commentopia What the World Is Saying A SERVICE BRINGING YOU THE BEST READERS' COMMENTS FROM TOP NEWS SOURCES ON THE WEB ENVIRONMENT ARCHIVES — MAY/JUNE 2010
[RETURN TO commentopia HOME PAGE]
SHARPENING THE DEBATE ON KILLING WHALES
One of the sad things about this heavily subsidised whaling industry, in Japan, is that considerable thought is having to be put into what's actually do with the whale meat, because supply has outstripped demand for some considerable time. Not only are these beautiful creatures dying needlessly, it is not actually being done to feed anybody, and it is not being done for scientific purposes. The reason that it is being done, is the same reason that government subsidy of UK railways, is now much higher than seven was when the railway industry was nationalised, it is the same reason that the UK atomic energy and industry continues to receive massive subsidies, and is the same reason that Haliburton seem to do so nicely out of the end results of carpet bombing. What we have in Japan is an industry which is so powerful, that no one is willing yet to pull the plug on it. Such is the power of , big business. A very strong argument exists, that it would be better just to pay all of the people connected with the whaling industry a salary to stay at home. Like so many other industries, people are fed the lie that this industry produces jobs. some jobs don't deserve to exist. Read the article GUARDIAN/Whales will be the losers if talks collapse
Whaling was banned in 1986, after many whale species plummeted to near extinction. But three countries that are party to the IWC - Japan, Norway and Iceland - continue to hunt whales. Norway and Iceland filed objections to the moratorium, and Japan continues under the pretext of scientific research. Around 2000 whales are still caught each year by IWC members, says Douglas Butterworth, a professor in applied mathematics at the University of Cape Town, who uses mathematical models to develop management procedures for whales. “It’s certainly less than in the early 1980s, but it’s not a trivial number.” The new proposal, the culmination of many months of talks, was unveiled by the IWC on April 22 – Earth Day – in hopes of creating some middle ground between opposing countries. But there are still several points of contention, such as whether whaling should be allowed in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, a 50 million square kilometre whale conservation area off the coast of Antarctica, put in place by the IWC in 1994, or to what extent the international trade should be allowed. Anti-whaling countries, such as New Zealand and Australia, have objected to the “disappointing” proposal. Australia’s Minister of the Environment even made a video to publicize the issue. Other nations, like the United States, seem more willing to compromise. The big question for most people is whether Japan will be willing to make concessions. Japan currently catches between 500 and 1000 whales per year (mostly minke whales) and it is unclear whether the country will be willing to reduce their catch and stop whaling in the Southern Ocean. It is the only IWC country that continues to whale on the high seas. Read the article NATURE/Japan holds key to whale conservation <> We human beings share together with all non-human creatures an only earth! Therefore we all have a same right to live on it! Will the only survived species enjoy a triumph sense in a world without living fellows? Won't human beings feel lonely? Since the extinction of whales is an one-way road, thus the whaling, despite of in any forms, must be banned completely through an international agency-based effort, e.g., a harsh act signed by all members of UN. [Liangjun HU/ Read the article NATURE/Japan holds key to whale conservation PACIFIC ISLANDS NOT DROWNING, BUT GROWING, SAYS STUDY
Sea levels have been rising for the last 10 thousand years around the coast of southern England. Near me in London, for example, water has risen relative to land by about 4.1 metres since Roman times. However, all around the south and east coast of England one can find areas where land has grown at the expense of sea since Roman times. In other words, material has been positively deposited there. Precisely how erosion and sedimentation balance out in any particular area depends on a lot of factors, notably including sea currents and silt being washed down from inland, both of which can be heavily influenced by human activity. However, as a general rule, marshy coastal estuaries tend to remain in balance at about high tide level. I have no idea how far Pacific islands are affected by the other big variable -- vertical movement in the earth's crust -- but it seems entirely plausible that some of them could be net traps for sediment and therefore net growers not shrinkers. Read the article THE REGISTER/Pacific islands growing not shrinking, says old study <> These systems are so complex that, frankly, we don't really know what's going on. We're more like the seven blind men and the elephant. For instance, no one has mentioned that with increased CO2 comes increased ocean acidification, which is deleterious to coral (note coral is dying in places the world over). Even if coral build-up is mitigating tidal effects, there's no guarantee this will continue into the future, and it would be foolish to depend on it. Plainly there's lots of symptomatic evidence that something is happening that will change the way and where we live. And it doesn't look like an improvement. Picking at the bits is like saying, 'Look how it snowed in Washington! Where's your global warming? Climate change is bunk!' (as in, weather does not equal climate) Throw in a bit of selfishness and you've got yourself a real recipe! But, you know, argue all you want. It doesn't matter to nature or physics. We'll just have to deal with the consequences... Read the article THE REGISTER/Pacific islands growing not shrinking, says old study Well this is welcome news, the south pacific is one of the most beautiful places on earth. But to those of you with your "i told you so" attitude toward climate scientists, please show me the paper you published saying that build up of coral sediment would off set the rising ocean. CBC NEWS/South Pacific islands grow despite rising seas
U.K. GOV TOP SCIENTIST DECRIES CLIMATE SKEPTICS
The "My country is cold so the world can't be getting warmer" argument is one we hear often in the US too. I think much of it comes from an overinflated sense of the importance of Britain and the US coming from UK historical and US current economic and security power. I asked my students what percentage of the worlds surface area is US territory. The lowest guess was 6%. The real figure is less than 2%. For the UK it is (I am estimating) .0004% or so. We just can't believe we are that insignificant. Read the article GUARDIAN/Government's chief scientific adviser hits out at climate skeptics <> Climate change is happening (as it always has), and human beings influence the climate. The main question has always been : How much of the recent "unprecedented" climate change (previously "global warming") is due to human activity, and how much is due to "natural sources" ? The answer is : We do not know ... yet. Anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty how the future climate will develop, or the precise differences that (minor) modulations to anthropogenic CO2 emissions will make, is an advocate of something or other (exactly what will depend on the individual ...), not a scientist. Read the article GUARDIAN/Government's chief scientific adviser hits out at climate skeptics <> Those asking for people to stop using "Denier" is similar to the Christian fundamentalists begging for equal respect when trying to force their indoctrination into science classes. Science reached a consensus that humans were contributing to global warming decades ago. The science today strives to discover exactly what the future holds. This is akin to science discovering the sun is the centre of our solar system and then assigning resources to finding out exactly what our solar system will look like in 100 years - just because research is ongoing doesn't imply doubt in the underlying premise. To understand where the denier movement sprang from, how its financed, and why there's a void of respect for it by scientists, here is am excellent overview. It's essential viewing by both sides of the argument. http://j.mp/a1Z8KE Read the article GUARDIAN/Government's chief scientific adviser hits out at climate skeptics
ARE LIZARDS THREATENED BY GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE?
So much for the Geico Gecko. He may have saved 30% or more on car insurance but he won't be basking in the sun anymore. Read the article USA TODAY/Climate change may kill 20% of lizards by 2080 <> Scientists think lizards have been around for over 250 million years, including many eons when the earth was much warmer than it is now, including times when it was entirely ice free. Lizards have done very well through ice ages, warm periods asteroid strikes massive volcanism, the rise of dinosaurs, birds, mammals, flowering plants, and the insects associated with them. But our activities over a few hundred years are going to wipe them out? This is what irritates me about AGW zealots - they take away from REAL environmental problems. The article says this lizard drop off isn't due to habitat destruction because they're seeing it in protected areas. But how big are those areas, and are they connected? If animals are isolated in small areas they are much more vulnerable than if they can freely migrate & spread out. If we're causing extinctions, THAT is how we're doing it, not by warming the planet a few degrees for species that have seen orders of magnitude larger and faster climate changes in the past. Read the article LIVE SCIENCE/World's lizards threatened by climate change
As I look out my window over the pristine Boston Harbor, I have the wonderful view of the wind turbines at Deer Island. Yes, you read correctly. Wind turbines in Boston Harbor, in plain sight. I feel proud that I get to see progress right “In My Back Yard”. Yes, you read correctly. I’m an IMBY!. Oh yeah, beers are on me. Read the article BOSTON GLOBE/U.S. at last approves Cape Wind project
<> We are going to destroy one of Massachusetts' most beautiful natural resources so we can save others elsewhere. That makes no sense at all. Plus we are going to give a private developer millions in taxpayer subsidies and 25 square miles of public property, which is the only way this project is financially viable. Their investors walk away rich on public tax money, and those of us who live on the Cape, even people like me that don't own waterfront property and struggle to live here, and every visitor to the Cape, are going to be left with a forever changed landscape and an eyesore that will be obsolete in less than 20 years. The final insult, it is not going to produce enough energy to help global warming or local ratepayers. Read the article BOSTON GLOBE/U.S. at last approves Cape Wind project <> Thank GOD they got this through. Wind energy is good from just about every angle you view it from. Even the fisheries will get a boost with the establishment of permanent structures that a trawler can’t disturb. The only “losers” in this whole process are the elite few trying to protect ‘their’ views from their private beaches and estates. Such forms of egotism and self-interest come nowhere near to comparison to the interests of the common-good of the society as a whole. Read the article NPR-WBUR/For Cape Wind, a final decision as opponents push back <>
Read the article ARS TECHNICA/U.S. approves its first offshore wind farm at Cape Cod
read more comments from THE INDEX ©2009-2010 Commentopia
|
