Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Uncategorized

Join the Revolution

By

I’ve heard environmentalism described by Walter Starck as a quasi-religious blend of new-age nature worship, junk science, left-wing political activism and anti-profit economics.

While this description may apply to some deep green activists, it’s also true to say that we are all environmentalists now.

But most Australians have little say in the environmental policies being put to government. These policies are almost exclusively the domain of a tight network of conservation groups with a particular world view.

But the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is different.

At the first Conference and AGM for the Australian Environment Foundation, Mike Archer will plead for, what he describes as the revolution we must have – between the ears and on the land – in our approach to sustaining environments as well as rural and regional communities in a changing world.

Now, do your bit for the environment, copy this image to your website or blog:

AEF_conf_ad_island_all_hotspot.gif

————————
I’m a director of the AEF.

Forget Ethanol, Let’s Make Environmentally Friendly Diesel & Petrol: Ray Wilson

By

Yesterday the Prime Minister John Howard announced a $1.576 billion funding package over eight-years to promote alternative fuels. The package included rebates for converting cars to LPG and $17 million over three years for petrol stations to install new pumps or convert existing pumps to E10 blends and to encourage sales of E10. E10 is an ethanol-blended fuel.

And yesterday I received an email from Ray Wilson with the comment:

“I read a lot about the production of ethanol by agriculture. Ethanol is not a good fuel because a standard petrol engine needs to be extensively modified to use 100% ethanol as it has only half the energy density of petrol.

However, just as one can produce petrol and diesel from coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, one can use cellulosic (Wood, leaves, grass, grains, etc) matter too to make petrol and diesel by this method. This can be done profitably and the process is well-known.

So instead of setting up plants to make ethanol why not set them up to make diesel and petrol instead?

I would do this myself, but I lack the basic access to funds to do much. However, perhaps there are farmers or other industrialists who may be able to use the information, to the benefit of our country and the environment.

I would very much like to ensure too that anyone who is intending to produce ethanol is aware that the technology already exists to make environmentally-friendly diesel and petrol before they take the step to go ahead and make ethanol. I believe they would be making a mistake.”

I responded suggesting that it was presumably uneconomic, and Ray emailed back:

“Strangely enough, the Fischer-Tropsch process used to convert cellulosic matter into diesel and petrol has not been mentioned by anyone that I know about. I hear no debate about it at all.

I think the reason for this is simply that it has not occurred to anyone yet. I would like to at least ask the people who are thinking of making ethanol whether they have considered this process. But I do not know who they are or how to contact them.

The Fischer-Tropsch process is normally used to convert coal to fuels, but it works equally well with cellulosic matter as a feedstock.

So instead of just using the sugar cane juice to make ethanol and discarding the residue, one can convert the entire plant into diesel and petrol and discard very little. Any plant material will do too.

The subsides are available for anyone who wants to proceed with this R&D and the project itself, provided one has the collateral to cover 50% of the Federal loan. I do not have this, so it is very difficult for me to do anything myself. I actually looked into this in some detail recently.

Plant oils are suitable for use as a diesel fuel, but the rest of the plant is discarded as waste. For example, oil-palm nuts are crushed to yield their oil, but the pulp is discarded. Not very efficient.”

Wilderness Society Should Acknowledge Woody Weed Problem: Doug Menzies

By

Last week on Channel 9’s Sunday Program, Reece Turner from The Wilderness Society stated: “We haven’t seen any scientific evidence to show that biodiversity is being impacted negatively by these woody weeds.”

Sunday reporter Ross Coulthart then asked Turner, “Do you accept that there are woody weed areas causing major environmental damage?” Turner’s response to the question was: “No. We don’t accept there are major environmental damages being caused by woody weeds.”

Mr Doug Menzies, in a media release from NSW Regional Community Survival Group, said that The Wilderness Society needs to drop its emotive rhetoric on land clearing in western NSW and urgently review the scientific literature on how infestations of woody weeds degrade the landscape.

The media release continued:

“The Channel 9 footage showing vast tracts of land degraded by woody weeds clearly showed how little understanding Reece Turner has on this issue. Turner needs to get off his bum and make the effort to review the scientific literature that details the negative environmental impacts of woody weeds,” Mr Menzies said.

Below are just some of the published scientific journals and reports that confirm the destructive impact of infestations of woody weeds on the environment:

Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Scrub and Timber Regrowth in the Cobar-Byrock district and other areas of the Western Division, NSW. February 1969.
“The density of timber and scrub regrowth on level loamy soils, which would normally run little water, is such that the small open spaces between clumps are completely bare and becoming wind sheeted and water sheeted. This class of country thus becomes a mosaic of bare, wind and water sheeted patches on which nothing can grow, interspersed with small clumps of thick scrub.”

Alchin, B.M., Proude, C.K., and Condon, R.W. (1979). Control of Woody Weeds in Western NSW. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Conference.
“Regrowth of woody weeds is a major problem over millions of hectares on the rangelands of western NSW. The regrowth reduces pasture growth, increases management costs and results in soil erosion.”

Control of Woody Weeds. Woody Weeds Taskforce. Information Sheet 5. September 1990.
“Woody weeds are native shrubs which have encroached formerly open lands of western NSW. The encroachment has lowered pastoral productivity, reduced botanical and faunal diversity, reduced land values and increased the risk of water and wind erosion. Much of the area has now changed and is dominated by a dense understorey of shrubs. It has been estimated that 20 million hectares of western NSW are either already encroached or highly susceptible to woody weed encroachment.”

Booth, C.A., King, G.W., and Sanchez-Bayo, F. (1996). Establishment of woody weeds in western NSW. 1. Seedling emergence and phenology. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 58-79.
“While the semi-arid range lands of Australia have historically been regarded as amongst the nation’s greatest assets, millions of hectares have unfortunately deteriorated considerably due to the spread of unpalatable native shrubs on open grazing lands. As a consequence of the reduced feed available on infested land, livestock and native animals graze more heavily on unaffected areas, which in turn become more susceptible to erosion and to further invasion by shrubs.”

Daly, R.L., and Hodgkinson, K.C. (1996). Relationships between grass, shrub and tree cover on four landforms of semi-arid eastern Australia, and prospects for change by burning. Rangeland Journal. Vol. 18, Issue 1. pp 104-117.
“The range of grass, shrub and tree levels present in the Louth region of western NSW was determined in an area where woody weeds are considered to be rampant, and the prospects for change by burning were evaluated. The survey confirmed the perception of pastoralists, administrators and scientists that shrub cover is unacceptably high for pastoralism throughout much of the region. Additionally, the perennial grass cover was very low and this would increase the instability of forage supply to pastoral herbivores.”

CSIRO. Media Release – “No Half Measures to Deal with Woody Weeds.” May 15, 1998.
“Woody weeds have been a problem for more than a century. Since the first two decades of pastoral settlement, there has been a vast area affected by increasing density of the shrubs, largely as a result of declining fire frequency. Some 35 million hectares or 25 per cent of NSW is affected.” Dr Jim Noble, CSIRO Wildlife and Ecology.

Blueprint for a Living Continent. A Way Forward from The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Nov 2002).
“Clear distinction needs to be made between the need to stop broadscale clearing of remnant native vegetation and the need to control shrub invasion in the semi-arid and arid pastoral areas of Australia. This part of Australia has been managed by indigenous Australians for 45,000 years, using fire. Since European settlement these fire management practices have changed which is causing environmental damage in some areas.”

Landholders in western NSW and Queensland may have felt some relief last Sunday with well known journalist Ross Coulthart acknowledging the very real problem of invasive woody weeds. But it appears the Wilderness Society is now going to ignore the event and the issues it raised. There has been no official response from the organisation; no media release attempting to justify their position. I guess this strategy makes it difficult for landholders to get any traction on the issue in the mainstream media? How do you have a debate when one side won’t debate?

Counting Whales & Conservation Priorities

By

Have you ever wondered how scientists count whales and how accurate their population estimates are?

The June issue of ‘Significance’ a journal focused on statistics has an article by Philip Hammond, a former Chairman of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Committee (IWC), explaining some of the techniques for estimating population numbers and it includes comment that:

“The minke whale is the most abundant species of baleen whale, with a world population of hundreds of thousands, maybe as much as a million. In recent years most whales killed for commercial purposes have been minkes. In the North Atlantic about 600 a year have been taken by Norway under objection to the moratorium and about 30 to 40 by Iceland under special permit. Japan annually takes about 450 minke whales in the Southern Ocean and about 150 in the North Pacific under special permit. These catches are small relative to the estimated numbers of whales and are unlikely to have an adverse impact on populations.

The number of blue whales in the world, however, is only a few thousand. In the Southern Ocean an estimated 400 to 1400 remain from a population that probably once numbered about 750 000. Blue whales have been protected since the 1960s but they have very low rates of increase and it will be a long time before we know whether or not they will recover from the devastating exploitation of the 20th century.”

So what is limiting the recovery of blue whale numbers?

I’ve been told that minke whales compete with blue whales and that high minke whale population numbers could be impacting on the recovery of blue whales?[1] If this is the case, could harvesting of minke whales by the Japanese in the Antarctic help recovery of the depressed blue whale population?

After posting this note, I received an email from a reader with comment that: If blue whales are failing to recover it may be because of the various problems associated with small population size. …The contention that Blue Whale recovery in the Antarctic is being inhibited by prey competition from Minke Whales has little basis in existing data. …although the Blue Whale’s dependence upon a single food source (krill) is somewhat offset by the latter’s great abundance, this stenophagy would make the species more vulnerable in the event of a major decline in prey. [2]

Ann Novek recently sent me a note explaining that: “There are no direct actions against Norwegian whaling anymore from Greenpeace’s side, the new tactic is dialogue. Norwegian whaling has silenced a lot since the turbulent 90’s.”[3]

According to Norwegian Greenpeace activist Truls Gulowsen speaking three years ago, last year’s a quota of 600 minke whales posed no threat to minke whales in the north east Atlantic. He has also suggested that campaigns against whaling can distract from the real threats to the coast, including overfishing and the risk of oil industry pollution.

What are the most significant threats to the world’s whales? Which whale species really need ‘saving’ and how can they be best ‘saved’?

—————-
[1] I’ve not seen the supporting studies/literature. If you have links/references please post as a comment or send to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com
[2] From Clapham, P.J., Young, S.B. & Brownell, R.L. Jr. 1999. Baleen whales: conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations. Mammal Review 29: 35-60. http://whale.wheelock.edu/archives/ask01/att-0020/01-blue.rtf
[3] Thanks to Ann for sending the note with information and links including: ‘Norway’s Disputed Whaling Season Opens’ Monday April 18, 2005, By DOUG MELLGREN, Associated Press Writer, OSLO, Norway, &
‘Redde verdenshavene’ (Save the Oceans) and ‘Hvalfangst’ ( Whaling) at http://www.greenpeace.org/norway/campaigns/hav/hvalfangst (Only in Norwegian), & Truls Gulowsen’s statement “that a quota of 600 minke whales poses no threat to the minke whale population” from the magasine Folkevett at
http://www.folkevett.no/index.php?back=1&artikkelid=1079 ( only in Norwegian).

More Tuna Than Agreed?

By

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s managing director, Richard McLoughlin, claims Japan has been exceeding its quota of southern bluefin tuna for the last 20 years and not just by a few fish. In an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald entiled ‘Revealed: how Japan caught and hid $2b worth of rare tuna’ he claims they have been catching 3 times their quota.*

But last time I read-up on the issue, it was apparent Japan never agreed to operate within the quote that it had been allocated. This is what I wrote at this blog on 1st June last year:

“I was concerned to learn that the Southern bluefin tuna fishery is shared with Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea and New Zealand. The total global catch peaked in 1961 at 81,605 tonnes and was then in general decline for three decades. Since 1990 the total catch has ranged from between 13,231 tonnes (1994) to 19,588 tonnes (1999). Stock assessments suggest that the parental biomass is low but stable and unlikely to recover to target levels unless all countries agree to abide by national allocations as determined by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. While Australia apparently operates within its allocation, Japan has not agreed to operate within its allocation, and Indonesia does not recognise the Commission.”

The Sydney Morning Herald article does not appear to have been properly research and it doesn’t look like the Japanese were given an opportunity to tell their side of the story? Furthermore, is it appropriate for Mr McLoughlin to describe the Japanese action as ‘fraud’ if they never agreed to a quota?

—————–
*According to the Sydney Morning Herald article: Mr McLoughlin was speaking at an ANU seminar in a speech recorded and posted on the internet and the official findings of an inquiry into the issue were presented at an international meeting in Canberra in July, but kept confidential. I’ve had a quick look for the speech on the internet but couldn’t find it. If you can, please post the url as a comment or send me an email jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com.

The Smartest Guys in the Room?

By

Graham Young posted the following comment last night at an earlier blog post on climate change:

“Good to see we’ve moved on to the Hockey Stick. I find it interesting that while Enron’s auditor, Arthur Andersen, is virtually no more, because of its lack of oversight in “refereeing” (to borrow a scientific term to cover an accounting situation) the accounts of the company; and Enron’s highest executives were sent to jail, nothing much has happened to Mann et al, or their referees. Yet the Mann et al analysis has a lot in common with Enron.

While the original mathematical error was probably accidental, the perpetuation of it couldn’t have been, once the McIntyre and MacKittrick analysis had been released. Enron was a company that once made real profits, but got into modelling the future and counting the results of its models as profits, which it then reported as real, despite the evidence. In the real world, rather than the real climate world, that is called fraud.

Worse, Mann et al set up their blog to, amongst other things, essentially defame their critics. Likewise, Kenneth Lay et al did their level best to defame and discredit their critics.

The climate community seem to just regard this issue as just a bit of a dust-up (including many of the contributors to this blog’s comment box). In fact, it is far more serious than that, and the fact that reasonable people can have that attitude points to the serious crisis that there appears to be in some parts, at least, of the scientific community.

What has gone on here is criminal. Public monies have been directed in ways that they shouldn’t have been on the basis of this graph. The attempt to cover-up the problems is fraud. It’s about time that someone took legal action, assuming there is a law which makes this possible. If the law hasn’t envisaged this particular issue and neglected it, then one should be enacted to take accounts of these facts.

Of course, the irony is that the graph couldn’t have been correct in the first place as it didn’t take account of the medieval warm period, which we know from observation to have been much warmer than now. So why did so many otherwise intelligent people go along for the ride?

And don’t anyone tell me that the medieval warm period was a localised effect. If that was the case, where were the much colder counterbalancing areas in the reconstruction?”