New Phylogenetic Tree Project

I've started constructing a phylogenetic tree of as many species as possible on the tree of life. Check it out on my website here. It's nowhere near done (how could it be?), but I think it's pretty interesting and if anyone has any suggestions or ideas on how to improve it, please let me know.

Coal Tanker may break up on the Great Barrier Reef

Over the weekend, it was reported that a Chinese ship transporting from Australia ran aground on the Great Barrier Reef nine miles outside shipping lanes, in an area where shipping is prohibited by environmental law. Oil patches have been spotted, and there is fear that the ship may break into pieces: releasing 72,000 tons of coal into the water.

Read the full article here

This is a potential nightmare for Australia, environmentalists, and the world. If the oil and coal from that ship are released into the water, right on top of the reef: there will be mass destruction of that ecosystem. I can hardly imagine the devastation that would be visited upon the reef and surrounding waters. It would be an absolute catastrophe.

But the question is this: what is a massive Chinese vessel doing nine miles outside the shipping lanes, in a marine sanctuary, transporting coal?? This is unbelievable and unacceptable. Obviously, there needs to be much better oversight in the waters surrounding Australia, especially around reefs, to ensure that ships do not stray outside their lanes. And there also needs to be much better handling of their ships by the Chinese. In this day and age, it's pretty difficult for a tanker to get lost and not realize where they are. So either the captain was extremely incompetent (or asleep), the navigational equipment failed (and the crew didn't realize that shallow water looks different than deep water), or the ship was cutting corners. The only explanation that is remotely excusable is the scenario of broken equipment: in that case, it's probably a good thing that the reef stopped the ship before it sailed off to God-knows-where. But such an explanation is unlikely.

There has already been a lot of public outcry against this, and that is good. Attention needs to be drawn to this event to ensure that it does not happen again.

New Endangered Species report on my website (too long to post on blogger)

Unfortunately, my newest post is too long to post here, but you can check it out at my website: http://sites.google.com/site/differentthoughtsandideas/home/tradeinendangeredspecies

Enjoy!

Obama Announces Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Power Plants

Yesterday President Obama announced Federal Loan Guarantees for the construction of Nuclear power plants in the United States. This is both an important environmental and political declaration, but one that also merits some thought.

First the political side because I don't want to delve too deeply into it right now. It is interesting that Obama has committed to moving forward with nuclear energy because that is one issue on which there may very well be more support from Republicans and Conservatives than his own party. The Right has been pro-nuclear power for a very long time, while the Left has continuously stated that they are simply too dangerous and expensive to warrant use (as opposed to wind, solar and other alternative energy sources). It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

But now to the environmental side of the issue of nuclear power. Nuclear power is unquestionably immensely productive, and exceedingly clean. Once the plant is built, it releases little if any pollutants (including greenhouse gases). I say little rather than zero only because of the possible presence of backup generators or other small auxiliary systems running on combustion engines. In any case, the amount of pollutants released by a nuclear power plant are orders of magnitude lower than coal- or oil-burning power plants.

The only major source of waste from a nuclear power plant, of course, is the spent radioactive fuel and associated components. But if you really think about it, which is more of a problem: thousands of tons of Carbon dioxide, methane, and other pollutants, or a barrel of radioactive waste? The waste is extremely dangerous, yes. But it is also harmless if contained in its barrel in a secure storage location. That barrel is the equivalent of all the carbon sequestration technologies that are currently being researched and imagined. There are concerns about safety where nuclear waste is concerned, and there should be. But that concern cannot be allowed to morph from caution and awareness into fear and panic. 

But now we come to a question that is rarely, if ever, addressed by politicians and the media. What sort of environmental impact does the mining of uranium, enrichment process, and construction of the reactor have? Is the entire process actually any more environmentally friendly than a coal power plant? The answer there is that usually, yes it is. The process of mining, transportation, construction, etc does produce greenhouse gases among other pollutants, but bear in mind that so does the mining and transportation of coal and oil. In the end, nuclear power is more environmentally friendly than coal and oil, though by not so wide a margin as you may think.

So is it worth it? Or should we hold off on building these reactors in favor of wind, solar, or geothermal energy production? That question is highly debated, but in the end, nuclear power is exponentially more powerful than any truly 'alternative' fuel source, and usually takes up a lot less space. Imagine how large a wind farm would have to be built to offset a nuclear power plant. I can't give you an exact size, but it would be ridiculously massive. And all those turbines produce pollutants in their construction and transportation. Are these other energy sources important? Absolutely. And they need to be part of the equation where realistic. But nuclear power does too.

This announcement by our President is a momentous one, and hopefully it is one policy that will quickly become a reality.

Read more here

New Twitter

Just got twitter...look for "ideasthoughts" it's a great way to follow what's going on here. I will be posting everything here on twitter as well.

Ozone Thoughts

 General Information

1. The ozone hole in 2005 was the second biggest recorded: almost as big as 2000
1. The tip of South America experienced 20% lower levels in August-September, 50% lower than normal in October
2. Scientists are finding link between Ozone depletion and climate change
1. Evidence indicates that the two might ‘feed’ off each other and make both problems worse
2. Colder arctic winters => “formation of polar stratospheric clouds” intensify ozone depletion

                                                     i.     Possible Arctic ozone hole in 20 years

3. The ozone layer screens out 99% of harmful UV radiation from the sun
4. Humans have released large amounts of Bromine, chlorine, and other chemicals that deplete the ozone layer
5. Methyl bromide is especially destructive to the ozone layer
1. Bromine = 60 times more effective than chlorine
2. Short atmospheric lifespan, but devastating during that time
6. Solar cycles are only making the problem worse
1. “Solar minimum” in 2007/8 => delay recovery, and trigger increased loss
2. Scientist Martin Dameris

                                                     i.     Says sun cycles have been overlooked by the international community

                                                      ii.     “A recovery is only pretended”

7. “Reducing methyl bromide emissions is the only available strategy to mitigate short-term ozone layer depletion”
8. What is methyl bromide?
1. Agricultural pesticide
2. Pre-shipment and quarantine pesticide
3. Regulated by Montreal Protocol

                                                     i.     Shipping applications exempt

1.     Few regulations

2.     Required for shipment of “wood packaging materials”

a.     New measures greatly increase use

                                                      ii.     Developed countries = phased out by 2005

                                                        iii.     Developing countries = phased out by 2015

                                                       iv.     Existing stocks must be used before more is produced

1.     However, no real information on stockpiles

a.     2005 U.S. imported more methyl bromide than it used

                                                      v.     High levels of production continue

1.     illicit stockpiling

2.     Oversupply

3.     “Dumping” in developed countries

4.     Unreported trade => illegal trade

9. “Critical Use” loophole being exploited by many countries
1. U.S. = biggest user in the world

                                                     i.     Agricultural use = 70% of developed country total

1.     California strawberry, Florida Tomato = 52% of U.S. agricultural use

a.     Claim they are dependent on steady supply

b.     Effective alternatives used in other countries and U.S.

2. Quarantine use = 28% of global application

                                                     i.     Originally, thought small, but is being used more and more

                                                      ii.     Threatens to dwarf other applications

                                                        iii.     Over 50% of all U.S. imports/exports require treatment

10. Harmful effects of ozone depletion on humans
1. Skin cancer caused by UV radiation exposure

                                                     i.     Montreal Protocol controls

1.     Prevent 19 million non-melanoma cases by 2050

2.     Prevent 1.5 million melanoma cases by 2050

                                                      ii.     Currently, 66,000 deaths from skin cancer every year

1.     130,000 new melanoma cases

2.     2-3 million non-melanoma cases

3.     U.S. skin cancer kills someone every hour

a.     1 in 5 will develop skin cancer in their lifetime

                                                        iii.     Dramatic increase of 2 kinds of non-melanoma skin cancer in people under 40

1.     Pursuit of tans

2.     Depletion of ozone layer

3.     Children at increased risk

a.     Physiologically most vulnerable

b.     Spend large amounts of time outside

c.     Skin cancer rates in children increasing

                                                                                                           i.     U.S. Doubled 1982-2002

2. UV radiation more harmful to eyes than previously thought

                                                     i.     One of only effective preventative measures for cataracts is decrease exposure to UV radiation

                                                      ii.     Estimated 167,000-830,000 additional cases of cataracts with depletion of 5-20%

3. UV radiation is also harmful to plants and animals

                                                     i.     UV-B harm chemical and biological processes

1.     Zooplankton and phytoplankton have no defense

a.     Effect early developmental stages, reproduction

2.     Some plants are very sensitive

a.     Reduced height, foliage

11. Environment Canada estimated $224 billion in reduced damage to fisheries, agriculture, materials if Montreal Protocol fully implemented
12. Reluctance of developed nations to phase out methyl bromide is affecting viability of alternatives in developing countries
13. The Environmental Investigation Agency urges Montreal Protocol members to:
1. Not approve further Critical-use exemptions
2. Require transparency of stockpiles
3. Require greater documentation of transport, production
4. Reduce use of methyl bromide in shipping and quarantine purposes

Illegal Trade in Endangered Species: The Consumers

Major Consumers:

1. The United States (largest consumer due to being largest trader on planet)
1. Tiger products
2. Rhino horns
3. Whales (subsistence use only: reviewed regularly to ensure sustainability)
4. Birds
5. Butterflies
6. Snakes
7. Various collected species
2. China (second largest consumer: bigger than US in some areas)
1. Tiger products
2. Rhino
3. Whales (minor, unofficial imports from Japan)
3. Japan (major consumer, often dissident in CITES)
1. Tiger Products
2. Rhino horns
3. Ivory
4. Whales
5. Butterflies
6. Sea Turtles
7. Bluefin Tuna

Uses of species:

1. Tiger Products: Used in traditional Asian medicine
2. Rhino horns: Used in traditional Asian medicine, Middle-Eastern status symbol
3. Ivory: Decorative uses, Japanese status symbol
4. Whales: Traditional Japanese delicacy, historical food of some Native American tribes
5. Butterflies: Collections
6. Sea Turtles: Various crafted items, meat
7. Bluefin tuna: Not yet listed as endangered, but breeding grounds are being highly exploited for food: primarily by Japan
8. Birds, snakes, turtles, other rare species: Exotic pets, crafted items

Official Stance of Consumer states:

1. The United States:
1. Conservation: very active in using economic might to encourage negotiations head in the direction the US and US public want
2. Not afraid to act unilaterally if the need arises (through direct trade sanctions, etc). Ex. China and Tiger/Rhino products
3. Has domestic regulation and bans on many products
4. Whaling is authorized only to select Native American tribes which must demonstrate humane and sustainable use of the given population
5. Some individual citizens import protected species for collections, pets
2. China:
1. ‘Encouraged’ by US to enact many regulations
2. Often places human development over wildlife/ecological concerns

                                                     i.     Ex. Three Gorges Dam

3. Death penalty for killing a Panda
4. Traditional medicine has been hard to suppress
2. Japan:
1. Sustainable Use: Exploit all resources in a sustainable manner.

                                                     i.     Independent studies show that the Japanese are not necessarily sustainable in their use of all resources (Whales in particular)

2. Not afraid to take Reservations and exploit loopholes

                                                     i.     Sea Turtles

                                                      ii.     Whaling

1.     “Scientific killings” (but whaling is carried out as part of the fishing industry)

2.     Hunt in Southern Whale Sanctuary (strictly off limits to commercial whaling)

                                                        iii.     Government-licensed Ivory Craftsmen

3. Actively lobbies for trade of many regulated products
4. One in ten adult men is a serious butterfly collector
5. The Japanese are loath to give up any sovereign rights, or give up traditions

CITES

• CITES has brought attention to the issues and encouraged regulations and treaties

• Limited Enforcement capabilities

• Allows Reservations (this severely cripples ability to truly eradicate the problem)

• Need more action from individual states acting unilaterally to prevent trade (i.e. the US)

• Must have access to more powerful modes of enforcement and punishment

            • i.e. Sanctions of valuable resources

IWC

• Eliminated whaling in all but a few nations

• Many populations are showing signs of growth and improvement

• Shares many of the same problems as CITES, but has been more successful in

  executing its agenda

Forces that Encourage Sustainable Development

Some forces that encourage genuine sustainable development by corporations are consumer demand, government regulation, and higher profit margins (due to lowered production costs). Consumers are increasingly aware of environmental issues, and are often more likely to buy a product from a company pursuing more environmentally friendly practices than another. For this reason it is sometimes in a company's best interest to adopt some of the practices in order to remain competitive in the industry. Government regulations force corporations to adopt more sustainable strategies, and are often accompanied by deals and benefits for companies that show greater willingness or ability to comply with or exceed expectations. Lastly, corporations will seek to find the cheapest way to get the highest price for their product. In some cases, the sustainable or environmentally friendly strategy is also the cheaper one. This is the ideal situation for a company: they can lower overhead (and increase profits), while advertising "green policy" to the public, and hopefully get some tax breaks from the government at the same time! These actions are not always easy to recognize, as it is often difficult to distinguish between truly sustainable policy and "greenwashing" by the company. But, some good clues to look for is if the company is advertising a practice that makes logical sense (such as eliminating paper) as both a cost reduction strategy and a more environmentally friendly one. Another way to recognize this is to look at independent evaluations of corporate policy, though you should be careful to be aware of possible media and political bias. In the end, this is not always that is something that is very easy to see, and may take some looking to get a straight and honest answer.

Effects of Persistent Organic Pollutants on Top Predators

Top predators are often most affected by persistent organic pollutants due to bioaccumulation. This occurs because each step of the food chain acquires a little more of the pollutant (a shrimp eats polluted algae, a small fish eats many shrimp, a big fish eats many small fish, and a polar bear eats many big fish) and the top predator ends up with the highest concentrations of all. Often these effects take the form of problems in reproductive development and susceptibility to disease due to inhibition or incorrect development or various immune and organ systems. As humans we are already beginning to see signals of health problems from endocrine disruptors (further discussed in another post) in the form of decreasing sperm counts, increased levels of defective sperm, smaller penises, undescended testicles, underdeveloped or inter-sex genitals, higher incidence of hermaphrodites, increased levels of some cervical and vaginal cancers, and higher incidence of some birth defects. From studies on the environment, other species, and ourselves, we know that endocrine disruptors are all around us, and that they are very harmful to just about any species they come into contact with. These chemicals fundamentally threaten the survival of affected species due to their reproduction-associated effects.

Non-Compliance in CITES

Non-compliance is a huge issue in CITES (the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species) because CITES has very weak enforcement capabilities, and because many of the member states do not themselves possess the capability to comply. Reservations (discussed in another post) are another source of legitimized non-compliance. One way to encourage better compliance without using sanctions better compliance without using sanctions or penalties would be to increase aid for the purpose of conservation. Often times, money (or capacity) is what these countries are lacking, not willpower. Given the resources to better protect the threatened species in question, they will usually do so. Another aspect of this is to use funds and programs to create industry and jobs in the areas where poaching is the best or only source of income. Give people a different and comparable source of income, and poaching levels as well as customs corruption (another major problem) will be drastically lowered.

Examples of how scientific evidence achieved or failed to achieve political change

One issue on which new scientific evidence drastically changed nations' positions was the problem of acidification and eutrophication in Europe. When the issue first came to light in Sweden and a couple other countries, it was largely ignored by other nations. However, after LRTAP was established, nations were able to see what effects were occurring in their nation, and where the pollutants were coming from. Germany in particular became one of the leaders of the treaty following discovery of German forest death. Scientific evidence change nations' positions because they could see drastic effects and harmful (immediate) pollution levels right at home. It was unignorable.

One area in which new evidence has often failed to change nations' positions is that of Climate Change. Despite growing evidence (much of which is very controversial), many nations (the US in particular) are reluctant to lower emission or place restrictions on development. In this case, the reasons are usually scientific uncertainty (lack of enough clear evidence), fears of being outcompeted by another nation in production, and the fact that the consequences of not acting will not occur for many years, if they do in fact occur. In this case, the issue is not so clear cut for many: putting restrictions on a company's emissions (and thus raising costs) is difficult when China is not held to the same standards, and when there is no immediate and visible effect of inaction.

Endocrine Disruptors

Endocrine Disruptors are chemicals that mimic natural hormones in animal species: often causing great harm to the individual or their offspring. These chemicals often mimic naturally occurring hormones such as testosterone and estrogen. Often, effects are not seen until the second generation: meaning that the animal that is exposed to the chemical may show no signs of sickness, but pass on developmental problems to its offspring. An example of endocrine disruptors (of which there are thousands) at work can be illustrated by the plight of many great lake species. Due to polluted water, many fish exhibit inter-sex characteristics as a result of chemicals mimicing estrogen. This leads to the feminization of male offspring during development; such that the may be unable to reproduce for physical or behavioral reasons. This is important because effects are being in humans as well. We need to seek to eliminate sources of endocrine disruptors as quickly as possible, and use international treaties to ensure that they are not released in the future to the environment.

Scientific Whaling: a brief overview

Scientific whaling is the harvesting, or killing, or whales for scientific research, and is permitted under the IWC (International Whaling Commission). An example is Japan's whaling industry: the whole thing is run under the concept of scientific killing of whales. The importance of this is that the Japanese then sell the whale meat for profit, while the international scientific community agrees that lethal research of whales is completely unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive. In terms of broader environmental politics, scientific whaling is an example of how a clause in a treaty can be exploited by parties under the pretext of improving knowledge about the subject.

"RoundUp-Ready" Soybeans and other products?

"RoundUp-Ready" soybeans and other plants are plants that have been genetically engineered to posses resistance to RoundUp: a very powerful herbicide. This is important because it is an example of how Genetically Engineered Organisms (GMOs) can be used to lower production costs, and increase efficiency in farming. RoundUp is used to kill weeds, but kills crops as well. For this reason, farmers have historically had to be very careful with its use and the timing and concentration of sprayings. Now, however, the special soybeans and other plants can be doused in the herbicide, and be absolutely fine while weeds and other plants die. This makes the whole production process much simpler and cheaper overall for the farmer.  This lowered cost is often then passed on the the consumer. Of further importance, this concept can be expanded to other crops: as evidenced by the many herbicide-, pesticide-, and drought-resistant species now in use, among other beneficial modifications. Of course, there are also risks associated with GMOs, as addressed in another post.

Reservations in International Agreements

What is a Reservation in international environmental treaties?

A reservation in environmental law is basically when a nation agrees to a treaty or convention, but disagrees with one or more part of it. In the interest of encouraging participation, the treaty allows this nation to file a reservation against that specific item. This means that the nation does not have to abide by that item, but remains a member of the treaty. An example of this is Japan's reservation against Dolphins under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species). Japan is still a member of CITES, but does not have to abide by the regulations protecting Dolphins from hunting and trade. This is important to environmental law because reservations severely weaken the enforcement and sometimes success of treaties, but encourage nations to be part of the treaty and discussion even if they disagree with part of it.