Recently in Conservation Category

A student in my conservation biology course just pointed out that a previously unreported tunicate has been found in Long Island Sound. It's a member of the genus Clavelina -- and that exhausts my knowledge about it. But I'm sure if you check in occasionally at James Reinhardt's blog, you'll be able to follow updates.

DotEarth, Andy Revkin's blog at the New York Times, is two years old today. If you aren't familiar with DotEarth, shame on you. You should be. If you are familiar with it, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's an extraordinarily valuable resource.

Please join me in wishing Andy a happy second birthday! Read him regularly. It's worth your time.

And you might make Rush Limbaugh's head explode in the meantime. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this entry from DotEarth in which Revkin responds to Limbaugh's suggestion that he, Revkin, commit suicide.

Update 5:00pm: I just noticed that ScienceInsider has a nice post on the Economics Nobels. Here's a very brief summary of how Ostrom found communities could get around the tragedy of the commons:

Ostrom found that individuals will cooperate if, among other things, they are able to participate in governance, monitor the compliance of others, and punish cheaters. "When people have trust that others are going to reciprocate, then there can be cooperation," she says. "When there is no trust, there is no cooperation unless people are facing the gun."

---

More than 40 years ago, Garrett Hardin described the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. (emphasis added)

The conclusion seems inescapable. If each of us pursues our "own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons" our common heritage will be despoiled. I say "seems inescapable", because a lot of people have been trying to find a way out of the tragedy of the commons for a long time.¹

Well, the the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics was shared by Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons."

From my e-mail inbox this morning:

Dear Colleagues,

The multistakeholder on-line consultation on IPBES co-hosted by IUCN, ICSU and DIVERSITAS will close this Sunday 13 September. Many thanks to the 120 individuals who have completed the questionnaire. We hope to receive even more input!
Background information can be found on the official IPBES site now open, and also here.

DIVERSITAS, the international programme of biodiversity science, is working together with its parent organisation, ICSU, the International Council for Science, and IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, to collect the views of the scientific community and other important stakeholders on a proposal for a new Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). IPBES is a mechanism proposed to strengthen the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services, with broad similarities to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

IPBES has gathered considerable political support and the current timetable is that a decision on its establishment will take place by late 2010.

You are kindly invited to submit your views on IPBES by completing an online questionnaire, which can be found at IPBES consultation.

In addition, I would ask you to help circulate this link to any potentially interested scientists and institutions that you are aware of. The deadline for submissions is 13 September.

All submissions will be jointly analysed by ICSU, DIVERSITAS and IUCN at a meeting on 22 September, in order to provide input to a key intergovernmental meeting convened by UNEP (5-9 October 2009, Nairobi, Kenya), which will discuss plans for IPBES, and its establishment.

This is an important opportunity for all of us to influence the future mechanisms that will structure the science and policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Thanking you in advance for your contribution,

Yours sincerely,

Anne Larigauderie

 

Dr. Anne Larigauderie
Executive Director
DIVERSITAS
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle (MNHN)
57, Rue Cuvier- CP 41 75231 Paris Cedex 05
France
Tel: 33 1 40 79 80 41 (direct)
Tel: 33 1 40 79 80 40 (secretariat)
e-mail: anne@diversitas-international.org
www.diversitas-international.org
 

Could it really be that Waxman-Markey would be good for the economy? It's already clear that cap and trade, a carbon tax, or something is necessary to wean us from overreliance on carbon-intensive energy sources. Now this:

As flawed as it may be, the Waxman-Markey climate bill makes economic sense, offering benefits worth at least twice as much as it costs, if not more.

"From almost any perspective and under almost any assumption, H.R. 2454 is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet," the paper concludes.

The paper referred to is from New York University's Institute for Policy Integrity: The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation.

I know what you're thinking. "That's NYU. A bunch of pointy-headed liberals in a liberal east coast city." Well, that might be true,¹ but the news article I'm quoting from didn't appear in the Village Voice, or even the New York Times. No, it's from that bastion of liberal opinion known as the Wall Street Journal, running under the headline "Waxman-Markey: Benefits Far Outweigh Costs, New Study Finds".

The Pew Environment Group is inviting Ph.D. scientists to sign a letter to President Obama concerning oil and gas development in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas.

As scientists, we urge the President of the United States and his administration to take a science-based precautionary approach on decisions regarding the offshore oil and gas development of the U.S. Arctic Ocean. Prior to permitting any new oil and gas development, there must be thorough research, sustained monitoring, and comprehensive planning to better understand and avoid  impacts and determine the best way to proceed in the U.S. waters of the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

More information about the letter is available at Time out in the Arctic.

The Sierra Club just released its 3rd annual Cool Schools list. It ranks colleges and universities on a range of "green" criteria including efficiency, energy, academics, purchasing, and waste. The University of Colorado comes out on top with an A+. The University of Washington, Middlebury College, the University of Vermont, the College of the Atlantic, and Evergreen State College aren't far behind. All of them got an A+ too.

Sorry to say, the University of Connecticut did not do so well. We're #93 out of 135 schools ranked, but at least we passed -- with a C-. Yale did much better. It's #14 and got an A. Harvard's #11, and Brown's #64, Amherst's #71, and Williams is #52. Neither Princeton nor Cornell seems to be ranked.

You may also want to take a look at the College Sustainability Report Card. Colorado still beats us by a healthy margin, but at least we don't look quite as bad.

In today's Nature, Jeff Tollefson describes an ambitious plan in Brazil to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD). Farmers in Pará who agree to put rainforest land into conservation rather than clearing it will receive monthly payments from the Brazilian government -- and the funds to support those payments come from international donors. Brazil will receive about $114 million this year to support the project in Pará and others like it through its Amazon Fund. Norway pledged up to $1 billion until 2015.

Getting REDD right in Brazil and beyond is "totally possible and essential", says Lars Løvold, director of the Rainforest Foundation Norway in Oslo, which, along with Friends of the Earth Norway, proposed to the Norwegian government that it invest in a big forest conservation initiative. "But you need some projects to show that it works."

Sounds pretty promising, if it works. Last December, WWF was skeptical:

WWF criticized Brazil's plan to reduce Amazon deforestation to 5,740 square kilometers per year as being "short on ambition and detail".

In a statement issued Wednesday, WWF said that Brazil's proposed fund for conserving the Amazon would still result in the annual loss of an area forest the size of Rhode Island.

Federal authorities removed the gray wolf from the endangered species list in May. Yesterday, Idaho's Fish & Game Commission voted 4-3 to allow up to 220 wolves to be killed by hunters this fall (stories from the Missoulian, Boise Weekly, and the Spokesman Review). The three dissenting votes were from commissioners who wanted to allow more wolves to be taken.

Chairman Wayne Wright, one of the dissenters, declared, "Now's the time to do the right thing. ... Neither our state's economy, our ranchers, our sportsmen or our elk herds can wait any longer." (from the Spokesman Review article)

Idaho Fish & Game currently estimates that there are about 1020 in the state. The original recovery goal set by the Fish & Wildlife Service for Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming was only 300 wolves. Supporters of the hunt contend that the wolf population is now secure and can be hunted without endangering it. Opponents threaten legal action.

The season will start on the 1st of September in some parts of the state and run through December 31st.