-
Federal government refuses to protect caribou
Blogpost by Catharine Grant, Forest Campaigner – January 27, 2012 at 10:49 Add comment
Environment Minister Peter Kent is still refusing to issue an emergency order to protect Alberta’s woodland caribou, despite a court order last July asking him to in light of scientific evidence.Kent has suggested that the existing recovery plan in Alberta will address the need of the species in that province. However, the plan has been heavily criticized for relying on shooting wolves, a natural predator of caribou, instead of protecting habitat from damaging industrial practices.
Kent was ordered in July to issue the emergency, but remained silent until environmental lawyers, representing a group of Alberta First Nations, filed a request with the court last week to force the minister to comply with the judge’s ruling.
Kent’s rationale for continuing to deny the emergency order is that some herds in Canada are sustainable, so losing herds in Alberta will not pose an immediate risk to the species across Canada. This is despite scientific evidence that more than 50% of woodland caribou herds are not self-sustaining and face risk of imminent extirpation, according to a 2009 Environment Canada report.
Science shows that habitat destruction is the main driver of caribou decline, not natural predation. Yet Kent prefers to rely on a strategy that kills wolves in the name of caribou protection. Wolves are a natural part of a healthy Boreal ecosystem, and culling them could cause a myriad of unintended ecological consequences. Moreover, it won’t actually save caribou from extinction in the long-run. By scapegoating wolves for the decline of caribou, Minister Kent is drawing attention away from the real caribou killer: the expansion of the tar sands.
It is likely that without immediate habitat protection, the species will be permanently extirpated in Alberta. The Canadian government, however, prefers to protect the interest of the tar sands instead of species at risk.
Tell Environment Minister Peter Kent to take real action to save caribou: by saving their habitat.
Greenpeace Canada – thank you for letting us know about our Gov’t slack
Japanese Tsunami Debris
Japanese tsunami debris washes up on U.S. West Coast nine months after disaster (and there’s 100 MILLION more tons on its way)
Last updated at 5:10 PM on 16th December 2011
Large black floats are the first remnants of Japan’s devastating earthquake and tsunami to begin washing up on the American coastline.
The debris traveled 4,500 miles on Pacific Ocean currents, pushed by wind and water, to reach the beaches of Neah Bay in far northwestern Washington state 280 days after the Japanese disaster.
Some 100 million tons of debris — from wrecked fishing vessels to household furniture and even body parts — is bearing down on the West Coast, raising environmental fears about the impact of massive amounts of wreckage clogging beaches.
Found: This large float made its way from Japan to Neah Bay, Washington, in about 280 days. Several have been found washed ashore in North America
Across the ocean: Currents and winds carried the floats across vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean
The debris is even more massive and moving much faster than originally predicted. Initial projections said 5 to 20 million tons of waste would take three years to reach American shores.
Now, scientists say, 100 million tons could be here in just one year.
One float, the size of a 55-gallon drum, was found in Washington two weeks ago, another was reportedly discovered in Vancouver, Canada.
More…
The 9.0 magnitude earthquake and ensuing tsunami that struck the eastern coast of Japan March 11 killed more than 15,000 people and washed homes, boats and human lives out to sea.
Anything that floated is now riding Pacific currents. According to computer predictions from the University of Hawaii, most of it is headed for an area between southern Alaska and southern California.
The researchers in Hawaii predicted most of the debris will reach the US mainland in three years.
First arrivals: Oceanographer Jim Ingraham says the Japanese float is the first of millions of tons of debris likely to reach the shore
Pieces of Japanese life: All manner of debris was swept out to sea in the tsunami March 11 and is now headed for US coastlines
However, oceanographers Curtis Ebbesmeyer and Jim Ingraham said some of the flotsam appears to be traveling much faster and could hit the West Coast in less than a year, the Peninsula Daily News reported.
Most debris travels at about 7 miles per day, the Seattle scientists said, but pieces can cover up to 20 miles in a day if they are big enough for the wind to push them.
The large black drums averaged about 16 miles per day to reach Neah Bay in Washington.
The University of Hawaii team also predicted the debris was about 5 to 20 million tons.
However Mr Ebbesmeyer and Ingraham say the errant Japanese flotsam could be five times that amount, about 100 million tons.
Sailors and the US Navy have spotted all manner of shards of Japanese life in the massive debris fields that are floating the currents.
In October, the crew of a Russian ship spotted televisions and refrigerators riding the current. Parts of homes, and a wrecked 20-foot fishing vessel have also been seen.
Salvaged: Crew members of a Russian training ship pulled in a fishing boat from Japan that was found 2,000 miles out to sea
Massive wreckage: The debris field in the Pacific Ocean has been spread out in an area even larger than Japan itself
Body parts are also expected to wash up on US shores, the Daily News reported.
The two researches said beachcombers who find any debris with identifying marks – such as Japanese writing – should contact authorities so it can be returned.
Families lost everything when their homes were washed away by the giant wall of water, Mr Ebbesmeyer said. Anything they can reclaim from the sea could help them recover from the disaster.
New York Times report on Durban Climate Event
Another Try for a Global Climate Effort
By JOHN BRODER
Published: November 27, 2011
WASHINGTON — With intensifying climate disasters and global economic turmoil as the backdrop, delegates from 194 nations gather in Durban, South Africa, this week to try to advance, if only incrementally, the world’s response to dangerous climate change.
To those who have followed the negotiations of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change over their nearly 20-year history, the conflicts and controversies to be taken up in Durban are monotonously familiar — the differing obligations of industrialized and developing nations, the question of who will pay to help poor nations adapt, the urgency of protecting tropical forests, the need to develop and deploy clean energy technology rapidly.
The negotiating process itself is under fire from some quarters, including the poorest nations, who believe their needs are neglected in the fight among the major economic powers. Criticism is also coming from a relatively small but vocal band of climate change skeptics — many of them sitting members of the U.S. Congress — who doubt human influence on the climate and ridicule international efforts to address it.
But scientists warn that this squabbling serves only to delay actions that must be taken to reduce climate-altering emissions and to fortify vulnerable nations’ ability to respond to the changes they say are surely coming — indeed, that many say are already here.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or I.P.C.C., is the global body of scientists and statisticians that provides the technical underpinning of the U.N. talks. The Durban meeting is the 17th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. convention on climate change, or COP 17.
A few weeks ago, the panel released a detailed assessment of the increasing frequency of extreme climate events like droughts, floods and cyclones, noting the necessity of moving quickly to take steps to reduce emissions and adapt to the inevitable damage.
“All of these indicate that inaction in dealing with climate change and delays would only expose human society and all living species to risk that could become serious,” Rajendra K. Pachauri, the director of the I.P.C.C., wrote by e-mail from the headquarters of his institute in New Delhi. “I am afraid deliberations at the COP would only focus on short-term political considerations.”
The stakes are beyond monumental, critics point out, but the delegates in Durban will be addressing relatively small and, to many people, arcane, questions of process and finance.
Many negotiators, having entered the U.N. climate talks at Copenhagen two years ago with grand ambitions, left disillusioned and are now defining expectations downward and hoping to keep the U.N. process alive through modest steps.
Last year at Cancún, Mexico, delegates produced an agreement that set up a new fund to help poor countries adapt to climate changes, created new mechanisms for the transfer of clean energy technology, provided compensa- tion for the preservation of tropical forests and enshrined the emissions reductions promises that came out of the Copenhagen meeting.
Negotiators postponed until Durban the politically freighted question of whether to extend the frayed Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement that requires most wealthy nations to trim emissions while providing assistance to developing countries to pursue a cleaner energy path. Also still on the agenda are the structure and the sources of financing of a climate adaptation and technology fund that is supposed to reach $100 billion a year by 2020.
The most contentious question — and in some ways perhaps the least important — revolves around the future of Kyoto, which requires the major industrialized nations to meet emissions reduction targets while imposing no mandates on developing countries, including such emerging economic powers and sources of global greenhouse gas emissions as Brazil, China, India and South Africa. The United States is not a party to the protocol, having refused to consider ratifying it because of its asymmetrical obligations.
The protocol is up for renewal next year with some major countries, including Canada, Japan and Russia, saying they will not agree to an extension unless it is fundamentally changed to remove the unbalanced requirements for developing and developed countries. That is similar to the U.S. position, which is that any successor treaty must apply equally to all major economies, including fast-growing developing countries like China and India.
But the European Union, the major developing countries, and most African and Pacific island nations would like to see the Kyoto process extended as a prelude to a binding international agreement after 2020 to reduce emissions to the level needed to keep the global average temperature increase to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), the point beyond which climate changes are believed to be catastrophic.
Todd Stern, the chief U.S. climate negotiator, said he was flexible as to the form such a future agreement would take and even the timetable for reaching it, though he expected it would be post-2020, after the various Kyoto and Cancún agreements have run their courses.
He said that all countries, including the United States, must take meaningful unilateral steps to control their carbon dioxide emissions, with the obligations greatest among the 20 or so largest economies, which are responsible for more than 80 percent of global carbon output.
“In reality, the most effective thing we can do to address climate change is for all relevant countries to act vigorously at home,” Mr. Stern said, noting that most countries have adopted emissions targets or national action plans that will be followed regardless of the negotiations toward a future agreement.
“At the same time,” he added, “climate is a classic ‘global commons’ problem, where each country needs confidence that others are acting. So international cooperation is important, and this then takes you to the core international issue: You can’t rationally address this problem at the international level unless you get all the major economies, developed and developing, acting in a common system.”
The United States has been criticized at these gatherings for years, in part because it does not accept the Kyoto framework and in part because it has not adopted a comprehensive domestic program for reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. President Barack Obama has pledged to reduce U.S. emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, but his preferred approach, a nationwide cap-and-trade system for carbon pollution, failed in Congress in 2010. U.S. emissions are down about 6 percent over the past five years, largely because of the drop in industrial and electricity production caused by the recession.
Instead of a cap-and-trade program or a national carbon tax, the administration is promoting a number of discrete steps, including new emissions standards for cars and trucks, limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and refineries, and energy efficiency measures for buildings and appliances. Industry lobbyists and Republicans in Congress have fought against most of these measures, and significant progress seems unlikely in an election year.
U.S. negotiators are also bracing for the now-familiar criticism that the United States has not delivered all the money it promised the most vulnerable countries for climate-change mitigation and adaptation efforts, or has sought credit toward those goals by double-counting money already pledged for other international projects. Administration officials said that Congress had been stingy with all international aid funding and that climate financing programs had suffered along with others.
A group of nations most vulnerable to climate change declared after a meeting in mid-November in Dhaka, Bangladesh, that the rich nations had failed to make good on promises to provide immediate aid.
José María Figueres, a former president of Costa Rica, said that the threatened countries like Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Maldives, Tuvalu and Vietnam, were “insulted” by the default on climate finance. And in a preview of the rich-poor drama that may emerge at Durban, as it has at previous conferences, Mr. Figueres said, “I call on all countries present to occupy Durban.”
Andrew Light, a senior fellow specializing in international climate policy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, said that much of what needs to be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be done outside of the U.N. framework.
“All the pledges made by the major emitters are sufficient to get us two-thirds of the reductions we need by 2020,” he said. “It’s possible to get the final third with about $60 billion in additional funding, which is why we need to get this green climate fund going. I don’t expect Durban to resolve where that money is coming from, but I hope they can get the fund itself up and running. That’s the quiet but most important part of the meeting.”
Grand Canyon – Landmark requiring protection
Protect the Grand Canyon from New Uranium Mining
Oppose H.R. 3155, the “Northern Arizona Mining Continuity Act of 2011″
“The one great sight which every American should see.”
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
In October of 2011, the Obama administration announced its support for a long-term ban on new mining claims on roughly 1 million acres of national forest and other public land around Grand Canyon National Park. The move, following more than two years of study, came after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued a temporary halt to claimstaking in response to the skyrocketing number of new claims, mostly for uranium, around the park. The administration’s decision would apply a 20-year moratorium under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, an authority that has been used to protect other places from new mining claims, including Yellowstone National Park and Oregon’s Coos Bay.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3155 would bypass this process and ensure that every one of this million acres around the Grand Canyon remains open to new uranium mining.
Current Mining and Claims Not Affected
The Obama administration’s action to protect the Grand Canyon applies only to future claims; current mining and existing valid claims are not affected. In fact, several uranium mines are operating now, and the Interior Department predicts that another seven may be developed, even with the administration’s moratorium. Without the 20-year “withdrawal,” however, at least 30 mines and more than 725 exploration projects are predicted, potentially transforming an irreplaceable natural treasure into an industrialized mining region.
Research Points to Potential Contamination
Over the past two years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) carried out research and fieldwork in the area under consideration for mining. Although time limitations and weather constraints kept USGS from taking new surface-water samples, its analysis showed elevated radioactivity in numerous areas that had been mined. The agency concluded that a more thorough investigation was necessary and argued that the 20-year moratorium would offer needed time to ensure that the Colorado River and important groundwater supplies could be protected.
Hundreds of Claims are Associated with Foregn-Owned Companies
A report released in April by the Pew Environment Group, using Bureau of Land Management data, showed that claims around Grand Canyon National Park increased 2,000 percent between 2005 and 2010. Hundreds of these claims are controlled by foreign-owned companies, some with national backing—Russia’s state atomic energy corporation, for example, and South Korea’s state-owned utility.
Tourism Provides Significant and Long-Lasting Jobs and Revenue
Visitors to the Grand Canyon generate $687 million annually in revenue for the region and contribute to the creation of more than 12,000 full-time jobs, according to a 2005 Northern Arizona University study. The employment value of the park as a recreation magnet contrasts sharply with potential mining employment, which is likely to be modest and short-lived. According to industry-provided data compiled by the Interior Department, new mining operations are projected to employ only 75 people during a mine’s estimated seven-year life.
National Leaders, Scholars and Scientists Support Ban
In June 2011, 50 statesmen, scholars and conservation leaders from around the country signed an open letter in The New York Times calling for a moratorium on new mining claims at the Grand Canyon. The list included Theodore Roosevelt IV, film director Ken Burns, historian Douglas Brinkley, World Bank science adviser Thomas Lovejoy, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, leaders of the Navajo Nation and Hualapai Tribal Councils, as well as actors Edward Norton and Robert Redford.
Taxpayers’ Losses Under 1872 Mining Law are Significant
The administration’s action is necessary because the mining of gold, uranium and other hardrock minerals is still governed by a law signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. It gives mining companies “free and open access” to millions of acres of public land in the West and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, allows at least $1 billion in valuable metals to be taken from public land every year without taxpayer compensation. The Obama administration and members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have called for modernizing the law.
For more information, please contact:
Geoff Brown I 202-887-8806 I gbrown@pewtrusts.org
Jane Danowitz I 202-552-2132 I jdanowitz@pewtrusts.org
Fact Sheet File: Protect the Grand Canyon from New Uranium Mining
Water Skiing / Speedboating more important than Protecting Nature???
Thou Shalt Not Smite Thy Manatee
Atsushi Sakurai/Minden Pictures
The humble Florida manatee has joined Barack Obama, the United Nations, and the federal deficit as a target of the Citrus County (Florida) Tea Party Patriots. Up to 500 of the gentle, vegetarian “sea cows” overwinter in Citrus County’s warm Kings Bay, drawing thousands of visitors but often getting run over by speedboats. After two endangered manatees were killed last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed making the bay a manatee refuge, where boat speeds would be greatly reduced.
That set off the Tea Party. “We cannot elevate nature above people,” local leader Edna Mattos told the St. Petersburg Times. “That’s against the Bible and the Bill of Rights.”
Further fueling the controversy, explains Patrick Rose, the executive director of the Save the Manatee Club (savethemanatee.org), is the fact that a number of local bigwigs, including the chairman of the local Chamber of Commerce, have houses on the bay and don’t want to be prohibited from water-skiing. Should the issue go to court, Rose predicts, manatee protections will be even greater than in the compromise Fish and Wildlife proposal. “The science is so strong on this,” he says. “There really is no place more dangerous in warm weather for manatees than here in Kings Bay.” —Paul Rauber
Sierra Club -
Norwegian and Russian Border Guards meet annually
Norwegian border guards visit Russia
Russian Border Commissioner Colonel Bobrov gave all the visiting Norwegians gifts.Photo: Trude Pettersen
This year’s event took place in the border guard detachment of Salmijärvi on the Russian side and Elvenes on the Norwegian side.
- Events like this are important in building relations between the two sides guarding the border, Norwegian Border Commissar Colonel Ivar Sakserud told BarentsObserver. – Norwegian and Russian guards jointly constitute one border guard. – You can almost say we have one common border and one common border guard service, he added.
According to Sakserud, the Norwegian soldiers participating in the exchange event are hand-picked from the different detachments and have been looking forwards to this day for a long time.
Head of Sør-Varanger Garrison (GSV) Jørn Erik Berntsen confirms this: – Of course this is a special occasion for the soldiers that are picked out to participate. – At what other place of duty do you get the chance to visit a Russian military camp? – It is only soldiers from GSV who have this privilege.
The 20 boys and girls in the age 19-20 years are about to finish their one-year service in the Norwegian Armed Forces. In Salmijärvi they were shown the newly renovated quarters, where the servicemen either live together with their families in apartments, or in rooms for one, two or three persons. This surprised the Norwegians, who are used to sleep in rooms for eight.
They were shown how the Russians train in recognizing attempts of illegal crossing of the border fence and how they use dogs in the service. The Norwegian soldiers got a thoroughly lesson on how to assembly and disassembly the AK-74 rifle, the Russian border guard’s main weapon, and even got to try shooting with it.
The next day around 20 soldiers and officers from different detachments on the Russian side of the border visited Elvenes border guard station and GSV’s main camp on Høybuktmoen outside Kirkenes, where they got to take a look at different equipment and weapons and shoot with the Norwegians soldiers’ main weapon HK416.
Canada…what is your stand on Climate change?
Bonn climate talks end with Kyoto Protocol left hanging
New talks on global warming ended in Bonn on Friday with the UN’s climate chief calling on world leaders to help resolve the fate of the Kyoto Protocol ahead of a key meeting six months down the road.
- Study finds alarming rise in sea levels (21 Jun 11)
- Cyber-defence centre opens amid IT warning (16 Jun 11)
- Bonn to Berlin move still controversial (15 Jun 11)
“There is a growing realization that resolving the future of the Kyoto Protocol is an essential task this year and will require high-level political guidance,” said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the 194-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
“By Durban, governments need to come forward with options that will be acceptable to all parties,” she told journalists, referring to the UNFCCC’s annual gathering, taking place from November 28 to December 9 in the South Africa city.
Kyoto is the only international agreement with binding targets for curbing
greenhouse gases. But its future is uncertain because China and the United States, the world’s two worse emitters, are not subject to its constraints.
A first commitment period covering nearly 40 industrialized countries – except for Washington, which refuses to ratify Kyoto – expires at the end of 2012.
Japan, Canada and Russia have said they will not sign up for a new round of carbon-cutting vows.
The European Union (EU) says it will only do so if other nations – including emerging giants such as China and India, which do not have binding targets – beef up efforts in a parallel negotiating arena.
“It is not enough for the EU to simply sign up for another commitment period,” said Belgium’s Jurgen Lefevere, representing the European Commission.
“We only represent about 11 percent of global emissions. We need a solution for the remaining 89 percent as well.”
Developing countries, though, have insisted the Protocol be renewed in its current form. The Protocol remains critically important because it contains proven market-based mechanisms for CO2 reduction and tools to quantify and monitor
such efforts, Figueres argued.
If Kyoto collapses, it could stymie progress elsewhere in the hugely complex, dual-track talks, negotiators here warned.
Figueres said the fate of Kyoto was closely linked to progress in the parallel UNFCCC negotiations, which include all nations under the Convention.
These talks made headway in Bonn on technical matters, but remain deeply riven on the core issue of how to share out the task of slashing carbon pollution.
“Governments are realizing that this link needs to be dealt with to get to a global solution, and that will require high-level leadership during the year.”
There will be at least three opportunities for such dialogue between now and late November, she said, including a meeting of heads of state organized by Mexico on the margins of the UN General Assembly in September.
One option discussed being closed doors in Bonn is a “political” deal to extend Kyoto commitments “for one, two, three years,” said Jose Romero, a veteran climate negotiator for Switzerland.
“That gives us some space to look for a solution,” under the other track of the climate talks, he said.
The United States recognizes actions taken by China to slow the growth of its carbon emissions, but said they should be more transparent.
“That’s the conversation that we are currently having with the developing government,” said US negotiator Jonathan Pershing, who said he had met separately in Bonn with both his Chinese and Indian counterparts.
“But we haven’t agreed on that. That is one of the outcomes that we think would be very significant in Durban.” Even if a scaled-down second round of Kyoto commitments – including the EU and a few other small nations – may be acceptable to some developing countries.
“It is better to have that than having nothing at all,” said Grenada’s Dessima Williams, chair of the the 43-nation Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
At the same time, rich nations must “raise their level of ambition,” she told AFP.
Under current trajectories, “we are looking at a 4.0 degree Celsius (9.2 degree Fahrenheit) increase in global average temperatures,” she said.
The figure of 2.0 C (3.6 F) above pre-industrial levels is widely viewed as a safety threshold although many scientists say it is no guarantee of preventing extensive damage to the climate system, inflicting worsening floods, droughts, storms and rising seas.
Yes..Let’s get rid of Plastic Bags….Canada..U.S.A. ?? What do you think ?
EU considers an end to the plastic bag
The EU wants to get rid of plastic bags. The bloc’s executive is considering a range of options – including an outright ban – in an effort to cut down on the amount of destructive plastic ending up in the biosphere.
The European Union’s environment chief is determined to slash the bloc’s use of plastic bags, and an outright ban is on the table.
“We are considering all possibilities including a ban in the European Union,” said Janez Potocnik last Wednesday at the launch of a public consultation to test how Europeans feel about the problem.
According to the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, each person in Europe uses an average of 500 plastic bags every year, and mostly only once.
With many bags ending up in the ocean, the damage to the environment is huge.
‘More plastic than plankton’Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for the Environment
In Mediterranean countries plastic bags are a common sight on beaches, in parks or strewn in city streets.
They are often thrown away, without a thought, to be carried where the elements take them, and much of the time, this is out to sea.
Giant layers of plastic garbage and vast numbers of small plastic particles litter our oceans. According to Potocnik’s office, about 250 billion pieces of plastic – weighing roughly 500 tons – are floating in the Mediterranean Sea.
It could take centuries for all the particles to dissolve. “We are very concerned about these small plastic particles,” said Heribert Wefers, who is a pollution control expert for BUND, the German franchise of the environmental organization, Friends of the Earth.
“There are more plastic particles than plankton in some parts of the ocean. Fish end up eating this. They have stomachs more full of plastic than plankton and can eventually starve to death with a full stomach,” Wefers said.
Threat to birds
Sea birds are also threatened by plastic debris. They consume plastic particles when they eat fish and accumulate plastic in their stomachs. They also get caught in bags and suffocate.
Besides contaminating land and sea, plastic bags have another major environmental disadvantage. “They are made out of crude oil, a resource that will eventually run out,” said Stephan Gabriel Haufe, a spokesperson for Germany’s Federal Environmental Agency.
“If we use less plastic bags, we also save on mineral oil.”
Which leads to a saving of carbon emissions as well, because many of those plastic bags that don’t end up in the ocean, are consigned to incineration, points out BUND’s Heribert Wefers.
Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Ireland has successfully curbed plastic waste with a bag levyInternational movement
According to BUND, a quarter of countries worldwide has taken action against plastic bags.
Australia, India and some African countries have issued various forms of bans on plastic bags. Meanwhile, in Belgium, Ireland and some US states, plastic bags are taxed to make them less attractive for consumers.
The strategy has succeeded, according to Heribert Wefers. In Ireland, taxing led to a 90 percent drop in the use of plastic bags.
China has also banned shops from handing out plastic bags for free, and consumers are required to request and pay for them.
“The outcome is that the amount of plastic bags littering the environment has been reduced by two thirds,” he said.
Italy has recently issued a ban for shopping bags made of conventional plastic material. It’s betting on bio-degradable synthetics, instead.
In Germany, bio-degradable rubbish bags have been criticized by environmental organizations for deceiving consumers, because many end up incinerated next to ordinary plastic bags.
“In fact there are many composting plants, which cannot determine whether a plastic bag is degradable or not”, said Heribert Wefers.
Different problems in different countriesBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Alternatives to plastic are mostly an improvement, but not always perfect
Yet German environmental officials are skeptical about whether a ban of plastic bags throughout the European Union would make sense, because they are used very differently.
For example, in Germany the average person uses 65 plastic bags per year, which is way below the EU average
Also the German recycling system is very efficient. Much plastic packaging is collected in special garbage containers and mostly recycled into new plastic bags or other synthetic material.
Nevertheless things can be improved in Germany – even without a ban. Heribert Wefers has several ideas. “We have to put an end to this throwaway attitude. We could tax plastic bags, even the bio-degradable ones as well as paper bags,” he said.
Germany’s Federal Environment Agency says getting more longevity out of materials is always useful, and warns that alternatives to plastic aren’t always so environmentally friendly.
“Paper bags don’t make sense, as they contain chemicals to stabilize the paper, so it is not an alternative. The alternative is burlap and cotton,” said agency spokesperson, Stephan Gabriel Haufe.
Autor: Marco Müller
Editor: Nathan Witkop
Insects, bird, aquatic specie challenged by environmental signal changes
The more we reconfigure our forests and jungles globally and misuse natural land habitats, the more challenged the insect kingdom. The insects in the food chain are confused and are being driven into regions uncommon to them. There is noticeable confusion and this is impacting on our birds and aquatic species. Pay particular attention to the report on the birds: Swallows - Further:
| COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN CANADA |  |
Once More, Aquatic Species in Canada Highlighted at Recent Species at Risk Meeting
GATINEAU, QC, May 9 /CNW/ – Wildlife species found in marine and freshwater habitats were prominent when COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) met in Charlottetown, PEI, May 1-6, 2011, to assess the conservation status of 40 Canadian wildlife species. Aquatic species considered at risk included several fishes, molluscs, insects, whales and amphibians, underscoring the continuing vulnerability of aquatic ecosystems to habitat degradation and overexploitation.
Tuna Trouble – Record Low Numbers for Prized Sushi Species
Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is one of the most highly sought-after fish species in the world with some market prices exceeding $1000 per kilogram. Unfortunately, its value has driven the species into a steep decline since the 1970s with recent abundance reaching an all-time low. Overfishing remains the single largest threat, and international attempts to improve management have yet to see populations increase. The species is highly migratory, and the fish caught in Canadian waters actually spawn in the Gulf of Mexico. Thus, they are exposed to commercial fisheries not only in Canada but all along the east coast of North America during migration. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna was assessed by COSEWIC as Endangered.
Forecast Grim for Iconic Fish of West Coast First Nations
The Eulachon or ‘candlefish’, so-called because of its exceptionally high oil content and historical use as a candle, was assessed for the first time at this meeting. This small fish was once a cultural mainstay of many First Nations groups of coastal BC and the origin of the famous ‘grease trails’ that linked coastal and inland communities. Since the early 1990s, many traditional fisheries for this species have seen catastrophic declines of 90% or more, and the species is facing extirpation in many rivers. The cause is unclear but may be related to reductions in marine survival associated with shifting environmental conditions, by-catch, directed fishing and predation. Only the Nass River still supports a fishery but even here numbers have declined. The Nass / Skeena Rivers population of Eulachon was assessed as Threatened. Further south, the Central Pacific Coast and the Fraser River populations have experienced even greater declines resulting in an Endangered designation for both populations.
All of Canada’s Sturgeon Species Now Considered at Risk
Sporadic episodes of intense fisheries followed by population crashes characterize the history of Atlantic Sturgeon in Canada. This large fish has experienced significant habitat degradation associated with pollution and hydro-electric dams and is known to spawn in two Canadian rivers where some harvest continues. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding how much harvest this species can withstand given its late maturity and slow reproductive rate. Consequently, populations in both of the Great Lakes / St. Lawrence and the Maritimes regions were designated as Threatened. This is the last of Canada’s five sturgeon species to be assessed by COSEWIC; all are now considered to be at some risk of extinction.
Degraded River Habitats Endanger Two Invertebrates
Agricultural and urban run-off into streams pose key threats for at least two species at risk in Ontario. The Salamander Mussel has only ever been documented in two rivers in Canada, and its continued existence in one watershed, the Thames River, is in question. Similarly, the globally rare Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle is known from only three Lake Huron streams. Observed declines coupled with habitat degradation and restricted range led to a designation of Endangered for both species.
Range-wide Declines Remain a Mystery for Well-known Canadian Bird
The Barn Swallow is easily identified by its deeply forked tail and swooping flight as it hunts for insects over lakes and fields. This bird, the most widespread swallow species in the world, is following the pattern of declining trends seen in many migratory birds across North America that eat flying insects. The reasons for declines of up to 76% in the past 40 years continue to baffle bird experts but changes in habitats, insect communities and climate have all been implicated. The Barn Swallow was assessed as Threatened.
Two Ontario Species Lost?
Two wildlife species have not been seen despite ongoing searches since they were last assessed by COSEWIC over 10 years ago. The Small Whorled Pogonia, a woodland orchid known from only one locality in south western Ontario, was last observed in 1998. Similarly, the Blanchard’s Cricket Frog has not been seen at any of its Lake Erie locations since 1970. Habitat degradation in this heavily developed region is the main concern for both species. They retain a status of Endangered awaiting further evidence that they no longer exist in Canada.
Humpback Makes a Comeback!
Reaching up to 45 tons at maturity, humpback whales are the most acrobatic of all baleen whales. When originally assessed by COSEWIC in 1985, the North Pacific population of Humpback Whale was designated as Threatened due to dramatic declines in the early 1900s and continued commercial whaling up until 1967. Recent studies indicate, however, that the population off the Pacific coast is increasing steadily, despite continuing threats including collisions with ships, entanglement with fishing gear and underwater noise. The North Pacific population of Humpback Whales was re-assessed as Special Concern.
Next Meeting
COSEWIC’s next scheduled wildlife species assessment meeting will be held in Ottawa, ON, in November 2011.
About COSEWIC
COSEWIC assesses the status of wild species, subspecies, varieties, or other important units of biological diversity, considered to be at risk in Canada. To do so, COSEWIC uses scientific, Aboriginal traditional and community knowledge provided by experts from governments, academia and other organizations. Summaries of assessments are currently available to the public on the COSEWIC website (www.cosewic.gc.ca) and will be submitted to the Federal Minister of the Environment in late summer 2011 for listing consideration under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). At that time, the full status reports and status appraisal summaries will be publicly available on the Species at Risk Public Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca).
There are now 635 wildlife species in various COSEWIC risk categories, including 278 Endangered, 158 Threatened, 176 Special Concern, and 23 Extirpated (i.e. no longer found in the wild in Canada). In addition to these wildlife species that are in COSEWIC risk categories, there are 14 wildlife species that are Extinct.
COSEWIC comprises members from each provincial and territorial government wildlife agency, four federal entities (Canadian Wildlife Service, Parks Canada Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and the Federal Biodiversity Information Partnership, chaired by the Canadian Museum of Nature), three Non-government Science Members, and the Co-chairs of the Species Specialist and the Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge Subcommittees.
Definition of COSEWIC Terms and Status Categories:
Wildlife Species: A species, subspecies, variety, or geographically or genetically distinct population of animal, plant or other organism, other than a bacterium or virus, that is wild by nature and is either native to Canada or has extended its range into Canada without human intervention and has been present in Canada for at least 50 years.
Extinct (X): A wildlife species that no longer exists.
Extirpated (XT)*: A wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere.
Endangered (E)*: A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
Threatened (T)*: A wildlife species that is likely to become Endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction.
Special Concern (SC)*: A wildlife species that may become Threatened or Endangered because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.
Not at Risk (NAR): A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances.
Data Deficient (DD): A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species’ risk of extinction.
*denotes a COSEWIC risk category
/NOTE TO PHOTO EDITORS: A photo accompanying this release is available at http://photos.newswire.ca. Images are free to accredited members of the media/
For further information:
| Dr. Marty L. Leonard Chair, COSEWIC Department of Biology Dalhousie University Halifax NS B3H 4J1 mleonard@dal.ca |
For general inquiries:
COSEWIC Secretariat |
| For inquiries on Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge:
Dr. Donna Hurlburt |
For inquiries on marine mammals: (Humpback Whale, Northern Bottlenose Whale)
Dr. Randall Reeves |
| For inquiries on birds: (Barn Swallow, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Eastern Meadowlark, Henslow’s Sparrow, King Rail, Long-billed Curlew) Jon McCracken |
For inquiries on amphibians and reptiles: (Blanchard’s Cricket Frog, Oregon Spotted Frog, Spring Salamander, Desert Nightsnake)
Dr. Ronald J. Brooks |
| For inquiries on freshwater fishes: (Atlantic Sturgeon, Silver Lamprey, Silver Shiner) Dr. Eric B. (Rick) Taylor |
For inquiries on marine fishes: (Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, Eulachon) Alan F. Sinclair |
| For inquiries on arthropods (insects and related taxa): (Dune Tachinid Fly, Hine’s Emerald, Hungerford’s Crawling Water Beetle, Macropis Cuckoo Bee, Olive Clubtail, Taylor’s Checkerspot) Dr. Paul Catling |
For inquiries on molluscs: (Hickorynut, Olympia Oyster, Salamander Mussel) Dr. Dwayne Lepitzki |
| For inquiries on plants: (Furbish’s Lousewort, Long’s Braya, Lyall’s Mariposa Lily, Small Whorled Pogonia, Southern Maidenhair Fern) Bruce Bennett |
For inquiries on mosses and lichens: (Poor Pocket Moss, Batwing Vinyl Lichen, Peacock Vinyl Lichen) Dr. David H. S. Richardson |
Further details on all wildlife species assessed, and the reasons for designations, can be found on the COSEWIC website at: www.cosewic.gc.ca
Healing Prayers and Mindful Energy Work
Northern Italy’s fault line and the extensions of energy throughout Italy are in need of your Healing Prayers and Mindful Energy Healing. We can collectively work together with love in our hearts by sending mantras of peace and stability throughout our earth’s electro-magnetic field; her aura. Mind, Love and Will heals. This particular region would benefit from your peaceful thoughts. We will change location as guided. Thank you for your kindness to all of the earth and continue to respect her reparation cycles.
