Recently in Conservation and the environment Category

My copy of Conservation arrived a couple of days ago.The cover story is "The problem of what to eat" - and it is a problem. Natasha Loder points out that eating locally doesn't do much to reduce your carbon footprint. Over 80% of the carbon footprint associated with food consumption is associated with producing the food, not transporting it. Citing results from a study by Weber et al.,¹ she points out that "foregoing red meat and dairy use one day a week achieves more greenhouse gas reductions than eating an entire week's worth of locally sourced foods."

So if you're concerned about what your eating habits are doing to the climate, eat less red meat and dairy.

Andrew Sullivan, among others, links to a report from the Guardian claiming that "Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75%"

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

Senior development sources believe the report, completed in April, has not been published to avoid embarrassing President George Bush.

In contrast, Environmental Capital (at the Wall Street Journal) has this to say:

Bob Davis of the WSJ spoke with Donald Mitchell, the author of the draft report--which wasn't secret at all, but a working paper. And like all working papers, it doesn't reflect the official position of the World Bank.

The report was meant to contribute to a World Bank position paper on rising food prices, which was released at the Bank's spring meeting in mid-April.

The final April report didn't include his specific calculation. But, Mr. Mitchell says, "I never saw that as political." Instead, he says he believes the changes were made because of "editing." He said that he has been encouraged by World Bank management to explore the issue of biofuels and the overall rise in food prices. "I had input" into the final report that was released at the spring meeting, he said.

Apparently, we will know more later this week.

Mr. Mitchell said that because of the publicity engendered by the Guardian piece, the World Bank is trying to put out a polished version of his report by the end of this week.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned a paper by Benjamin Halperin and his colleagues that described the human impact on marine ecosystems. Sheril Krishenbaum points out that The New York Times has made available an interactive map showing the impact of shipping, invasive species, temperature anomalies, ultraviolet light anomalies, and acidification. It's a very interesting set of graphcs. Click on the map at the left to explore

I admit it. I'm a plant biologist, and I think almost entirely about terrestrial ecosystems. But most of the planet is covered by water, and most of it's salty, so it's important to know how the world's marine ecosystems are doing. That's what Benjamin Halperin and his colleagues try to tell us in today's Science (subscription required).

There's good news and bad news in the results. The bad (but unsurprising) news is that all parts of the ocean are affected by human activities and that 41% of the oceans (by area) are heavily affected. The good news is that large areas remain relatively unaffected, especially near the poles. But as the figure to the left illustrates northern Australis is also relatively free of major impacts.

The analysis also identifies a few ecosystem types that have been especially hard hit: coral reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves, rocky reefs and shelves, and seamounts. To put it another way, the marine ecosystems most greatly altered by human activities are those in coastal regions. That's no surprise, since that's where people are. What may be a surprise is that the most heavily affected areas aren't necessarily near the greatest population concentrations. Look at the big, red area in the North Sea or the red areas around Iceland, for example. The impact we're having on marine environment clearly depends on how they're being used, not merely how many people live nearby. That gives me hope. It means we may be able to find ways to reduce our impact without threatening the livelihood of those who live near the world's oceans.

---

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R., Watson, R. (2008). A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865), 948-952. DOI: 10.1126/science.1149345

A few days ago I mentioned that Georgia's congressional delegation is proposing an amendment to the Endangered Species Act in response to the water crisis in Georgia and the southeast. In today's USA Today I find out that Sonny Perdue, governor of Georgia, requested that President Bush suspend environmental laws during the crisis. On Wednesday, the governor of Florida, Bill Crist, sent Bush a letter asking that he reject the request.

The article included this interesting tidbit:

The corps has rejected the governor's claims of impending calamity, saying that even if the region does go without rain for the next six months, there will still be water from the lake to support the needs of both people and industry. Accomplishing that feat, the corps admits, would require that it dip into the reservoir's conservation pool. Hydrology experts caution that such water is often dirtier and in need of greater treatment. (emphasis added)

I'd been hearing that Atlanta had only 90-120 days of water available. Now I hear they have at least a six month supply – by dipping into the “conservation pool”. That makes the crisis sound much less like a crisis and much more like a problem. Especially when I also read a couple of days ago that

The response to the worst drought on record in the Southeast has unfolded in ultra-slow motion. All summer, more than a year after the drought began, fountains sprayed and football fields were watered, prisoners got two showers a day and Coca-Cola's bottling plants chugged along at full strength. On an 81-degree day this month, an outdoor theme park began to manufacture what was intended to be a 1.2-million-gallon mountain of snow. (source)

The southeast has water problems, but trying to amend the Endangered Species Act won't help. Turning off some faucets will.

According to this morning's New York Times, more than 500,000 people in southern California have left their homes as a result of the wildfires. Here's a map from calfires.com that shows how extensive the fires are.

View Larger Google Map

If you'd like more information, I suggest going directly to the Calfires site.

A little less than a week ago, the entire Georgia congressional delegation introduced a bill intended to relieve pressures on Georgia water supplies associated with a severe drought.

Georgia's entire congressional delegation introduced legislation Tuesday intended to relieve drought conditions in the Atlanta area.

...

The legislation the Georgia lawmakers introduced would amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 so that federal protection for such species would be lifted in times of severe drought. (source)

Since February 2003 the city of London has charged a fee for driving private automobiles in its central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. This has significantly reduced traffic congestion, improved bus and taxi service, and generates substantial revenues. Public acceptance has grown and there is now support to expand the program to other parts of London and other cities in the U.K. This is the first congestion pricing program in a major European city, and its success suggests that congestion pricing may become more politically feasible elsewhere. (A report from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to institute a congestion pricing plan. New York is one of 9 cities competing for up to $1.2 billion in federal government funds to start pilot projects, and it could garner as much as $500 million to support its plan. Unfortunately, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver appears to be an “immovable force” in opposition to the plan. Unless he calls the Assembly into session tomorrow and it passes legislation supporting Bloomberg's plan, New York will lose its opportunity to compete for the funding.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

As the Congressional Budget Office pointed out more than three years ago:

It is unlikely that the United States could ever “build its way out of congestion,” even with massive increases in spending on highways. The reason is that greater road capacity – which initially permits greater speeds--tends to attract motorists who previously used other roads, traveled at off-peak times, took public transit, or moved farther out in the suburbs. Soon the road, despite its larger size, becomes as congested as it was before.

London, Stockholm, and Singapore have congestion pricing schemes. I.B.M. is managing Stockholm's. I.B.M.'s chief of congestion pricing says of the Stockholm system, “I.B.M. Stockholm runs the whole system.” Guess where I.B.M.'s corporate headquarters are – Armonk, New York. Guess what else I.B.M. says: “I.B.M. is in discussion with major cities worldwide [about setting up congestion pricing schemes], including some in China.”

By encouraging congestion pricing schemes in major U.S. cities we not only reduce carbon emissions, air pollution, and road congestion, we also provide opportunities for American businesses to develop technology and software that they will sell to customers worldwide.

So if you hear a politician say that we can’t afford to impose green standards because it will cost us jobs, tell them: “Hogwash.” The more we elevate, expand and globalize green, clean-power standards the more we play to the strengths of the American economy, American jobs and American-based companies. (Tom Friedman, “The green road less traveled,” The New York Times, 15 July 2007)

The International Cosmos Prize recognizes individuals who show how “human beings can truly respect and live in harmony with nature.”

Georgina Mace, Director of the National Environment Research Council Centre for Population Biology at Imperial College London is the 2007 winner of the prize (Cosmos Prize announcement; Imperial College press release). Dr. Mace has made many important contributions to conservation biology, and it is an award she richly deserves.

The World Wildlife Fund has just released a report on the top ten rivers at risk worldwide (press release, Full report). Here's the list of river basins and threats:

River basin	Corresponding threat
Salween - Nu	Infrastructure - Dams
Danube	Infrastructure - Navigation
La Plata	Infrastructure - Dams and Navigation
Rio Grande - Rio Bravo	Water Over-extraction
Ganges	Water Over-extraction
Indus	Climate Change
Nile-Lake Victoria	Climate Change
Murray-Darling	Invasive Species
Mekong - Lancang	Over-fishing
Yangtze	Pollution

The watersheds were identified based on three criteria:

1. That they “[a]re in or contain regions of high ecological importance, as identified in WWF's Global 200 ecoregion analysis, based on the literature on freshwater fish species richness and endemism, endangered charismatic species, and migratory bird areas.”

2. That they “[f]ace a high degree of threat from (and are depended on by) large human populations.”

3. That they &ldquo[p]rovide continental representation, and depict the nuances of these threats to ecosystems.

The report is not exhaustive (because of insufficient data), but it effectively highlights the factors that threaten major watersheds. Mitigating these threats will require coordinated efforts by many people, and the needs are enormous.