Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

NZ Scientists Find Cure for Frog Killer Fungus

By

New Zealand scientists have found what appears to be a cure for the disease that is responsible for wiping out many of the world’s frog populations.

Chloramphenicol, currently used as an eye ointment for humans, may be a lifesaver for the amphibians, they say.

The researchers found frogs bathed in the solution became resistant to the killer disease, chytridiomycosis.

The fungal disease has been blamed for the extinction of one-third of the 120 species lost since 1980.

Story from the BBC News website: Frog killer fungus ‘breakthrough’

Cleaning Oil from Birds: A Note from Ann Novek

By

bird being washed 4 blog.jpg

Every year millions of birds die in oil spills around the world. Here’s the basics of how to clean a seabird:

– The birds suffer from hypothermia and have damages to their internal organs due to toxic oil. They suffer also from dehydration from diarrea.

– Do NOT clean the birds immediately. They need first to be stabilised with fluids and activated charcoal solution.

– It takes about 40 minutes for two people to clean a single bird.

– A good liquid to clean birds with is Dawn’s dishwashing liquid.

– After the cleaning, the birds often loose their appetite and need to be tube-fed with suitable nutrients , fluids and drugs.

– After the cleaning, the birds need a very warm place to rest in.

– After some days they are ready for the warm water pools, and finally for the cold water pools.

– Advanced rehab centers take blood samples from the birds to check if they are healthy enough to be released. The hemoglobin will be destroyed if the birds are too toxicated, causing anemia.

Cheers,
Ann
(in Sweden)

PS You can find more information here http://www.ibrrc.org/oil_affects.html

The Japanese and the Democrats want Australia GM Free

By

A delegation of Japanese anti-GM activists recently visited Australia demanding our farmers not grow genetically modified canola and then the Australian Democrats declared “keeping Australia GMO free” a federal election issue.

Today the Australian Oilseeds Federation has responded with a media release:

“The Australian Oilseeds Federation (AOF) urges recognition of the Australian grains industry’s capacity to deliver choice across the supply chain spectrum with the commercialisation of approved GM canola.

The capacity to deliver choice is built on the comprehensive and world-class protocols and processes that already operate in the Australian grains industry to enable grains and grain products to meet regulatory and customer specifications, and provide confidence to consumers.

Commenting on some recent claims from lobbyists that the Japanese market didn’t want GM canola, President of the Australian Oilseeds Federation, Robert Green, said the opposite is true.

“Japan has purchased GM canola from Canada for many years. Indeed, more than 80% of Japan’s canola imports are from Canada, and this is generally mixed with canola from Australia and from other countries,” he said.

“However, the AOF and the grains industry supply chain do recognise that within some markets there may be customers who prefer non-GM products.”

Mr Green said this is precisely what the Australian grains industry supply chain has considered, addressed and endorsed.

“If customers wish to purchase non-GM grain they can do so with confidence, knowing that the supply chain can be managed to meet their needs.

In August, the industry released a report signed-off by 29 key industry organisations.

Mr Green said this report demonstrates the industry’s capacity to manage canola in the supply chain and move ahead with the commercialisation of the approved GM canola varieties, whilst still ensuring the supply of non-GM canola.

“In endorsing this report, the AOF supports the lifting of the market-based moratoria so that farmers who want access to the approved GM varieties can choose to benefit from the technology, just as their competitors in Canada have been choosing to do for the past decade.”

Mr Green notes that the moratoria are concerned with market and trade considerations, the crux of which is the ability to deliver choice.

“Australia has a global reputation for delivering quality grain and oilseed products that meet customer specifications and requirements, and as such, has the capacity and flexibility within its supply chain to deliver choice and meet market requirements,” he said.

The ‘Delivering market choice with GM canola’ report is available via: www.afaa.com.au or www.australianoilseeds.com

John Howard, not Malcolm Turnbull, Explains Greenhouse Policy

By

I was interested to hear Australia’s shadow Environment Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, on ABC Radio National yesterday explain that should Labor win government, Australia would sign up to a post Kyoto agreement even if China and the US did not come onboard.

I then heard the Prime Minister, John Howard, phone in to local ABC radio claiming to be ”startled” by this revelation.

Mr Howard went on to explain that this was not responsible policy because Australia would be economically disadvantaged… essentially the same reason the Prime Minister uses for not signing Kyoto.

But the Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been silent on the issue.

Mr Turnbull also ignored the article, Time to Ditch Kyoto, published in science journal Nature just last Thursday that, while acknowledging that global warming is a real issue, explained in some detail what credible economists have been saying for some time, that the Kyoto Protocol is not a solution.

It is Coalition policy not to sign Kyoto. But such obvious potential life-lines as a major article in Nature supporting Coalition policy are being ignored, including by the Coalition.

Graham Young suggests the problem is Malcolm Turnbull:

“On Kyoto the Liberals have refused to ratify the treaty on the basis that it is mere ineffective symbolism. So you would have thought that they would have jumped on an article in the latest edition of Nature which not only agrees, but suggests the correct solution is to get the 20 largest polluters together to make an agreement, and to spend money on research and development – all Coalition initiatives that have been ridiculed by Labor. Yet they didn’t. Sunday’s papers made it clear why – Environment Minister Turnbull isn’t playing a team game and actually wants to ratify Kyoto…

Read the complete blog post here: http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002493.html

UK Sets Out Climate Change Bill

By

Details of a strengthened, more effective and more transparent Bill to help tackle climate change have today been set out by Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.

Mr Benn said that the Government would amend its draft Climate Change Bill, following a three-month public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by three parliamentary committees.

When originally published in March 2007, the draft Bill set out clear legally binding targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the UK by at least 60 per cent by 2050 and 26 to 32 per cent by 2020. This is to be based on a new system of “carbon budgets” set at least fifteen years ahead. It also proposed the creation of a new independent, expert Committee on Climate Change to advise on the best way to achieve these targets.

The changes to the draft Bill, set out in a Command Paper entitled ‘Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill’ published today, include:

As announced by the Prime Minister in September, asking the Committee on Climate Change to report on whether the Government’s target to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 60 percent by 2050 should be strengthened further;
Asking the Committee to look at the implications of including other greenhouse gases and emissions from international aviation and shipping in the UK’s targets as part of this review;

Strengthening the role and responsibilities of the Committee on Climate Change, including by requiring the Government to seek the Committee’s advice before amending the 2020 or 2050 targets in the Bill;

Strengthening the Committee’s independence from Government, by confirming that it will appoint its own chief executive and staff, and increasing its analytical resources;

Increased transparency, by requiring the Committee to publish its analysis and advice to Government on setting five-yearly carbon budgets, which are designed to provide clarity on the UK’s route towards its reduction targets;

Strengthening Parliament’s ability to hold Government to account, by requiring the Government to explain its reasons to Parliament if it does not accept the Committee’s advice on the level of the carbon budget, or if it does not meet a budget or target;

Providing better information and streamlining reporting, including requiring the Government to report annually to Parliament on emissions from international aviation and shipping, in line with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

Strengthening the country’s preparedness for climate change by requiring the Government regularly to assess the risks of climate change to the UK, and to report to Parliament on its proposals and policies for sustainable adaptation to climate change.

Mr Benn said:

“We need to step up the fight against climate change and we need to do it fast.

“The draft bill we set out earlier this year, and have now refined, is a ground breaking blueprint for moving the UK towards a low carbon economy.It will bind us to legally enforceable emissions reduction targets at home, while giving us greater clout at the international negotiating table.

“I am extremely grateful for the invaluable input from the three Parliamentary committees, and from industry and the wider public that has brought us to this point. Thanks to their efforts we will now have a Bill that is stronger, more effective and more transparent.

“In short, they have helped make a good Bill better.”

Mr Benn also confirmed that the Bill will be used to:

·Introduce the Carbon Reduction Commitment – a new cap and trade scheme for large organisations not already covered by other schemes;

·Help ensure that the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation, which is expected to deliver significant carbon savings from the road transport sector by increasing the use of biofuels, delivers environmental benefits; and

·Provide a power so that a number of local authorities who want to can pilotincentives for household waste minimisation and recycling.

Taken together it is estimated that these three policies could save the equivalent of up to 9.4 to 13.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year by 2020.

The Government now plans to introduce a revised Bill to Parliament at the earliest possible legislative opportunity.

Notes to editors:
The Command Paper ‘Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill’ and summary of consultation responses can be accessed at www.defra.gov.uk.

The Command Paper responds to reports by three parliamentary committees: the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in its Fifth Report, and the Environmental Audit Committee as part of its enquiry entitled Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill. It also responds to the nearly 17,000 responses to the public consultation on the draft Bill, which ran from 13 March to 12 June 2007.

Other key points of the draft Climate Change Bill, set out in March 2007 include:
A new system of legally binding five year “carbon budgets” , set at least 15 years ahead, to provide clarity on the UK’s optimum pathway towards its key targets and increase the confidence and certainty for business planning and investment in technology needed to move towards a low-carbon economy.

A new statutory body, the Committee on Climate Change, to provide independent expert advice and guidance to Government on achieving its targets and staying within its carbon budgets.

A new system of annual open and transparent reporting to Parliament. The Committee on Climate Change will provide an independent progress report to which the Government must respond. This will ensure the Government is held to account every year on its progress towards each five year carbon budget and the 2020 and 2050 targets.

A requirement for Government to report at least every five years on current and predicted impacts of climate change and on its proposals and policy for adapting to climate change.

DEFRA PR, 29th October 2007

Land Clearing and Climate Change in Australia

By

The University of Queensland’s Dr Clive McAlpine said their research showed the clearing of native vegetation had made Australian droughts hotter.

“Our findings highlight that it is too simplistic to attribute climate change purely to greenhouse gases,” said Dr McAlpine of UQ’s Centre for Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Science.

The study titled “Modelling Impacts of Vegetation Cover Change on Regional Climate” will be published later this year in Geophysical Research Letters.

Read the full article in The Sydney Morning Herald entitled, ‘Land clearing blamed for climate change.’