not pose a big threat to bear numbers. Canada, Norway and Greenland led the opposition to the proposal. Washington argued the trade was compounding the loss of the animals' habitat due to climate change.
http://e-edition.metroherald.ie/2010/03/19/ - p14.
http://e-edition.metroherald.ie/2010/03/19/ - p14.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Warm weather is cold comfort
10:41am Thursday 18th February 2010The heavy snow and cold weather we have been experiencing this winter have come as something of a surprise to many of us. We have become used to mild temperatures and sometimes heavy rainfalls, but a fortnight of snow is something that many only remember from their childhood.
Extreme cold causes living things all sorts of problems.
Freezing temperatures turn water into ice so that animals cannot drink, and plants cannot take up water through their roots.
However, the wildlife that lives in, or visits, the British Isles is well adapted to low temperatures and a shortage of food.
Many species are descendants of the survivors of the last Ice Age. And they also managed to get through the ‘Little Ice Age’ that spanned the 16th to 19th centuries, when even the River Thames would famously freeze over regularly.
So, is this recent spell of cold weather really a threat to them?
When viewed on its own it would seem not to be a problem, but in the context of the erratic weather conditions that we have seen over recent years. a more sinister picture emerges.
Think back to the summer floods of 2006 and 2007, or the scorcher of 2003, and you realise that wildlife is increasingly and rapidly facing unpredictable conditions.
Conditions that are forcing it to change survival techniques developed over thousands of years.
Some animals cannot find enough food during the winter months to sustain them, so they slow their body processes to almost a standstill to survive — a process called hibernation.
The hedgehog, pictured right, is perhaps the most well-known hibernator in Britain. It fattens up on slugs, snails and other minibeasts in the autumn, and spends the cold months curled up in a sleep-like state in a cosy nest of leaves and dry grass.
Other mammals, such as bats and dormice, also rely on hibernation to survive the winter.
But hibernating animals do not stay asleep all through the winter; they will wake up on warmer days and look for food or water. They will also wake up if the temperature drops too low, and start shivering in order to keep their body from freezing.
Every time they wake up, they use a great deal of energy which makes it more difficult to survive when food supplies are low, especially if the warm spell is followed by a particularly deep freeze, like the one we have recently experienced.
Debbie Lewis, reserves ecology manager at BBOWT, said: “The effects of the changing weather patterns can cause additional stress on hedgehog populations that are already affected by loss of habitat due to intensive farming and urban development.
“Many of our reserves may look a little scruffy round the edges in the winter, but these areas have been specifically left with tall vegetation and piles of old wood so that they can provide a great location for hedgehogs to snuggle up in during the winter.”
Cold-blooded animals have developed other ways of survival. Some invertebrates release chemicals into their body fluids which prevent them from freezing, similar to the way anti-freeze works in the radiator of a car. Many caterpillars, some butterflies, slugs, snails, queen wasps and bumblebees spend the winter in this way.
Bumblebees typify the dangers that changing climate conditions pose to wildlife that uses this winter survival technique. Wild bumblebees can be found well into the Arctic Circle and they are able to fly and look for food in lower temperatures than honey bees.
The queen is capable of founding a whole new colony and she is the only one that survives through the winter. If periods of unseasonably mild weather cause her to come out of her dormant state too early, a subsequent cold spell could be devastating for the precious cargo of eggs, thus destroying a potential new colony.
It will take wildlife a long time to adapt to changing conditions, and ironically the changing weather patterns can produce some positive effects.
A particularly warm or wet winter, for example, could result in a wealth of slugs or insects, a vital source of food for many animals. But a return to cold weather could bring with it further problems.
There are two ways in which we can help wildlife cope with these erratic changes in weather patterns, by tackling the cause of the problem and by helping to alleviate its symptoms.
The cause of the problem is well known. There is now ample scientific evidence that changes in weather patterns are closely linked to climate change and the corresponding rise in greenhouse gases caused by human activity.
So, reducing your own carbon footprint is a first step in helping stabilise climate.
The second part of the solution is to keep protecting our best wildlife habitats and species, and to minimise other sources of damage so that there is the maximum diversity as we go into an uncertain future.
BBOWT manages its reserves to include a diversity of habitat structure, which includes graded woodland edges, scrub patches, tall herbs and short turf.
This creates varied habitats and niches for wildlife to thrive in, as well as safe havens from the weather and predators, and areas rich with food sources.
Matt Jackson, head of policy, planning and wider countryside at BBOWT, said: “We are already seeing the effects of a changing climate with new species arriving on nature reserves and others struggling to cope with changes in food supply.
“The real worry is the rate of change. We need to do anything we can to slow down how rapidly our climate changes to give habitats and species as much time as possible to adapt, and as much space as possible to do it in.”
The cold snap might not have hurt wildlife as much as we thought, but it is a sign of greater changes in climate conditions that could have a devastating effect on our local wildlife.
To find out more about how to join or volunteer for BBOWT go to www.bbowt.org.uk
Picture: Mike Taylor/ www.seeing.org
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/leisure/5014991.Warm_weather_is_cold_comfort/
Monday, February 8, 2010
Galapagos sea lions head for warm Peru waters
Monday, 8 February 2010
By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Lima
A colony of sea lions endemic to the Galapagos Islands have moved 1,500km away, a Peru-based organisation which monitors the aquatic mammals has said.
The Organisation for Research and Conservation of Aquatic Animals says the sea lions have swum to northern Peru because of rising temperatures.
It says the temperature rise was caused by climate change.
Experts say it is the first time that Galapagos sea lions have set up a colony outside the islands.
The monitors say the water temperature in Piura, off the coast of northern Peru, has risen from 17C to 23C over the last 10 years.
The temperature is much closer to the sea temperature around the Galapagos Islands, which averages about 25C.
Now that the conditions of the sea around northern Peru are so similar to the Galapagos, they say, even more sea lions and other new marine species could start arriving.
Like so many native species in the Galapagos Islands, the sea lions are unique to the archipelago, located about 600 miles west of continental Ecuador.
Ever since the English naturalist, Charles Darwin, first visited the islands more than 150 years ago, they have become known as a living museum of evolution.
Now, thanks to global warming, that unique ecosystem could face unprecedented changes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8503397.stm
(Submitted by Liz R)
By Dan Collyns
BBC News, Lima
A colony of sea lions endemic to the Galapagos Islands have moved 1,500km away, a Peru-based organisation which monitors the aquatic mammals has said.
The Organisation for Research and Conservation of Aquatic Animals says the sea lions have swum to northern Peru because of rising temperatures.
It says the temperature rise was caused by climate change.
Experts say it is the first time that Galapagos sea lions have set up a colony outside the islands.
The monitors say the water temperature in Piura, off the coast of northern Peru, has risen from 17C to 23C over the last 10 years.
The temperature is much closer to the sea temperature around the Galapagos Islands, which averages about 25C.
Now that the conditions of the sea around northern Peru are so similar to the Galapagos, they say, even more sea lions and other new marine species could start arriving.
Like so many native species in the Galapagos Islands, the sea lions are unique to the archipelago, located about 600 miles west of continental Ecuador.
Ever since the English naturalist, Charles Darwin, first visited the islands more than 150 years ago, they have become known as a living museum of evolution.
Now, thanks to global warming, that unique ecosystem could face unprecedented changes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8503397.stm
(Submitted by Liz R)
Friday, January 8, 2010
BBC to launch review into allegations of bias in its science coverage
The BBC Trust is to launch an investigation into allegations of bias in its coverage of science.
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
Published: 3:18PM GMT 06 Jan 2010
The BBC has been criticised for its reporting of science stories in recent months and it has been accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively.
The Trust will carry out the review in the spring to assess the "accuracy and impartiality" of the corporation's coverage of science.
The corporation’s governing body said the review follows "heated debates" around topics like GM crops, MMR and global warming.
The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, said he was sent the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, indicating that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years, a month before the story broke.
It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and it reignited the debate over whether the corporation is biased on the issue of climate change.
Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy" to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
The review, which will be published in 2011, will assess science output relating to public policy and "matters of political controversy".
The "science" label will include technology, medicine and environment coverage that "entails scientific statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists". The review is expected to consult scientists and experts in the field.
Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and chair of the Trust's editorial standards committee (ESC), said: "Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
"Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.
"The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect."
However, some critics have said the BBC Trust is not in a position to conduct the review as it is regarded as being to close to the corporation.
Godfrey Bloom MEP said: "I would like to see a completely independent judicial review, the BBC cannot be objective as it has consistently shown. It has blocked sceptics of a scientific view point of climate change for years. No debate is allowed. It is biased in its reporting which is a disgrace and nothing less than a fully independent review is good enough."
A BBC Trust spokeswoman said: "As set out in the BBC's Charter and Agreement, the Trust is the body charged with ensuring that the BBC's coverage of any issue is duly impartial. This review, which will be carried out independently on behalf of the Trust, will take an in-depth look at the BBC's coverage of science, taking into account the views of relevant stakeholders, to make sure that the coverage adheres to the high standards that audiences expect."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6941616/BBC-to-launch-review-into-allegations-of-bias-in-its-science-coverage.html
(Submitted by Ray D)
By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent
Published: 3:18PM GMT 06 Jan 2010
The BBC has been criticised for its reporting of science stories in recent months and it has been accused of failing to cover the climate change debate objectively.
The Trust will carry out the review in the spring to assess the "accuracy and impartiality" of the corporation's coverage of science.
The corporation’s governing body said the review follows "heated debates" around topics like GM crops, MMR and global warming.
The BBC came under fire in November, after a broadcaster admitted he knew about controversial emails in which scientists discussed "spinning" climate data long before it reported on them.
Paul Hudson, a BBC weather presenter and climate change expert, said he was sent the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia, indicating that researchers massaged figures to mask the fact that world temperatures have been declining in recent years, a month before the story broke.
It raised questions about why the BBC did not report on the matter sooner, and it reignited the debate over whether the corporation is biased on the issue of climate change.
Peter Sissons, the veteran newsreader, claimed last year that it was now "effectively BBC policy" to stifle critics of the consensus view on global warming.
The review, which will be published in 2011, will assess science output relating to public policy and "matters of political controversy".
The "science" label will include technology, medicine and environment coverage that "entails scientific statements, research findings or other claims made by scientists". The review is expected to consult scientists and experts in the field.
Richard Tait, a BBC trustee and chair of the Trust's editorial standards committee (ESC), said: "Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.
"Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.
"The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect."
However, some critics have said the BBC Trust is not in a position to conduct the review as it is regarded as being to close to the corporation.
Godfrey Bloom MEP said: "I would like to see a completely independent judicial review, the BBC cannot be objective as it has consistently shown. It has blocked sceptics of a scientific view point of climate change for years. No debate is allowed. It is biased in its reporting which is a disgrace and nothing less than a fully independent review is good enough."
A BBC Trust spokeswoman said: "As set out in the BBC's Charter and Agreement, the Trust is the body charged with ensuring that the BBC's coverage of any issue is duly impartial. This review, which will be carried out independently on behalf of the Trust, will take an in-depth look at the BBC's coverage of science, taking into account the views of relevant stakeholders, to make sure that the coverage adheres to the high standards that audiences expect."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6941616/BBC-to-launch-review-into-allegations-of-bias-in-its-science-coverage.html
(Submitted by Ray D)
Monday, December 21, 2009
Turtle dove numbers dwindle in the UK
LEFT: Photo by Ulrich ProkopMonday, 21 December 2009
Some of the birds from the Christmas carol, The 12 days of Christmas, are under threat in the UK.
Turtle dove numbers have declined, as well as some of the other wildlife in the song.
Tim Muffett reports.
See video at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8423895.stm
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The Ungreening of America: Why are people caring less and less about the environment?
by Ed Kilgore
December 14, 2009
If you've been following the Copenhagen process this week, you may have noticed that the "debate" over climate change and what to do about it has regressed. Whereas, just a few years ago, George W. Bush acknowledged the human role in global warming and John McCain was a leading proponent of climate-change legislation, know-nothingism is now resurgent. The GOP pins its electoral hopes on slogans like "drill, baby drill" and "cap-and-tax"; McCain has soured on cap-and-trade; and on the nation's airwaves and op-ed pages, climate-change deniers (and their more circumspect brethren, the "skeptics") crow triumphantly at every snowstorm and every controversy, real or imagined, that puts climate scientists on the defensive.
Worse yet, many years of painstaking efforts to explain climate change to the American people and get them concerned about it seem to be gradually unraveling. As Chris Mooney notes in a piece on the 'disastrous' turn in the narrative, an October 2009 Pew report shows that, since April 2008, the number of Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" has dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent. During that same period, the proportion who accept the existence of climate change and attribute it to human activity has dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent — not exactly a robust constituency for immediate action. (There is a brand new poll from the World Bank that suggests more robust support among Americans for carbon emissions limits; I hope — but don't believe, in the absence of more details — that it's accurate.)
What is causing this apparent unraveling? There are three competing theories as to its source:
(1) The first and most obvious is that support for allegedly expensive or growth-threatening environmental action always declines during economic downturns. Gallup periodically asks Americans which they value more: environmental protection or economic growth. Interestingly, from 1984–2008, a plurality (and usually a strong majority) of Americans always prioritized the environment over growth (even when their voting behavior indicated otherwise). But this tendency to prioritize environmental action does flag during recessions, as was evidenced by a steep slide in the "top priority environment" / "top priority growth" ratio from 70 percent / 23 percent in 2000 to 47 percent / 42 percent in 2003. After an uptick in support for the environment as a priority over the economy from 2004–2007, the ratio nose-dived during the most recent economic crisis, to the point where an actual majority said the economy is more important in March 2009 (51 percent / 42 percent), the first time that has happened in Gallup’s polling.
(2) A second possibility is that the change in public opinion is largely a byproduct of the radicalization of the Republican Party. There’s certainly some support for that proposition in the Pew surveys. As recently as 2007, 62 percent of self-identified Republicans told Pew they believed there was solid evidence for global warming. That percentage dropped to 49 percent in 2008 and then to 35 percent this year. (There’s also been a similarly large drop in belief about global warming among self-identified independe—s -- a group that includes a lot of people who are objectively Republicans. The drop among Democrats has been less than half as large.) It's probably no accident that this change of opinion occurred during the 2008 campaign, when Republicans suddenly made offshore drilling their top energy-policy priority, and this year, when virtually anything embraced by the Obama administration has drawn the collective wrath of the GOP.
(3) Then, there's the third factor that might explain the changes in public opinion: a determined effort by the hard-core anti-environmental right to dominate the discussion and change its terms. This is the main subject of Mooney’s essay, which focuses on the "statistical liars" like columnist George Will who have distorted climate data to raise doubts about the scientific consensus, and on the continuing brouhaha in the conservative media about “Climategate.” Matt Yglesias has gone further, arguing that climate-change deniers have scored a coup by convincing the mainstream media (most notably the Washington Post, which regularly publishes Will’s columns, and recently published a predictably shrill op-ed by Sarah Palin on the subject) to treat the existence of climate change as scientifically debatable.
I have no compelling evidence to demonstrate which of these factors has contributed most to the gradual ungreening of America, but there are ways to mitigate the negative impacts from all three. Fears that environmental protection is "unaffordable" in a poor economy are obviously cyclical, so unless we are in a recession that will endure for many years, this problem should at some point recede. What's more, there's some evidence that suggests efforts to sell action on climate change as "pro-growth" via investments in green technologies can help cushion the public's skepticism.
Meanwhile, the second and third causes — GOP radicalization and the revival of a powerful denialist media presence — are clearly interrelated. Self-identified Republicans who spend a lot of time watching Fox News are obviously influenced by the torrent of "information" about the "hoax" of global climate change; while both conservative opinion leaders and GOP politicians are invested in promoting polarization on a historic scale. But this toxic environment would be largely self-contained if misinformation weren't bleeding over into the broader discourse that includes Americans who don’t think Obama is a committed socialist or that environmentalists want to take the country back to the Stone Age.
And that’s why Yglesias is right: This is one area of public policy where "respect for contrary views" and "editorial balance" is misplaced. Sure, there are many aspects of the climate-change challenge that ought to be debated, and not just between those at the ideological and partisan extremes. But we shouldn’t be "debating" whether or not the scientific consensus on climate change actually represents a vast conspiracy to destroy capitalism and enslave the human race, any more than we should be debating whether "death panels" are a key element of health care reform.
Today at TNR (December 14, 2009)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121404318
December 14, 2009
If you've been following the Copenhagen process this week, you may have noticed that the "debate" over climate change and what to do about it has regressed. Whereas, just a few years ago, George W. Bush acknowledged the human role in global warming and John McCain was a leading proponent of climate-change legislation, know-nothingism is now resurgent. The GOP pins its electoral hopes on slogans like "drill, baby drill" and "cap-and-tax"; McCain has soured on cap-and-trade; and on the nation's airwaves and op-ed pages, climate-change deniers (and their more circumspect brethren, the "skeptics") crow triumphantly at every snowstorm and every controversy, real or imagined, that puts climate scientists on the defensive.
Worse yet, many years of painstaking efforts to explain climate change to the American people and get them concerned about it seem to be gradually unraveling. As Chris Mooney notes in a piece on the 'disastrous' turn in the narrative, an October 2009 Pew report shows that, since April 2008, the number of Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" has dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent. During that same period, the proportion who accept the existence of climate change and attribute it to human activity has dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent — not exactly a robust constituency for immediate action. (There is a brand new poll from the World Bank that suggests more robust support among Americans for carbon emissions limits; I hope — but don't believe, in the absence of more details — that it's accurate.)
What is causing this apparent unraveling? There are three competing theories as to its source:
(1) The first and most obvious is that support for allegedly expensive or growth-threatening environmental action always declines during economic downturns. Gallup periodically asks Americans which they value more: environmental protection or economic growth. Interestingly, from 1984–2008, a plurality (and usually a strong majority) of Americans always prioritized the environment over growth (even when their voting behavior indicated otherwise). But this tendency to prioritize environmental action does flag during recessions, as was evidenced by a steep slide in the "top priority environment" / "top priority growth" ratio from 70 percent / 23 percent in 2000 to 47 percent / 42 percent in 2003. After an uptick in support for the environment as a priority over the economy from 2004–2007, the ratio nose-dived during the most recent economic crisis, to the point where an actual majority said the economy is more important in March 2009 (51 percent / 42 percent), the first time that has happened in Gallup’s polling.
(2) A second possibility is that the change in public opinion is largely a byproduct of the radicalization of the Republican Party. There’s certainly some support for that proposition in the Pew surveys. As recently as 2007, 62 percent of self-identified Republicans told Pew they believed there was solid evidence for global warming. That percentage dropped to 49 percent in 2008 and then to 35 percent this year. (There’s also been a similarly large drop in belief about global warming among self-identified independe—s -- a group that includes a lot of people who are objectively Republicans. The drop among Democrats has been less than half as large.) It's probably no accident that this change of opinion occurred during the 2008 campaign, when Republicans suddenly made offshore drilling their top energy-policy priority, and this year, when virtually anything embraced by the Obama administration has drawn the collective wrath of the GOP.
(3) Then, there's the third factor that might explain the changes in public opinion: a determined effort by the hard-core anti-environmental right to dominate the discussion and change its terms. This is the main subject of Mooney’s essay, which focuses on the "statistical liars" like columnist George Will who have distorted climate data to raise doubts about the scientific consensus, and on the continuing brouhaha in the conservative media about “Climategate.” Matt Yglesias has gone further, arguing that climate-change deniers have scored a coup by convincing the mainstream media (most notably the Washington Post, which regularly publishes Will’s columns, and recently published a predictably shrill op-ed by Sarah Palin on the subject) to treat the existence of climate change as scientifically debatable.
I have no compelling evidence to demonstrate which of these factors has contributed most to the gradual ungreening of America, but there are ways to mitigate the negative impacts from all three. Fears that environmental protection is "unaffordable" in a poor economy are obviously cyclical, so unless we are in a recession that will endure for many years, this problem should at some point recede. What's more, there's some evidence that suggests efforts to sell action on climate change as "pro-growth" via investments in green technologies can help cushion the public's skepticism.
Meanwhile, the second and third causes — GOP radicalization and the revival of a powerful denialist media presence — are clearly interrelated. Self-identified Republicans who spend a lot of time watching Fox News are obviously influenced by the torrent of "information" about the "hoax" of global climate change; while both conservative opinion leaders and GOP politicians are invested in promoting polarization on a historic scale. But this toxic environment would be largely self-contained if misinformation weren't bleeding over into the broader discourse that includes Americans who don’t think Obama is a committed socialist or that environmentalists want to take the country back to the Stone Age.
And that’s why Yglesias is right: This is one area of public policy where "respect for contrary views" and "editorial balance" is misplaced. Sure, there are many aspects of the climate-change challenge that ought to be debated, and not just between those at the ideological and partisan extremes. But we shouldn’t be "debating" whether or not the scientific consensus on climate change actually represents a vast conspiracy to destroy capitalism and enslave the human race, any more than we should be debating whether "death panels" are a key element of health care reform.
Today at TNR (December 14, 2009)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121404318
The Ungreening of America: Why are people caring less and less about the environment?
by Ed Kilgore
December 14, 2009
If you've been following the Copenhagen process this week, you may have noticed that the "debate" over climate change and what to do about it has regressed. Whereas, just a few years ago, George W. Bush acknowledged the human role in global warming and John McCain was a leading proponent of climate-change legislation, know-nothingism is now resurgent. The GOP pins its electoral hopes on slogans like "drill, baby drill" and "cap-and-tax"; McCain has soured on cap-and-trade; and on the nation's airwaves and op-ed pages, climate-change deniers (and their more circumspect brethren, the "skeptics") crow triumphantly at every snowstorm and every controversy, real or imagined, that puts climate scientists on the defensive.
Worse yet, many years of painstaking efforts to explain climate change to the American people and get them concerned about it seem to be gradually unraveling. As Chris Mooney notes in a piece on the 'disastrous' turn in the narrative, an October 2009 Pew report shows that, since April 2008, the number of Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" has dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent. During that same period, the proportion who accept the existence of climate change and attribute it to human activity has dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent — not exactly a robust constituency for immediate action. (There is a brand new poll from the World Bank that suggests more robust support among Americans for carbon emissions limits; I hope — but don't believe, in the absence of more details — that it's accurate.)
What is causing this apparent unraveling? There are three competing theories as to its source:
(1) The first and most obvious is that support for allegedly expensive or growth-threatening environmental action always declines during economic downturns. Gallup periodically asks Americans which they value more: environmental protection or economic growth. Interestingly, from 1984–2008, a plurality (and usually a strong majority) of Americans always prioritized the environment over growth (even when their voting behavior indicated otherwise). But this tendency to prioritize environmental action does flag during recessions, as was evidenced by a steep slide in the "top priority environment" / "top priority growth" ratio from 70 percent / 23 percent in 2000 to 47 percent / 42 percent in 2003. After an uptick in support for the environment as a priority over the economy from 2004–2007, the ratio nose-dived during the most recent economic crisis, to the point where an actual majority said the economy is more important in March 2009 (51 percent / 42 percent), the first time that has happened in Gallup’s polling.
(2) A second possibility is that the change in public opinion is largely a byproduct of the radicalization of the Republican Party. There’s certainly some support for that proposition in the Pew surveys. As recently as 2007, 62 percent of self-identified Republicans told Pew they believed there was solid evidence for global warming. That percentage dropped to 49 percent in 2008 and then to 35 percent this year. (There’s also been a similarly large drop in belief about global warming among self-identified independe—s -- a group that includes a lot of people who are objectively Republicans. The drop among Democrats has been less than half as large.) It's probably no accident that this change of opinion occurred during the 2008 campaign, when Republicans suddenly made offshore drilling their top energy-policy priority, and this year, when virtually anything embraced by the Obama administration has drawn the collective wrath of the GOP.
(3) Then, there's the third factor that might explain the changes in public opinion: a determined effort by the hard-core anti-environmental right to dominate the discussion and change its terms. This is the main subject of Mooney’s essay, which focuses on the "statistical liars" like columnist George Will who have distorted climate data to raise doubts about the scientific consensus, and on the continuing brouhaha in the conservative media about “Climategate.” Matt Yglesias has gone further, arguing that climate-change deniers have scored a coup by convincing the mainstream media (most notably the Washington Post, which regularly publishes Will’s columns, and recently published a predictably shrill op-ed by Sarah Palin on the subject) to treat the existence of climate change as scientifically debatable.
I have no compelling evidence to demonstrate which of these factors has contributed most to the gradual ungreening of America, but there are ways to mitigate the negative impacts from all three. Fears that environmental protection is "unaffordable" in a poor economy are obviously cyclical, so unless we are in a recession that will endure for many years, this problem should at some point recede. What's more, there's some evidence that suggests efforts to sell action on climate change as "pro-growth" via investments in green technologies can help cushion the public's skepticism.
Meanwhile, the second and third causes — GOP radicalization and the revival of a powerful denialist media presence — are clearly interrelated. Self-identified Republicans who spend a lot of time watching Fox News are obviously influenced by the torrent of "information" about the "hoax" of global climate change; while both conservative opinion leaders and GOP politicians are invested in promoting polarization on a historic scale. But this toxic environment would be largely self-contained if misinformation weren't bleeding over into the broader discourse that includes Americans who don’t think Obama is a committed socialist or that environmentalists want to take the country back to the Stone Age.
And that’s why Yglesias is right: This is one area of public policy where "respect for contrary views" and "editorial balance" is misplaced. Sure, there are many aspects of the climate-change challenge that ought to be debated, and not just between those at the ideological and partisan extremes. But we shouldn’t be "debating" whether or not the scientific consensus on climate change actually represents a vast conspiracy to destroy capitalism and enslave the human race, any more than we should be debating whether "death panels" are a key element of health care reform.
Today at TNR (December 14, 2009)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121404318
December 14, 2009
If you've been following the Copenhagen process this week, you may have noticed that the "debate" over climate change and what to do about it has regressed. Whereas, just a few years ago, George W. Bush acknowledged the human role in global warming and John McCain was a leading proponent of climate-change legislation, know-nothingism is now resurgent. The GOP pins its electoral hopes on slogans like "drill, baby drill" and "cap-and-tax"; McCain has soured on cap-and-trade; and on the nation's airwaves and op-ed pages, climate-change deniers (and their more circumspect brethren, the "skeptics") crow triumphantly at every snowstorm and every controversy, real or imagined, that puts climate scientists on the defensive.
Worse yet, many years of painstaking efforts to explain climate change to the American people and get them concerned about it seem to be gradually unraveling. As Chris Mooney notes in a piece on the 'disastrous' turn in the narrative, an October 2009 Pew report shows that, since April 2008, the number of Americans who believe there is "solid evidence the earth is warming" has dropped from 71 percent to 57 percent. During that same period, the proportion who accept the existence of climate change and attribute it to human activity has dropped from 47 percent to 36 percent — not exactly a robust constituency for immediate action. (There is a brand new poll from the World Bank that suggests more robust support among Americans for carbon emissions limits; I hope — but don't believe, in the absence of more details — that it's accurate.)
What is causing this apparent unraveling? There are three competing theories as to its source:
(1) The first and most obvious is that support for allegedly expensive or growth-threatening environmental action always declines during economic downturns. Gallup periodically asks Americans which they value more: environmental protection or economic growth. Interestingly, from 1984–2008, a plurality (and usually a strong majority) of Americans always prioritized the environment over growth (even when their voting behavior indicated otherwise). But this tendency to prioritize environmental action does flag during recessions, as was evidenced by a steep slide in the "top priority environment" / "top priority growth" ratio from 70 percent / 23 percent in 2000 to 47 percent / 42 percent in 2003. After an uptick in support for the environment as a priority over the economy from 2004–2007, the ratio nose-dived during the most recent economic crisis, to the point where an actual majority said the economy is more important in March 2009 (51 percent / 42 percent), the first time that has happened in Gallup’s polling.
(2) A second possibility is that the change in public opinion is largely a byproduct of the radicalization of the Republican Party. There’s certainly some support for that proposition in the Pew surveys. As recently as 2007, 62 percent of self-identified Republicans told Pew they believed there was solid evidence for global warming. That percentage dropped to 49 percent in 2008 and then to 35 percent this year. (There’s also been a similarly large drop in belief about global warming among self-identified independe—s -- a group that includes a lot of people who are objectively Republicans. The drop among Democrats has been less than half as large.) It's probably no accident that this change of opinion occurred during the 2008 campaign, when Republicans suddenly made offshore drilling their top energy-policy priority, and this year, when virtually anything embraced by the Obama administration has drawn the collective wrath of the GOP.
(3) Then, there's the third factor that might explain the changes in public opinion: a determined effort by the hard-core anti-environmental right to dominate the discussion and change its terms. This is the main subject of Mooney’s essay, which focuses on the "statistical liars" like columnist George Will who have distorted climate data to raise doubts about the scientific consensus, and on the continuing brouhaha in the conservative media about “Climategate.” Matt Yglesias has gone further, arguing that climate-change deniers have scored a coup by convincing the mainstream media (most notably the Washington Post, which regularly publishes Will’s columns, and recently published a predictably shrill op-ed by Sarah Palin on the subject) to treat the existence of climate change as scientifically debatable.
I have no compelling evidence to demonstrate which of these factors has contributed most to the gradual ungreening of America, but there are ways to mitigate the negative impacts from all three. Fears that environmental protection is "unaffordable" in a poor economy are obviously cyclical, so unless we are in a recession that will endure for many years, this problem should at some point recede. What's more, there's some evidence that suggests efforts to sell action on climate change as "pro-growth" via investments in green technologies can help cushion the public's skepticism.
Meanwhile, the second and third causes — GOP radicalization and the revival of a powerful denialist media presence — are clearly interrelated. Self-identified Republicans who spend a lot of time watching Fox News are obviously influenced by the torrent of "information" about the "hoax" of global climate change; while both conservative opinion leaders and GOP politicians are invested in promoting polarization on a historic scale. But this toxic environment would be largely self-contained if misinformation weren't bleeding over into the broader discourse that includes Americans who don’t think Obama is a committed socialist or that environmentalists want to take the country back to the Stone Age.
And that’s why Yglesias is right: This is one area of public policy where "respect for contrary views" and "editorial balance" is misplaced. Sure, there are many aspects of the climate-change challenge that ought to be debated, and not just between those at the ideological and partisan extremes. But we shouldn’t be "debating" whether or not the scientific consensus on climate change actually represents a vast conspiracy to destroy capitalism and enslave the human race, any more than we should be debating whether "death panels" are a key element of health care reform.
Today at TNR (December 14, 2009)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121404318
Sunday, December 6, 2009
No time for monkeying around – 350’s the limit
Zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
[UKPRwire, Tue Dec 01 2009] ZSL London Zoo together with other zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
ZSL London zoo, one of 200 zoos belonging to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), have signed a petition calling on governments to set targets of atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm in order to prevent the next mass extinction.
Leading scientists and conservationists, including Sir David Attenborough, agreed at a crisis meeting in July that coral reefs undergo irreversible damage beyond the 350ppm boundary.
“From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild. However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we’re rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species,” says Paul Pearce-Kelly, Senior Curator at The Zoological Society of London and Chair of the WAZA Climate Change Task Force.
“The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change. Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take the appropriate action,” says WAZA President, Dr. Mark Penning.
He adds: “Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts.”
Zoos engage with over 600 million visitors a year, giving people their first experience of some of our planets most remarkable species. If government leaders are unable to broker a deal, for many people zoos will be their last chance to experience the diversity of life on earth.
http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Environment/No_time_for_monkeying_around_350_s_the_limit_59469.shtml
[UKPRwire, Tue Dec 01 2009] ZSL London Zoo together with other zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
ZSL London zoo, one of 200 zoos belonging to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), have signed a petition calling on governments to set targets of atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm in order to prevent the next mass extinction.
Leading scientists and conservationists, including Sir David Attenborough, agreed at a crisis meeting in July that coral reefs undergo irreversible damage beyond the 350ppm boundary.
“From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild. However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we’re rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species,” says Paul Pearce-Kelly, Senior Curator at The Zoological Society of London and Chair of the WAZA Climate Change Task Force.
“The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change. Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take the appropriate action,” says WAZA President, Dr. Mark Penning.
He adds: “Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts.”
Zoos engage with over 600 million visitors a year, giving people their first experience of some of our planets most remarkable species. If government leaders are unable to broker a deal, for many people zoos will be their last chance to experience the diversity of life on earth.
http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Environment/No_time_for_monkeying_around_350_s_the_limit_59469.shtml
No time for monkeying around – 350’s the limit
Zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
[UKPRwire, Tue Dec 01 2009] ZSL London Zoo together with other zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
ZSL London zoo, one of 200 zoos belonging to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), have signed a petition calling on governments to set targets of atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm in order to prevent the next mass extinction.
Leading scientists and conservationists, including Sir David Attenborough, agreed at a crisis meeting in July that coral reefs undergo irreversible damage beyond the 350ppm boundary.
“From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild. However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we’re rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species,” says Paul Pearce-Kelly, Senior Curator at The Zoological Society of London and Chair of the WAZA Climate Change Task Force.
“The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change. Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take the appropriate action,” says WAZA President, Dr. Mark Penning.
He adds: “Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts.”
Zoos engage with over 600 million visitors a year, giving people their first experience of some of our planets most remarkable species. If government leaders are unable to broker a deal, for many people zoos will be their last chance to experience the diversity of life on earth.
http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Environment/No_time_for_monkeying_around_350_s_the_limit_59469.shtml
[UKPRwire, Tue Dec 01 2009] ZSL London Zoo together with other zoos and aquariums will become the last places on Earth to see species such as polar bears and coral if climate change negotiations fail at Copenhagen, warns the global zoo community.
ZSL London zoo, one of 200 zoos belonging to the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), have signed a petition calling on governments to set targets of atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm in order to prevent the next mass extinction.
Leading scientists and conservationists, including Sir David Attenborough, agreed at a crisis meeting in July that coral reefs undergo irreversible damage beyond the 350ppm boundary.
“From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild. However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we’re rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species,” says Paul Pearce-Kelly, Senior Curator at The Zoological Society of London and Chair of the WAZA Climate Change Task Force.
“The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change. Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take the appropriate action,” says WAZA President, Dr. Mark Penning.
He adds: “Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts.”
Zoos engage with over 600 million visitors a year, giving people their first experience of some of our planets most remarkable species. If government leaders are unable to broker a deal, for many people zoos will be their last chance to experience the diversity of life on earth.
http://www.ukprwire.com/Detailed/Environment/No_time_for_monkeying_around_350_s_the_limit_59469.shtml
Friday, December 4, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Zoos warn of mass extinctions from climate change
Zoos and aquariums are warning they will be the last place on Earth where people will still be able to see species ranging from polar bears to corals, unless global leaders manage to halt climate change.
Published: 8:30AM GMT 30 Nov 2009
Governments must set targets limiting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to prevent a mass extinction of wildlife, according to a statement signed by more than 200 zoos.
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums want governments to set a target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million (ppm) to prevent the gas causing temperature rises which will do irreversible damage to habitats such as coral reefs. CO2 levels currently stand at around 385ppm.
Paul Pearce-Kelly, senior curator at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), said: "From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.
"However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we're rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species."
WAZA president Dr Mark Penning said: "The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change.
"Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take appropriate action."
He added: "Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684377/Zoos-warn-of-mass-extinctions-from-climate-change.html
Published: 8:30AM GMT 30 Nov 2009
Governments must set targets limiting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to prevent a mass extinction of wildlife, according to a statement signed by more than 200 zoos.
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums want governments to set a target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million (ppm) to prevent the gas causing temperature rises which will do irreversible damage to habitats such as coral reefs. CO2 levels currently stand at around 385ppm.
Paul Pearce-Kelly, senior curator at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), said: "From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.
"However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we're rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species."
WAZA president Dr Mark Penning said: "The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change.
"Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take appropriate action."
He added: "Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684377/Zoos-warn-of-mass-extinctions-from-climate-change.html
Zoos warn of mass extinctions from climate change
Zoos and aquariums are warning they will be the last place on Earth where people will still be able to see species ranging from polar bears to corals, unless global leaders manage to halt climate change.
Published: 8:30AM GMT 30 Nov 2009
Governments must set targets limiting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to prevent a mass extinction of wildlife, according to a statement signed by more than 200 zoos.
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums want governments to set a target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million (ppm) to prevent the gas causing temperature rises which will do irreversible damage to habitats such as coral reefs. CO2 levels currently stand at around 385ppm.
Paul Pearce-Kelly, senior curator at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), said: "From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.
"However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we're rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species."
WAZA president Dr Mark Penning said: "The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change.
"Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take appropriate action."
He added: "Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684377/Zoos-warn-of-mass-extinctions-from-climate-change.html
Published: 8:30AM GMT 30 Nov 2009
Governments must set targets limiting levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, to prevent a mass extinction of wildlife, according to a statement signed by more than 200 zoos.
The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums want governments to set a target of stabilising CO2 in the atmosphere at 350 parts per million (ppm) to prevent the gas causing temperature rises which will do irreversible damage to habitats such as coral reefs. CO2 levels currently stand at around 385ppm.
Paul Pearce-Kelly, senior curator at the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), said: "From seahorses to golden-headed lion tamarins, zoos and aquariums play a crucial role in breeding endangered species for reintroduction into the wild.
"However, the climate change threat to the natural world is so severe that we're rapidly losing suitable habitats for these species."
WAZA president Dr Mark Penning said: "The urgent protection of ecosystems, which act as natural carbon sinks, is vital if humanity is to avoid the fate of runaway climate change.
"Our only hope is that world leaders respond to this reality and take appropriate action."
He added: "Climate change is not just another issue for the zoo and aquarium community to address, it is the chess board which will determine the outcome of all our conservation efforts."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684377/Zoos-warn-of-mass-extinctions-from-climate-change.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)