How this weblog works
- 20 Apr 06, 04:43 PM
When you visit the main page for the Nature Wildlife blog, you will see all the latest entries written by the Nature team, with the most recent at the top of the page. Scroll down the page for previous entries.
On the right hand side of the page, you'll see a calendar. If any date on that calendar is blue, it means that one or more entries were published on that day. Click on the date and the page will display that day's items.
At the bottom of each entry are two words - permalink and comments.
Permalink simply means "permanent link", and it is useful if you want to bookmark a particular entry, or send it by e-mail to a friend.
Comments means just that. Click on it, and you will be able to read comments and add your own to that particular entry.
Clicking on an entry's headline takes you to that item's own page, where it is printed in full with all the comments which have been published. From there, if you want to go back to the main index page, you can click either on the title: "Planet Earth Under Threat" at the top of the page, or on the word "MAIN" which you will find on the light blue bar underneath. On that bar you might also see the words "PREVIOUS" and "NEXT" - these take you directly to other entries in chronological order.
A word about comments
The main thing which makes a blog different from a broadcast or a standard webpage is that itβs a conversation between the author and the audience. So the success of this blog will depend on you letting the team know what you think about their reports or the underlying issues.
We are aiming to publish as many comments as possible in this weblog, though unfortunately we can't guarantee to publish every e-mail you send.
As you might expect, we won't publish e-mails which are abusive or offensive.
One other thing...
What does RSS mean? You might have seen a little orange rectangle with these letters on ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ webpages and on other websites.
Put simply, if a site provides an RSS link, it means you can see its entries without having to visit that website. You can, for instance, see an automatically updated list of headlines in your "bookmarks" folder, if you use an internet browser such as Firefox. Or you might use a specific program to browse lots of sites quickly.
, which explains how RSS can make browsing the internet easier - or you could ask a friend who knows how to use it to show you. Once you see it in action, you won't go back.
Comments Post your comment
"It's the Ecology, Stupid":
From an environmentalist's perspective, the current debate on global warming and climate change certainly makes for interesting study.
For decades, implicit in the arguments of environmental campaigners has been the ethical-moral imperative of behaving responsibly on a finite planet with finite resources. Of course, there has and always will be (naturally) a large subjective and emotional dimension to the concerns of individuals and groups about the way they perceive the world to be heading. Until fairly recently, it has suited the political-industrial-military-religious establishment very well that environmentalists have been seen as amiable cranks, nutters and eccentric prophets of doom. The scientific field of Ecology has been grudgingly allowed to develop within an academic environment, as long as it remained within the bounds of decency and didn't rock the boat too much.
Meanwhile, Economics has been the all-consuming passion of politicians and the industrial-military elite, and they have used orthodox economic reasoning to shape, promote, standardise and enforce the western consumerist lifestyle on us all. Most people are lured by the promise of "glittering prizes" and are quite happy to be somatised, farmed and milked in this way. In order for this to work reasonably well in the short to mid-term, which is all politicians care about, orthodox Economics has discounted "externalities" (such as environmental quality) from this formula for living: A 'brush-it-under-the-carpet' sort of mentality that now pervades our individual environmental consciences to a large degree. (as if there was any real kind of "away" to throw our own garbage.)
Now, when the bulge under the living room carpet is starting to look a bit too noticeable, as with the enormous bulge of Hurricane Katrina, environmentalism is suddenly the flavour of the month for politicians, and the media are only too happy to go along with this, bombarding people with facts about how they should be doing their bit to "save the planet".
All a little too late, one fears.
The real irony is that the terms ecology and economy come from the same root, the Greek word Oikos meaning "home". It seems that while Ecology is learning about the home and how we should manage it properly, Economy is about ordering the home to suit ourselves. Unfortunately, the bulge under the carpet still grows bigger and we wonder why. The answer?
"It's the Economy, Stupid"
Complain about this post
Hi, I am British and have been living in Hong Kong for 11 years. Within that time (mostly the last four years or so) I have witnessed the fast decline in the quality of the air we breathe. There is really no disputing the fact that China has 'come of consumer age' but at what cost. Not only do they also have to contend with very poor air quality on the Mainland, but the prospects of better air in the near future are also poor. As are most of the 1.4 million people! The norm here is that the few benifit financially. In the Ghuandong area close to HK, about 70,000 of the small, but burgeoning businesses are owned and run by HK residents - China is cheaper and the profit margins that much greater. The onus is on us all to do something about how this planet is being affected. I remember when I first left university 20 years ago, trying to get a job with a big oil company with my degree - environmental biology! I was literally laughed at. I am pleased to see that has changed, but so much has not. Finance should not be put in the way of the environment, but they should work hand in hand. As some one here in HK said 'Business is what built this amazing place, and it is what will destroy it' How about a programme on the demise of China's environment?
Regards,
Fiona
Complain about this post
Hi,
As a lecturer in Physical geography whose research interests are in glaciers, I have read some of your entries on ice. I work in Iceland very year, mainly on the southern ice caps of Myrdalsjokull and Vatnajokull. In terms of ice retreat, we have been monitoring exraordinary rates of retreat over the past five years. This is particularly interesting for Vatnajokull as the ice cap is also a national park, the worlds only glacier national park. As the ice melts, the park boundaries retreat...which is interesting of itself, but the landscapes of deglaciation that are left behind are important to science, but now lie outside the national park. A conundrum for geo-conservation.
If you think you could use anything, I would be happpy to show you around some interesting features, I am out in late July/early August.
Tim Harris
Staffordshire University and Earthwatch Icelandic and Alaskan Glaciers project.
Complain about this post
The British State Broadcaster is grossly hypocritical on the subject of the human despoilation of our planetary home.
For many years, I have been living a low carbon, low consumption lifestyle making every effort to help ensure our survival on planet Earth. But I have been legally constrained to pay for a state propogandist madly intent on trashing the Earth in the fastest possible time, and wilfully inciting others world-wide to do the same.
Paying my TV Tax is the most environmentally damaging expenditure I ever make. I would not do so if it were not for the Law- backed up by the hideous fascistic monolith of oppression which the State Broadcaster uses to enforce its will on every resident of the UK.
I seriously object to the spectacle now of this same propogandist now bleating on about "climate chaos", while retaing the terrorist Clarkson, maintaing its unsustainable"lifestyle" progamming (Newspeak for "consumption"), and jetting its cloned "news correspondents" and others around the world at my expense.
The best outcome for the environment I can imagine would be the abolition of the hated State Broadcaster.
Complain about this post
If making hypocritical radio shows could save my beloved planet, I'd happily support you all.
Sadly the only thing that will is an end to the high consumtion, high carbon choices so relentlessly touted by the State Broadcaster every day.
I suggest you do something about your own environmental footprint before presuming to lecture me on the subject.
Complain about this post
As James Lovelockβs βGaia Theoryβ ( Earth Goddess) suggests, the biosphere regulates its balances through life, and in its own self interest β a self regulating organism. While the human race may be a virus that threatens the planet, we are capable of making the ethically based philosophical decision to stop reproducing at an unsustainable rate and to drastically reduce harmful consumption.
If we are incapable of coming to that ethical conclusion and acting appropriately we deserve to be eradicated by the self regulating organism on which we parasitically exist β the biosphere. When humans replace their anthropocentric values for bio-centric moral principles, they may have some chance of survival.
The Planet Earth and its biodiversity of vegetation and animal life is in delicate natural balance and has NOT been put there for our benefit alone so that we may use, abuse and destroy as we fancy. Eco-centricity is to respect the biosphere and all its life forms and species, and to have the humility to know that we are not central to it, but merely an expendable peripheral that will inevitably be discarded unless we can demonstrate that our ecological credentials are holistic, viable and integral to the planet as a self-sustaining entity.
Initially we must at least:
Conserve energy and reduce consumption to an absolute minimum β especially for motorised transport, heating and lighting.
Invest in the development of sustainable forms of energy and more efficient energy saving technology.
Concentrate agriculture on efficient and sustainable food and fuel production and reduce or eliminate energy profligate farming such animal food production. Use agricultural land efficiently β growing crops is a much more efficient method of food production than is grazing animals.
Produce and access goods and food locally β reducing unnecessary transport energy costs.
Introduce plans and humane incentives for population reduction.
And we must redefine our conventional notions of economic growth. The greenhouse effect is the tragic outcome of opting for growth at all costs, treating the natural environment as both inexhaustible and expendable. Efforts to "turn down the heat" will mean redefining growth, not necessarily freezing it.
βZero Growthβ could exacerbate current economic inequalities, especially between the West and the Third World. Instead we should be aiming for βGreen Growthβ: growth grounded in social justice that takes account of both the environmental and human costs of development.
Inevitably this will mean forging new relationships with the natural world, and with each other β we have to be up to the challenge or perish!
Complain about this post
The control element of resource.
The source of much of the current and future problem relating to environmental damage is the availabilty of cheap fossil fuel. In abundance is oil. It's availability and hence its price is governed by the ability to control the flow through phyical and commercial taps. The burning of this fuel would be impossible without the availability of oxygen. This product is currently free but the natural recycling capabilities that have kept the earth habitable for so long are being impaired. The reasons are manifold but align to mans requirement to consume more than he earns.
If we could put some sort of tap on the availability of oxygen, we could balance the burning of fossil fuel with the reproductive capability of the earth to regenerate oxygen. If we therefor state that for every barrel of oil that is made available of the market, a contribution is made to those regions of the world that manage the forests based of the required acreage to rehabilitate the atmosphere when the oil is burned, we can save the balance. It follows that the riches gained by oil producing nations will have to support those nations that strive to make a living from the forests. They will therfor be encouraged to mintain the forest state and not be tempted to destoy it by clearing forest areas to plant cash crops.
This purly an idea at its embryo state but may be worthy of further consideration by those with the position to develop it.
Complain about this post
Forests and flights.
Some "facts":
Earths forests currently absorb 20-25% of all human emissions of CO2.We're cutting done that forest at the rate of 7 million hectares a year. Last year we made 8 billion individual passenger flights - possibly the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.
At Treeflights, we think that in the future, to travel without offsetting your emissions will be seen in the same light as smoking around young children.i.e. being selfish and destuctive to future generations.
Complain about this post
Hey Fiona, I've also been living in Hong Kong for the last 11 years and have noticed the decline in air quality. Air pollution is only a small part of the problem but as I see it the main problem is the indifference that Hong Kongers and mainland Chinese have towards the problems that the planet faces. As an individual I would like to do my bit towards saving resources, but most of the advice given on line is for people living in Western countries. What do we do here? Very little is recycled, i.e. no second hand clothes stores and only a handful of second hand book stores.You can't even sell your furniture or anything else that you own, because everyone just buys and after a year or less they just throw it away and buy more. That's how people can buy so much despite living in such small apartments. The landfill problem of course is huge. Anyway enough of the complaints, anyone out there have any good suggestions on what we could do here?
Complain about this post
Where does one begin to enter this area ?
Ok - the problem seems to be twofold viz how human's behave ? and how the planet reacts ? Listening and reading to the specialists and the non specialists does not help because if you put all the inputs together and the measurements that are being made it is difficult to conclude that human behaviour can change sufficiently or that the planet can accomodate human behaviour ?
How to conclude ? well I have observed one type of human behaviour change although not always for the good ? In times of war when the national or regional group is threatened behavioural changes are forced by consent ? The trouble is that very few humans would agree that the threat amounts to an immediate threat to national or regional let alone world survival ? Regarding the planets reaction to human behaviour this is well documented ? To a non specialist tha analagous situation would possibly be how does one change the course of a supertanker at full speed ? Difficult ? Impossible ?
How can one conclude given the weight of specialist evidence and measurements that anything other than a war footing would have to be undertaken at planetary level and even then the lags in the planets reaction might be too great ?
In conclusion a war footing ? not likely ? The planets reaction ? whatever the humans do ? Irreverible change ?
An external observer would I think have more pity for the fauna and flora than the humans ?
I read today that 5 village elders hung themselves because the rains had failed to arrive ?
The animals ? A radio program described a processing plant for hogs in the USofA ?
I DO BELIEVE IN HELL AND I AM NOT RELIGIOUS ?
BLEAK - YES
PLEASE PLEASE CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE I HAVE CHILDREN ?
By THE WAY ? NEW TECHNOLOGIES ? CARBON TRADING ? SEQUESTRATION ?
As currently envisaged it is difficult to use any other word than "tinkering" or to quote Nero "fiddling while Rome burned"
Show me a calculation or a model where we have a happy ending for humans and their fellow species ?
Complain about this post
I am a student studying squirrels of the Indian subcontinent.
After reading Charle's Clover's the End of the Line about the crisis of overfishing I feel more concerned about this issue than global warming. Overfishing is something we can deal with. Global warming is something we only pretend to deal with or is only being dealt with at the moment in a peacmeal though slowly positive direction.
I feel strongly that emphasis should be on biodiversity in total and not global warming. For me, the imperative for switching from fossil fuels to non fossil - other than nuclear is that we can, it's cheaper and our economy is less under threat the more self sufficient we are - at least our private economy if not the national one. I switched to biodiesel after the Bamiyan Buddhas were destroyed because Al Quaida was paid for by big oil and the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas and the Twin Towers was paid for by big oil - out of our pockets. We can't afford to pay people for something that inherently leadls to tragic consequences in multifarious ways.
I say biodiversity rather than global warming because this is the solution. In Singapore, pretty much every building is air conditioned and I suspect they consume more fossil fuels cooling their country than the UK does (per capita) warming ours but only in winter. However if we encouraged a vast programme of tree planting, roof gardens and intergrating biodiversity with our lives, we would see a net increase in biodiversity, non-human, beneficial or pleasant life forms and an improvement in our health and climate. It's almost a spiritual thing.
To date no one has written a popular book about tuna fish although there is much on sharks. As far as ordinary people seem to think, tuna is sandwich and pet food fodder. Britain, Spain and the EEC have marine fisheries policies that are barbarous compared to New Zealand. Every time people politely request a no take zone in British Waters, "communities" that live near are up in arms. But New Zealand has shown things can be done differently.
Let us lead by example. Let us as Satish Kumar has said, not pretend to be Stewards and owners of a creator's munificience - and in that context we've been awful stewards, but instead seek to build a relationship based on humility with nature, because we are far from being masters and are now threatened to a greater or lesser degree by natural disasters that may soon sweep our civilisations clean. We need to look after our fish and take care of tuna and not turn our front gardens into parking lots. We need to expoit nature and find ways of producing renewable methane and other bio fuels - using our own wastes where applicable.
I hope that someone can speak on behalf of dumb fish for a change and that we can seek a deeper harmony with nature.
Complain about this post
as co2 seems to be the main culprit it should be regarded as sewage and be removed. Nature does this through plants the oceans etc.We have to do the extra and use some solar powered device to remove man made excess--A SUPER TREE ,necessity is the mother of invention. If carbon trading is a goer there is money to be made !!!!!
Complain about this post
I only managed to listen to the last programme in the series, broadcast yesterda,Monday 15 January. Is there any possibility that the 3 programmes will be re-broadcast please?
I accept that the adverse impacts to our planet are happening right now due to global warming. I tend to agree with the contributors to the programme that as long as we all act now in reducing carbon emissions, then the planet will survive for future generations. In this regard i am doing my best to reduce my ecological footprint, ie. switching off household appliances when not required, walking, cycling or using public transport instead of using my car.
I must be certainly in the minority when it comes to reducing or giving up use of the car! Perhaps the message is being taken on board in this country, and throughout Europe, that we all must make changes to our lifestyles for the sake of the planet. However as we've become so fond of the car and the convenience it offers, it's going to take a huge change in our attitudes and behaviour to stem the ever increasing volume of car owners in the UK; as well as a significant amount of time.
A friend tells me she is sceptical about all these announcements on TV about the threat to the environment caused by global warming. Major changes to weather patterns have happened before, so it's nothing new!
I try to persuade her otherwise! She's more concerned by the threat of terrorism than climate change.
I just think the message we hear from Govt etc has tgo be strongly reinforced!
Complain about this post
is it me - or did anyone else uncharacteristically verbally abuse the radio today when, an 'influential' American commenting on the disappearing northern ice sheets, excitedly offered his vision of the future along the following lines 'I see it as an exciting opportunity for us to get to places we have not been to access before, there are huge unexploited oil and gas reserves ' I don't feel that any explanation of my incredulity at his words is necessary, but heaven help us, I'm having difficulty being opptimistic at the moment
Complain about this post
So what happened to the Elephant in the Corner?
In common with SO many of programmes of this genre, absolutely no mention of the P word!
It's population!
It should be perfectly obvious to ANYONE producing such programmes that the audience (or at least that part of it with any intelligence) will have made already the connection between the SIZE of the human population and its IMPACTon the planet.
OK - politicians perhaps cannot afford or are too 'cautious' (I'd said 'cowardly') to risk opening this Can of Worms.
But you have no excuse.
Complain about this post
So what happened to the Elephant in the Corner?
In common with SO many of programmes of this genre, absolutely no mention of the P word!
It's population!
It should be perfectly obvious to ANYONE producing such programmes that the audience (or at least that part of it with any intelligence) will have made already the connection between the SIZE of the human population and its IMPACTon the planet.
OK - politicians perhaps cannot afford or are too 'cautious' (I'd said 'cowardly') to risk opening this Can of Worms.
But you have no excuse.
Complain about this post
The film by Al Gore - An Inconvenient Truth - is a MUST for all aspects of the current discussions.
Instead of putting on the brakes as we head towards the edge of the precipice, we have our foot flat on the accelerator (gas pedal). This is not 'Doom and Gloom', but a reality that may present itself in our lifetime. Let us not be selfish, but think about our children and their children's children. Their future is in our hands.
Let's go non-CO2. The oil companies have had their day and now it's time to move on, to renewables and nuclear - (what is the sun?)
Complain about this post
So what happened to the Elephant in the Corner?
In common with SO many of programmes of this genre, absolutely no mention of the P word!
It's population!
It should be perfectly obvious to ANYONE producing such programmes that the audience (or at least that part of it with any intelligence) will have made already the connection between the SIZE of the human population and its IMPACTon the planet.
OK - politicians perhaps cannot afford or are too 'cautious' (I'd said 'cowardly') to risk opening this Can of Worms.
But you have no excuse.
Complain about this post
Hi,
Why not grow trees to garner the CO2 from the air and then chop the tree down and bury it deep in the earth thereby sealing the carbon into the earth?
Regards...Paul
Complain about this post
This series has been a disgraceful, biased propaganda based travesty of what journalism should be. It has been proven scientific fact since 1984 that the climate changes naturally every 1500 years. It is also proven scientific fact that C02 is not the problem that environmentalists pretend that it is. The
Excellent Channel 4 programme βThe Great Climate Warming Swindleβ explained superbly well how we have been conned by people who make their living from environmental issues.
This programme has not featured any of the excellent environmental scientists available in the UK who could have explained in plain English that climate change is natural.
This programme has been very selective in how the message is told. There was no mention of the increase of the Polar Bear population because it was βoff messageβ.
Any βexpertβ appearing on this programme should be required to quote his academic work and make it available on the internet for scrutiny. The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ should be ashamed of itself.
Complain about this post
Did nobody see the programme on Channel 4, "the great global warming swindel", I was hoping it would result in a realistic debate. I am happy to be convinced but when there is no reasoned debate it is unlikely
Complain about this post
As per usual now the politicians are telling us what should be done to stop or slow down climate change. Where is the encouragement from them, the incentives? What are they doing other than looking for an angle on Indirect taxation by introducing climate levy? All the experts should be telling us what to do based on what they have done to reduce their energy consumption. The energy supply companies (of gas, oil elctricity) are not going to help as this is self defeating for their huge profits.
I'll tell you what I have done with no help from governement, national or local! Fitted a new improved enrgy efficient boiler, fitted new windows, vastly improved the insulation all around the house. Even fitted solar panels for hot water so when the sun shines the boiler doesn't have to work. This is where governement needs to take the lead but instead we have a miriad of so called 'xspurts' - where 'x' is the unknown factor and 'spurt' is a drip under pressure!
Complain about this post
What a pleasure to read these well written and highly intelligent comments from my fellow contributors.
This weblog is exceptional for its clarity of expression and its reasoned passion for scientific truthfulness [not 'truthiness'] in regard to this daunting project for our Project Economy age.
I have posted elsewhere my contributions to PEuT in regard to our global 'problemata' [Greek technical mathematical term for a mathematical expression that admits of solution].
As for the Hong Kong riddle posted twice above, there is no solution!
It should not be forgotten that the 1.3 billion Chinese people would require the natural resources of four Planet Earths to bring their people up to the standards of Western Europe and North America.
Respectfully,
John E.D.P. Malin, Esq. M.A.
Cecilia, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Complain about this post
I have finished reading Professor Lee Smolin's paper on Cosmological Natural Selection in his published paper on-line Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A, 2nd May 2003, entitled "The Self-organization of Space and Time."
How do internal processes generate complexity? There are several distinct mechanisms of self-organization: natural selection, self-organized criticality, reaction-diffusion systems & cellular automata.
The chance of a Universe in which life could exist would be about 10^-240. The great age of our universe is ca. 10^17 or 10^40 Planck units. Twenty (20) parameters of the Standard Model represent a 20-dimensional space.
In a system defined by relational properties, mechanisms of self-organization work by increasing the variety of the system.
Structure and complexity arise in systems: biological, economic or physical.
The more variety there is among these relations, the more complexity there is; we define a quantity called 'variety' as the inverse of the amount of information needed to distinguish each subsystem from the others, using just the information about the relationship between the subsystems. The more distinguishable the subsystems are, the higher the variety.
If there is this degree of conceptual clarity at the cosmic layer, there might be a sliver of a chance that we can survive as a species climatic weather shifting globally.
Respectfully,
John E.D.P. Malin, Esq., M.A.
Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer
Informatica Corporation
Executive Division
P.O. Drawer 460
Cecilia, Louisiana
U.S.A.
Complain about this post
Hi. I run 'The Amazing Craig's Blog' and have a bit of footage of a moorhen chick on my blog. I'm not sure how to sent it to this page but if anyone would like to see it, you can follow this link...
I also have a short film of Canada Goose Goslings and there should be cygnets hatching any day soon at the River Esk in Musselburgh where I film so I'll also have a film of them soon.
CUL8R,
Craig
Complain about this post
Hope this will bring a smile!
------------------------------
Look out for a lovely wildflower about a foot high with white flowers and kidney shaped leaves in wild grassy areas such as meadows, its called Meadow Saxifrage. I was once on a walk with a group from Butterfly Conservation and a lady in the group was a very keen photographer. She used to take a whole film to get a good photo and she won prizes with her single lens reflex camera. We came across a little batch of this flower and she said oh! I must get a good photograph of it! She laid flat out on the ground and took some shots of the flowers. When she got up she found she'd been laying flat out on a Cow Pat!!!!!! She wasnt very popular for the rest of the day.
Roger Goy. Lincoln
Complain about this post
SAVE OUR PLANET ?
The style and presentation of programmes intent on raising money to save our PLANET are in very poor taste.
The general public pay the overpaid editors and presenters of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ their wages and are then being targeted to fork out their hard earned money by being told that simple donations can save species in far flung parts of the world.
How patronising can you get ---presenter crying over turtle eggs and getting locals to repent their 'sins' for having had to use turtle eggs to survive as a child.
Education not begging bowls please.
Complain about this post