Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for September 2007

Whaling in the North – Part 3 from Ann Novek

By

In the beginning of the Northern hemisphere spring , I asked if

1) Iceland would export Fin whales to Japan
2) Norway would fill its whaling quota

Now we know the answers to these questions.

Iceland will not renew its permits for commercial whaling due to lack of an export market to Japan .

And what about Norway?

According to Reuters:

“Norwegian whalers caught just over half their quota of 1,052 minke whales in 2007, a small rise from last year, but hunters and their opponents dispute whether regulations or dwindling demand cut back the catch”

Rune Frövik from the High North Alliance stated that whalers could have killed about 200 more minke whales if the Government haven’t imposed restrictions on whaling. ( Restrictions to whale in coastal areas).

According to Greenpeace Norway, few whales were hunted due to a lack of demand from Norwegians.

“Environmental group Greenpeace, which condemns whaling, said declining demand explained why fewer whales had been caught than the quota set by the Norwegian government allowed.

“Whalers have been stopped by economic interest because there is no market for whale meat in Norway or elsewhere. Even if they could catch more … they chose not to,” said Truls Gulowsen, manager of Greenpeace Norway”

But Rune has said that despite the regulations, 2007 had still proved to be a better season than 2006 for the whalers.

“Prices have increased, more volume has been caught. Weather conditions have been good compared to 2006.”

[from Ann Novek, Sweden]

CO2 Needs to Rise with Temperature for Chinese Food Security

By

According to a new paper entitled Climate change and critical thresholds in China’s food security ** if global temperatures continue to rise it would appear imperative that CO2 concentration also continue to rise. Only if CO2 concentrations rise with temperature will China be able to adequately feed its growing population.

Read more here: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N36/B1.jsp

————————————–
** Climate change and critical thresholds in China’s food security by Xiong, W., Lin, E., Ju, H. and Xu, Y. (2007) In Climatic Change 81: 205-221.

Greenwashing River Red Gums

By

Ecotourism Australia has thrown its weight behind the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council’s River Red Gum Forest Draft Proposal, claiming that it will open up important new ecotourism opportunities for the region.

However, another NGO, Timber Communities Australia, argues that as many as 400 families, whose livelihoods are dependent on access to these forests, will be adversely affected by the proposals.

Ecotourism Australia’s foray into the debate represents an expression of its mission to contribute to conservation solutions and projects; involving and providing benefits to local communities, but will those 400 families be the targeted beneficiaries?

My dubiousness reflects the pre-existing capacity of genuine ecotourism to access an already existing superb environment. Change of tenure to National Park is not prerequisite. What is does provide though, is subsidisation of the full costs of conservation and commercial operator relief of the requirement to improve the well-being of local people.

Genuine ecotourism is internationally defined as:

Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.

Ecotourism Australia is a membership-based organisation that is strongly representative of protected area managers and holders of commercial activity permits. It has adopted a different definition to the international standard:

Ecologically sustainable tourism with a primary focus on experiencing natural areas that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation.

The Oslo Statement on Ecotourism was recently produced at the Global Ecotourism Conference held in Norway 2007.

‘Ecotourism’ was recognized as being widely used, but also abused, as it is not sufficiently anchored to the definition. The ecotourism community, therefore, continues to face significant challenges in awareness building and education and actively working against greenwashing within the tourism industry.

Do Carbon ‘Offsets’ Work?

By

Thanks to Marc Morano for alerting us to the article in the Los Angeles Times ‘Can you buy a greener conscience?‘

A budding industry sells ‘offsets’ of carbon emissions, investing in environmental projects. But there are doubts about whether it works.

By Alan Zarembo

September 2, 2007

The Oscar-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth” touted itself as the world’s first carbon-neutral documentary.

The producers said that every ounce of carbon emitted during production — from jet travel, electricity for filming and gasoline for cars and trucks — was counterbalanced by reducing emissions somewhere else in the world. It only made sense that a film about the perils of global warming wouldn’t contribute to the problem.

Co-producer Lesley Chilcott used an online calculator to estimate that shooting the film used 41.4 tons of carbon dioxide and paid a middleman, a company called Native Energy, $12 a ton, or $496.80, to broker a deal to cut greenhouse gases elsewhere. The film’s distributors later made a similar payment to neutralize carbon dioxide from the marketing of the movie.

It was a ridiculously good deal with one problem: So far, it has not led to any additional emissions reductions.

Beneath the feel-good simplicity of buying your way to carbon neutrality is a growing concern that the idea is more hype than solution.

According to Native Energy, money from “An Inconvenient Truth,” along with payments from others trying to neutralize their emissions, went to the developers of a methane collector on a Pennsylvanian farm and three wind turbines in an Alaskan village.

As it turned out, both projects had already been designed and financed, and the contributions from Native Energy covered only a minor fraction of their costs. “If you really believe you’re carbon neutral, you’re kidding yourself,” said Gregg Marland, a fossil-fuel pollution expert at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee who has been watching the evolution of the new carbon markets. “You can’t get out of it that easily.”

Read more.

Senator Inhofe Claims Consensus Media-Driven

By

According to Senator James Inhofe of the US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, the “global warming consensus” continues to melt away:

“We are witnessing an international awakening of scientists who are speaking out in opposition to former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media-driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. In May, I released a report detailing scientists who were former believers in catastrophic man-made climate change but who have recently reversed themselves and are now skeptics.

“I will also be releasing a list of the hundreds of scientists, many of them affiliated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, who have spoken out recently to oppose climate alarmism. It is ironic that the media’s climate hysteria grows louder as the latest scientific reports grow less and less alarming. Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise estimates in half since 2001 and has reduced man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%. Meanwhile, a separate UN report found that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and trucks.

“The New York Times is now debunking aspects of climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006, article in the Times by Andrew Revkin stated: “few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault (a result of manmade emissions). There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.” The Times is essentially conceding that no recent weather events are outside of natural climate variability. So all the climate doomsayers have to back up their claims of climate fears are unproven computer models. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today.

Read the rest of the article in the latest issue of Power magazine here. Click on ‘Commentary.’

Aerosol-Abatement Strategies to Reduce AGW

By

“Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he’s worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs “in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars.” He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against Nazi Germany and Japan .

“Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing,” he explains. “I don’t think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate.”

“Few scientists speak with more conviction, or lay out the potential consequences of inaction more starkly. Yet Stephen Schwartz, senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory, chief scientist of the Atmospheric Science Program of the United Stated Department of Energy, and author of the study some credit with spurring acid rain legislation in the 1990s, is also Al Gore’s worst nightmare. He knows the science on global warming is not settled, as Gore claims. He knows society has antidotes to carbon dioxide — aerosols — that could postpone the day of reckoning far into the future. And although he dreads a reliance on the aerosols, he knows respected scientists are pursuing aerosol-abatement strategies, and that they could be cost effective and environmentally benign.

Read the rest of the article by Lawrence Solomon in The Financial Post here.