Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for April 2006

Anzac Day & the Man from Snowy River

By

It was a public holiday here in Australia today, because of ANZAC day. Across the country we remembered the men and women who went to war, particularly the men who fought at Gallipoli during World War 1.

Noeline Franklin (from Brindabella and the Miles Franklin family) emailed me exactly a year ago asking that on ANZAC day we might also remember the horses that went to war.

About 160,000 horses from Australia went to WWI.

Australia’s mounted soldiers included stockmen from the High Country – mostly volunteers who took their own horses.

The story goes, that at war’s end, many of these men were asked to shoot their horses. The horses could not come home.

For Noeline, the brumbies that now roam the High Country are their descendants and represent “the free spirit of our people and the horses who never returned”.

Many of the horses that went to war from Australia were known as ‘walers’. According to Michael Keenan’s ‘In Search of a Wild Brumby’: “The initial breed was English thoroughbred stallions joined to mares with genetic links to the draught horse. Over the decades the genetic pool was deliberately widened to produce a hardy horse, suitable for the unpredictable stresses in a battle environment. Such breeds as the Welsh pony, Timor pony and the wild brumby were introduced to refine what became known as the ‘classic waler’, with fine clean legs and bone, wide barrel-like chest, short back and a broad head. Unlike the thoroughbreds, the waler could hump weights for long distances, endure searing heat, survive on any available grass and, if called upon, unleash bursts of speed only marginally slower than their big cousins.”

There are now plans in place to rid most National parks of brumbies including horses identifed as ‘classic walers’ because they are considered ‘exotics’ and not a natural part of the Australian bush. The above picture is from the savethebrumbies.org website which describes the slaughter of over 600 brumbies in the Guy Fawkes River National Park six years ago.

Political Reform Driven by Pollution in China

By

I am fascinated by China’s growth and wonder about the impact of all this development on the local and global environment. The ‘2006 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators: The Nature and Sources of Ecological Progress in the US and the World’ by Steven Hayward at the Pacific Research Institute has an interesting section on China as a case study with some data on air quality and land reserved. The study also suggests that environmental concern is driving political reform:

“Environmental calamities may have become the principal source of political unrest and turbulence in China. In April the New York Times reported on a major riot in the southeastern province of Zhejiang where a crowd of up to 60,000, burned police cars, smashed windows, and injured more than 30 government workers in protest of pollution from nearby chemical plants. The Washington Post followed up on the story in June, reporting that the violent protest, which apparently routed the Chinese government authorities in the region, was at least partially successful: six chemical facilities were shut down or relocated.

This protest is reportedly just one of many occurring frequently in China in the last few years. In July, the New York Times reported another environmental protest in Xinchang, a city 180 miles south of Shanghai, where an estimated 15,000 people rioted for three days “in a pitched battle with authorities, overturning police cars and throwing stones for hours, undeterred by thick clouds of tear gas.”

The object of their ire was a 10-year-old pharmaceutical plant, which the protestors wanted closed or relocated. News of environmental protests spread rapidly across the Internet, spawning imitators throughout the nation on a large—perhaps massive—scale. The Times reported that there are “government figures” showing 74,000 incidents of mass protest in China in 2004 (not all of them necessarily environmentally related). In early December, a protest against a proposed wind-power project turned deadly as Chinese security forces fired on a crowd, killing 10 people.

Hayward goes on to suggest that environmental catastrophies have driven political reform in other parts of the world:

“The Songhua River spill [in China] might be likened to the Cuyahoga River fire of 1969, which was one of the galvanizing events in the rise of the modern environmental movement in the U.S.. In a nutshell, the public outcry over the Cuyahoga River (which had experienced fires several times before with little public fanfare) showed that the affluent society no longer wished to be the effluent society. Certainly rising middle-class consciousness is involved with the popular protests about environmental calamity in China.

Perhaps the better comparison is with the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Soviet Union, which helped galvanize political liberalization under Mikhail Gorbachev. As has been demonstrated in numerous transnational studies, there is a strong correlation between various indices of political freedom and environmental performance.24 If China responds to its environmental challenges with administrative decentralization and greater use of market mechanisms and property rights, who knows where it might lead.”

I am interested in reliable sources of information on the state of the environment in China, particularly information on surface and ground water. Is there a best reference?

Darwin Braces for Cyclone Monica

By

“Darwin is preparing to weather the most intense storm ever seen in Australia’s northern waters, with winds of 350 kilometres an hour at the core of cyclone Monica. The category 5 storm is less than 400 kilometres from the Northern Territory capital, ” according to ABC Online.

Some time ago I discovered Jeff Master’s Wunderblog with everything you ever wanted to know about the next hurricane about to hit Florida, and then today I discovered he also covers Australia.

This is what he had to say about Monica and this year’s cyclone season in northern Australia:

“Australia’s hurricane season continues its parade of unusually intense storms this year with the intensification of Cyclone Monica today into a huge Category 5 storm. The 12 GMT advisory this morning from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center put Monica at 165 mph sustained winds and a 892 mb pressure, making it second most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. The most intense Southern Hemisphere cyclone on record was Cyclone Zoe of 2003, which had a 879 mb pressure. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology puts Monica’s pressure at 905 mb, which would make it the fifth strongest cyclone on record. Reliable records of cyclone intensity only go back to the mid-1980s in the Southern Hemisphere, but two of top five strongest hurricanes ever recorded there have occurred this year–Tropical Cyclone Glenda (898 mb) from March, and now Monica.

What’s really extraordinary about Monica is that she came so late in the season–tropical cyclone season is usually over by late April in the Southern Hemisphere. Monica’s formation echoes what happened in the Atlantic last year, with the intensification of Hurricane Wilma to a record 882 mb pressure very late in the hurricane season–October 19. When one adds in the $1 billion in devastation wrought in Queensland by Category 4 Cyclone Larry (915 mb) in March, Australians must feel like residents of hurricane alley in the Atlantic did last year, when three of the six strongest hurricanes on record occurred, causing the most damage ever–what’s going on with the weather?

However, be reminded that the Northern Hemisphere Pacific Ocean had a very below-normal tropical cyclone season last year, and the Indian Ocean also had below normal activity.”

Another ‘Climate Change’ Letter: Does 41 Trump 1?

By

In response to a letter in the Telegraph on 19th April from the President of the Royal Society, Lord Rees of Ludlow, asserting that the evidence for human-caused global warming “is now compelling”, 41 scientists have written to the same newspaper contradicting Lord Rees. Published in the the Telegraph today, the letter claims:

1. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’, and

2. Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

This is the third ‘climate change consensus’ letter in as many weeks, click here for links to previous letters.

Edward Celiz from Bodham Halt, Norfolk, has written to the newspaper complaining that:

“If I read another word about climate change, I shall go mad. Of course the climate is changing. That is what climate does, and has done so for billions of years. Do these scare-mongering pseudo-scientists really believe that puny man can control the unimaginable forces of nature by sticking a windmill on his roof, throwing away his fridge and planting a few trees?

Global warming? Perhaps, but what’s the betting that in a few years they will be telling us that they have got it wrong? That, in fact, the earth is getting colder?

My advice? Leave it to God.”

And I’m an atheist.

Norway to Kill More Whales

By

It’s official, Norway is planning to kill many more minke whales this season. The 2006 minke whale quote for Norway was officially set last December, the season started on the 1st April. The quota is much higher than for previous years. Here are some of the reasons as reported in the Orberlin Times:

“Norway‘s Foreign Ministry rejected the protest, saying the minke whales Norway harpoons for food in the North Atlantic are plentiful and well able to withstand the planned catch of 1,052 of the giant marine mammals in 2006…

“We are following procedures to ensure that whaling is within safe quotas,” he said, adding that Norway‘s catches were based upon guidelines laid down by the scientific committee of the IWC.

The 2006 hunt represents about one percent of a stock Norway estimates at 107,000 minke whales in its hunting areas in the North Atlantic. Minkes are relatively plentiful, unlike endangered blue whales.

Norway, in a move hailed by whalers but blasted by environmentalists, is also expanding hunts into international waters in the North Atlantic from its own zone for the first time since the 1980s.

It has long said whale stocks have grown uncontrollably since the 1986 moratorium and says the whales, which eat fish such as cod, are partly to blame for falling fish stocks.”

Peter Corkeron made the following comments about the Norwegian minke whale quote in a blog post at this site on 25th January:

“Minke quotas have trended upwards over time – the 2006 quota is 1052 animals. Some of this has come from carrying over untaken quotas from previous years – not a part of the Revised Management Plan/Revised Management Scheme as far as I’m aware. Some has come from changing the “tuning level” – a multiplier built into the CLA/RMP to allow for uncertainty, and changing circumstances. Other problems with quota setting include that predominantly female minkes are taken, and (as I understand it) the CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in a hunt.

On the science side, one main data requirement is an estimate of abundance with associated estimate of error. The point estimates for northern minke abundance from Norwegian surveys increased, as you note. But the two survey series weren’t directly comparable as they covered somewhat different areas. The most recent survey series was not synoptic – the survey area was divided into 5, with one area surveyed in each of five years. These surveys are logistically difficult to run, and synoptic surveys are really hard to organize – I think the last was in 1995.

So a strong assumption (that is, an assumption that, if it’s wrong, the analysis wrong) is that whales don’t move between survey areas between years. This remains untested.

The actual surveys are vessel-based distance sampling surveys – I’m presuming that you know what distance sampling is (and if this goes to your blog, folks will read up on it).

I’ve never taken part in one of the minke surveys, but know how they work, as I’ve taken part in others elsewhere (US waters, Antarctic). Unlike virtually all other vessel-based surveys for cetaceans, the Norwegian team don’t use binoculars. They have their reasons for this, but it reduces their effective strip width, hence their survey coverage and so the precision of their abundance estimates.

There have been technical queries in past years regarding the Norwegian surveys – double counting (i.e. accidentally recording one whale as two) is an example I recall from the 90s. These have been published as papers in the IWC journal and details can be found there. You have to read through the dry, mathematical language to get at the points being made. There are others who know far more about the machinations within the IWC than I do as I’ve only been to one IWC Scientific Committee meeting.”

While I appreciate that Peter has highlighted potential problems with the Norwegian survey method, I don’t get an appreciation for the extent to which these issues would/should change the overall minke whale quota for 2006.

Rune Frovik disputed some of Peter’s claims in a subsequent blog post, including that:

“The sex ratio is taken into account. Corkeron correctly points out that CLA assumes a balanced sex ratio in the hunt. But the CLA also has a mechanism in case of unbalanced sex ratios. So if the more than 50 percent of the harvested animals are female, this leads to lower quotas. This has been practiced for the Norwegian quota. If the sex ratio was balanced, the current quota could have been higher.”

————————–

Following comment from Peter Corkeron this blog post was changed and significantly expanded at 12noon on 25th April 2006.

Scientific Whaling: Podcast from Dana Centre

By

Members of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) voted in 1982 to ban commercial whaling beginning in the 1985-86 season. Since 1992, the IWC Scientific Committee has unsuccessfully requested that the Commission lift the moratorium and allow quotas for commercial whaling of some species.

Soon after the 1986 moratorium came into effect, Iceland and Japan began what is called ‘scientific whaling’ which is legal. Interestingly, Norway continues to hunt minke whales commercially and legally on the basis that it has lodged an objection to the ban.

The Dana Centre in London sponsored an on-line discussion on scientific whaling on April 6th which can be listened to by clicking here.

It is a long discussion, but worth the listen, particularly to hear Johan Sigurjonsson from Iceland talk about the politics and the science and how for him, there is nothing morally wrong with killing minke whales.

Isn’t the ban on commercial whaling a form of eco-imperialism with countries such as Australia, Britian and New Zealand imposing their will on Iceland and Japan?