Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for September 2007

Exxon Mobile Saves Tigers? A Note from Ann Novek

By

Brendan Moyle has previously provided us with alternative ways to save tigers from extinction.

Now the World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies states that tiger parts are not necessary for traditional medicines, and alternatives are available and effective. Can this statement from the organisation save tigers?

Excerpts from an opinion letter to the Los Angeles Times , by Vinod Thomas, director general of the Independent Evaluation Group at the World Bank states :

“How has the tiger’s fate come to this? The foremost reason is poaching to meet demand for tiger products used in traditional medicines in China and other parts of East Asia. The other crucial factor is the continuous loss of tiger habitat, which is down by about 40% across India in the last decade, along with which has disappeared much of its prey.

“To make matters worse, there now is relentless pressure from tiger farmers in East Asia to legalize the trade in the bones, fur, paws, penis and teeth of their animals. On the surface, the case made for legalizing the sale of tiger parts is beguiling. By flooding the market with parts from farm-raised tigers, it’s argued, prices will plummet, reducing the profitability of poaching. A cited analogy: People don’t hunt wild turkeys for Thanksgiving when supermarkets overflow with farmed supplies.

“But to reduce poaching, those who raise tigers in captivity would need to undercut the cost of supplying the parts from wild tigers. That’s improbable. Poaching in India, by poisoning or with simple steel traps, costs less than $100 a tiger (plus transport and other costs). Raising one in captivity — even three or more to a cage — costs about $3,000.

“Conservationists warn that legalizing the tiger trade would be the death knell for tigers in the wild. That’s because it will always be cheaper to hunt tigers, and poaching will be less risky if poached parts can be easily laundered — that is, passed off as coming from captive-bred animals”.

“What now?

“It is essential to deal with poaching and the demand for tiger parts in traditional medicine immediately. The World Federation of Chinese Medicine Societies states that tiger parts are not necessary for traditional medicines, and alternatives are available and effective. So there are solid reasons to strongly enforce the international ban on the tiger trade, and for China to keep its 1993 domestic ban securely in place.”

“As the symbol of countries, teams and corporations, the tiger has helped sell beer, sports goods and breakfast cereal. Now it could use some high-profile reciprocity. Support from private corporations — such as Exxon Mobil’s Save the Tiger Fund — as well as the Asian business diaspora and international agencies could prove decisive. But the moment for action is now. Without immediate financial and political commitments, it will be too late to save this mesmerizing animal”

So can the tigers survive with the help of Exxon Mobile , that Greenpeace has proclaimed as the “Criminal # 1 of the Planet”?

Ann Novek
Sweden

Another One Bites The Dust

By

VA State Climatologist skeptical of global warming loses job after clash with Governor: ‘I was told that I could not speak in public’

Excerpt: Gov. Kaine had warned Michaels not to use his official title in discussing his views.

“I resigned as Virginia state climatologist because I was told that I could not speak in public on my area of expertise, global warming, as state climatologist,” Michaels said in a statement this week provided by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he has been a fellow since 1992. “It was impossible to maintain academic freedom with this speech restriction.”

Less Visibility in Store After Boss’s Departure

Global Warming Views Drew Criticism

By Jackie Spinner Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 29, 2007; Page B03

Maybe Patrick Michaels should apply to Soros for funding to protect free speech!?

An Inconvenient Youth

By

Wall Street Journal

‘Mom, we gotta buy a hybrid!’ Kids are becoming the green movement’s stealth weapon, pressuring their parents on everything from lightbulbs to composting. Inside the push to create the littlest eco-warriors.

Inconvenient Youths: Eco-warrior kids go after parents for ‘environmental offenses’

Excerpt: In households across the country, kids are going after their parents for environmental offenses, from using plastic cups to serving non-grass-fed beef at the dinner table. Many of these kids are getting more explicit messages about becoming eco-warriors at school and from popular books and movies. This year’s global-warming documentary “Arctic Tale,” for instance, closes with a child actor telling kids, “If your mom and dad buy a hybrid car, you’ll make it easier for polar bears to get around.”

Kids on field trips to the Garbage Museum in Stratford, Conn., are sent home with instructions to recycle cans, bottles, newspaper and junk mail. The museum hosted 388 schools visits last year, 42 more than the year before. At one California elementary school, kids are given environmental activities to do with their families — including one where parents have to yank out the refrigerator and clean the coils to make it more energy efficient.

“Kids are putting pressure on their parents, and this is a very good thing,” says Laurie David, a producer of the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” Ms. David is the co-author of a new children’s book, “The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming,” which urges kids, among other things, to petition mom and dad for recycled-fiber toilet paper.

“I know how powerful my kids are,” she says. “When they want something, forget it — all the resistance in the world isn’t going to help you.”

Read more:

Inconvenient Youths: Eco-warrior kids go after parents for ‘environmental offenses’

The Ecological Impacts of Electricity in the Daintree

By

“How do you think the unique fauna of the Daintree rainforest will fare against anthropogenic global warming?”

The inquiry was put to me last night at the conclusion of a nocturnal wildlife spotting tour and such questions are becoming more frequent.

I answered that I understood that the greatest losses suffered by the inhabitants of the ancient forests of Gondwana were brought about by global cooling and drying via circumpolar currents derived from the break-up of the super-continents; particularly the separation of Australia from Antarctica. A warmer, wetter climate should favour an expansion of tropical rainforest habitat.

Renewables.jpg

Earlier in the day I was dealing with another concern that had previously compelled government intervention to purportedly protect the important ecological values of the Daintree from the adverse impacts of non-renewable electricity generation. On the 7th May 2000, the Queensland Government adopted an amended electricity policy for the area north of the Daintree River:

The extension of mains electricity supply was opposed and, as an alternative, the use of stand-alone power systems was to be supported. (Right of appeal: Not applicable).

The Daintree Futures Study 2000, states (p 99): Underlying this policy … is the belief that renewable energy generation is desirable in the Daintree as a demonstration of commitment to sustainable energy development and sensitivity to the special values of the area.

It had become apparent that our household reliance upon engine generators had increased significantly over the previous six months and solar contribution had declined through the impact of a lightning strike. I had dreaded this inevitability; large, prominent metallic structures strategically positioned to optimize unobstructed access to sunlight (and lightning). Tell-tale burns were revealed on the newer, more powerful 738 watt string of the four-string array.

The Daintree Futures Study 2000, states (p 99): Businesses in the Daintree Cape Tribulation area are currently not eligible for any subsidy programs for RAPS systems. This is despite a statement by the Minister for Mines and Energy in October, 1999 that, “A commercial rebate scheme is also to be introduced”. The lack of a subsidy has likely hampered economic development, as businesses have had to fund substantial capital to establish their generation plant, and higher operating and maintenance costs. The variable cost to generate power privately via diesel generators will be in the order of 25-35 cents/kWh compared to grid subsidised power costs of 10 cents/kWh. Businesses such as hotels and accommodation facilities will have annual power demand of between 50 000kWh and 1GWh per annum (any reasonable size business would have a power demand of 50 000kWh per annum or greater). The additional annual cost, adjusted for company tax, of self-generation versus grid will be in the range of $5 000 to $167 000.

The Queensland Remote Area Power Supplies (RAPS) Trials 1999 (Walden & Behrendorff), summarized data in the fastidiously maintained Daintree Cape Tribulation sites at 82-3% reliant upon engine generation.

Indeed, over the past seven years, not only have fuel prices skyrocketed, but residents and business-owners within the Daintree Cape Tribulation community have carried the cost of supply, maintenance and replacement of components, at as much as twenty-times the total cost per kilowatt-hour of other Queensland consumers.

It is incongruous, to say the least, that the excision from the distribution area was for the stated purpose of conforming with the government’s environmental policies, when its consequences include hundreds of concurrently running engine generators with their noise, fuel and oil spills. For a community with a regulated conservation management responsibility, generators simply do not make the grade.

Greenhouse 2007, 2-5 October 2007, The Hilton, Sydney

By

“GREENHOUSE 2007 is a unique opportunity to hear the latest findings in climate science, and discuss the implications for Australia and the region.

Approximately 50 of the world’s leading climate researchers will attend, including John Church, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Jerry Meehl and Kevin Trenberth.

We are also pleased to confirm that Dr Jim Peacock, Australia’s Chief Scientist, and Prof. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, will be presenting at GREENHOUSE 2007.”

Program here.

Palaeontologist Tim Flannery will also be there.

As a UK taxpayer, I expect I’ll be helping to foot the bill for the likes of Phil Jones and Sir David King. Colloid Chemist Sir David is perhaps best remembered for his claims that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism, and Antarctica will become the only habitable place on Earth, thanks to global warming.

Thanks to Luke Walker for alerting me to Greenhouse 2007.

Bush Goes Green (Sort Of)

By

White House Press Release

President Bush Participates in Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you. Welcome to the State Department. I’m honored to address this historic meeting on energy security and climate change. And I appreciate you all being here.

Energy security and climate change are two of the great challenges of our time. The United States takes these challenges seriously. The world’s response will help shape the future of the global economy and the condition of our environment for future generations. The nations in this room have special responsibilities. We represent the world’s major economies, we are major users of energy, and we have the resources and knowledge base to develop clean energy technologies.

Our guiding principle is clear: We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people. We know this can be done. Last year America grew our economy while also reducing greenhouse gases. Several other nations have made similar strides.

This progress points us in the right direction, but we’ve got to do more. So before this year’s G8 summit, I announced that the United States will work with other nations to establish a new international approach to energy security and climate change. Today’s meeting is an important step in this process. With the work we begin today, we can agree on a new approach that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, strengthen energy security, encourage economic growth and sustainable development, and advance negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Applause.)

Still awake?

Read more.

Also, from CCNet:

Last year, the United States grew our economy, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
–US President Bush, 28 September 2007

US President George W Bush infuriated his critics by professing world leadership on climate change at his meeting of the top 16 world economies – while offering no new substantive policy and implicitly rejecting binding emissions controls. Some delegates were particularly upset by the extravagant invitation by Mr Bush for other nations to follow the US lead in cutting emissions while increasing the economy.
–Roger Harrabin, BBC News, 29 September 2007

Denmark’s CO2 emissions rose 16.1 per cent in 2006 compared to the previous year on the back of strong economic growth and electricity exports from coal-fired power plants, according to statistics released today.
–Point Carbon, 28 September 2007

European leaders are getting a bit impatient, not on our own behalf but on behalf of the planet. China, India and the other industrializing countries will not do anything unless the U.S. is moving.
–Connie Hedegaard, Danish Environment Minister, Washington Post, 26 September 2007

The 16 nations, invited by Bush in an initiative he unveiled ahead of the Group of Eight (G8) summit in July, were: Australia, Britain, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States. Representatives from the EU and UN also attended.

These economies together account for about 80 percent of global emissions, according to US figures.