Renewable Energy: report paints hopeful picture for EU if properly planned

In the U.S., the Thanksgiving holiday is just a few days away. It's a time when we reflect on what we have, despite all the bad news that is swirling around us, and give thanks. It can be an optimistic day as we consider how far we have come as a nation and a people, and we consider a future filled with many more Thanksgivings by resolving to tackle the challenges we face.

That's a recipe for the whole world to follow as we consider our natural resources and the environment, and the threats that beset them.

So, from across the pond, coming from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK is a report that caught my eye. "Meeting Europe's Renewable Energy Targets in Harmony with Nature" examines the importance of expanding the European Union's renewable energy capabilities and how it can be done without sacrificing nature at the same time. It's a report whose goals and objectives could be applied worldwide.

With renewable energy sources providing EU countries with an average 20% of their energy by the end of the decade as a declared EU goal, the report focuses on the importance of energy sources that have a low impact on nature, such as solar panels, rooftop solar thermal systems and electric vehicles. The report categorizes wind and wave power as medium-risk, while biofuels are placed in a high-risk category.

Martin Harper, RSPB conservation director, said the report was "a call to arms for nature conservation. Climate change is a grave threat to wildlife, and we need ambitious renewable energy targets in order to tackle it. Our study shows that it is possible to meet these targets without putting nature at risk--but there are consequences for nature if we get it wrong."

That, of course, is the trick: avoiding rushing into implementing a particular energy technology without proper planning to consider both short-term and long-term implications. The report reviews many of the issues regarding biofuels, which is an energy source that many feel is a disaster due to the amount of habitat destruction that goes into producing one gallon of fuel. However, the report also brings up the need to, in essence, look into a crystal ball to try to anticipate future issues regarding energy sources. An example from years past would be hydroelectric dams which produced plenty of power but over time severely damaged many rivers, estuaries, and the ecosystems they supported.

Overall, the report lays out a predominantly positive future if we can energize ourselves in committing to renewable energy and if we carry it out carefully and judiciously. "With so much exciting and innovative technology out there from solar arrays and geothermal extraction to electric cars and wave power systems, there is clearly a healthy future for renewable energy and wildlife in the UK and Europe," Harper said.

To download the report, click here.
Learn more from the RSPB website.

Nature's Value: conservation group CEO writes about "green" conversion strategies

I am re-posting something I just read in the Huffington Post. Mark Tercek, CEO of The Nature Conservancy, wrote a post about how to re-think conservation. Many passionate conservationists often view large corporations as the "enemy" and condemn them for their less than environmentally-friendly ways. But we need to work with these companies or other non-"green"-thinking groups, not against them, if we ever expect to bring them into the fold. Mark cites examples in his post - a reasonable approach to getting corporations to see the value of nature, terminology that businesses can better understand and appreciate.

Changing the Conversation: From Nature's Wonder to Nature's Value

Earlier this month, I spoke at the inaugural South by Southwest Eco. I began by mentioning my former career on Wall Street-a topic unlikely to win me many fans.

Then why bring it up?

The theme of my speech was broadening support for conservation by crossing boundaries --talking about nature differently and reaching beyond the usual suspects of those we ordinarily work with.

A little over three years ago, I crossed a personal boundary, leaving my career as an investment banker to follow my passion for protecting nature.

And as head of The Nature Conservancy, I am now committed to helping the conservation movement cross boundaries, reaching out to everyone from businesses to kids to demonstrate why protecting nature is in their best interest.

Take our collaboration with Dow Chemical, for example. The Nature Conservancy is working with Dow to determine how the company's operations rely on and affect nature. Dow's factories are enormously dependent on water supply. They also depend on mangroves and other natural systems to provide buffer from coastal storms. Our goal is to create tools and methods other companies can test and apply.

Some critics ask why we would work with companies that have a big environmental footprint. I say, why wouldn't we? In my view, it would be irresponsible of us to shy away from the opportunity to guide companies whose decisions affect the places we want to conserve.

Are partnerships with companies a panacea? No.

Are there risks to engaging businesses? Of course.

But change is not possible without risk.

And change is critical given the great challenges we are up against. By 2050, the world's population is expected to reach 9 billion people. Soaring demands for food, water and energy put enormous pressure on the natural systems we seek to protect. And climate change will only multiply existing problems.

Solving these challenges will require new ways of thinking. It will require reaching beyond our core supporters. And it will require a shift in thinking, from "Isn't nature wonderful?" to "Isn't nature valuable?"

Specifically, we need to talk much more about the benefits nature provides to people -- clean air, healthy soil, fresh water, coastal buffers from storms.

This notion of "natural capital" is not new. In 2005, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that these services are in sharp and worrisome decline.

What's exciting is that environmental organizations around the world are turning this concept into reality. We are crossing boundaries to put these ideas into practice, connecting the value of nature to a broader audience.

Last year in Iowa, for example, a coalition of conservationists, sportsmen, farmers, community leaders and businesses banded together to support a constitutional amendment that will direct $150 million per year of the next sales tax increase toward wetlands restoration, water quality programs and other projects that will help prevent and reduce impacts from flooding.

We had our work cut out for us, campaigning in a conservative state, during a deep recession and facing a tough political climate. But the amendment passed with more than two-thirds of the vote.

Voters understood that their lives and livelihoods, including Iowa's $21 billion agriculture industry, are closely linked to clean and productive water systems.

Finally, all of our efforts will be wasted if we don't foster the next generation of conservationists.

Only about 10 percent of today's kids say they spend time outdoors every day. Meanwhile, the vast majority uses a computer, watches TV, or plays video games on a daily basis. This growing disconnect with nature threatens kids' physical and emotional well-being. It also makes them less likely to care about environmental issues.

But it's not all bad news. A recent study found that when youth are given more opportunities to have a meaningful experience outdoors, they will be more likely to value nature, engage with it and feel empowered to do something about it.

One initiative my organization has launched to address this problem is called Leaders in Environmental Action for the Future (LEAF). The program matches urban high school students with summer internships on nature preserves across the country. Programs like this are key to closing the gap between nature and people -- especially among urban and youth audiences -- and building tomorrow's conservation leaders.

Environmental organizations need new strategies like these to deal with the difficult challenges ahead. That's not to say that other strategies don't have their place. Is our work helped by more confrontational organizations that challenge businesses and governments? Yes. Are there times when different approaches will be more effective? Of course. The more strategies the better. We're all on the same team.

As South by Southwest has proven in the areas of technology and music, the best new thinking and creative ideas often emerge when we cross boundaries to seek out new relationships and ideas. We will never achieve our mission by talking to ourselves. We have to reach out to all sectors of society -- from businesses to farmers to children -- to demonstrate the value of nature to our lives.

From The Huffington Post, Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

Losing Touch With Nature: writer looks at how nature can help our children

Are we losing touch with nature? Is there a generation(s) of children coming up who can only relate to nature distantly, without the true experience of touch, sight, and smell? Today there is more information than ever - more books, more videos, more connections via the Internet for children to learn about nature. But are the oceans, the forests, the plants and animals all becoming just words and images from which we hope that children will grow to respect, protect, and conserve?



Let's hope not, but it is a real concern. I come from a generation who, even when growing up in the populated suburbs of Southern California, chased the butterflies, ate a little dirt, and dreamed of being an explorer. But today, in our hand sanitized, digital screened, concrete mall existence, there can be a real disconnect between the indoor world and the outdoor world.



From the United Arab Emirates, comes an interesting article written by Louisa Wilkins and published in the GulfNews. In How Nature Can Help Your Child, she writes of the changes in how children experience nature and what that can mean not only to the collective fate of the outdoors but to the health, mental and physical, of coming generations.



"In the same way that children need food, water and sleep in order to grow and develop to their full potential, so they need nature. Not only because an hour of play outside in the elements is more physical than an hour on the sofa, but because there are other, more subtle, consequences of children losing touch with nature. [Author, Richard] Louv says, 'Nature-deficit disorder describes the human costs of alienation from nature, among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses.' According to his research, the disorder is not just limited to individuals, but entire families and communities. He says, 'Nature-deficit can even change human behaviour in cities, which could ultimately affect their design, since long-standing studies show a relationship between the absence, or inaccessibility, of parks and open space with high crime rates, depression, and other urban maladies.'"



There is a segment of readers to this blog who are parents and who have thanked me for some of the information I have provided for their children. I am most flattered by this as it is the next generation or two who will really have to move the bar forward regarding conservation, building on the awareness that adults today are trying to generate, and making it the norm. Louisa Wilkins' article is a great read for those parents - and for all of us - as a reminder of how we saw and experienced the outside world growing up and what our children may be missing today.



Read the entire article in the GulfNews.

Nature's Resiliency: inspiration helps keep our hopes up

As a nature writer and reporter, I have to constantly be mindful that the issues I bring up in my work will best serve my readers if they can inspire or provoke a response or action. It may be a serious problem but there are solutions if we act now, if we let the decision makers know we are watching them.

But it can get overwhelming. And so, every once in a while, some good news can go a long way. In that vein, here is an uplifting story written by Scott Poyton of The Forest Trust, in the Huffpost Green. Good work, Scott.

Resilient Nature -- The Hope in the Gibbon's Call
Posted: 05/ 2/11 02:50 PM ET

There is no shortage of deeply concerning news around the environment these days. It isn't hard to get a strong sense that we're on a fast track towards a nasty precipice. Yet, news continues to pop up that gives a sense that all isn't lost; that there is some hope that nature might be more resilient against our travesties than we had imagined. Just last week there was news that the almost extinct Red Kite was making a dramatic comeback in the UK. Back in January there was the incredible story of a polar bear spending nine days swimming in search of sea ice. Whilst that story shows us just how seriously we've changed the planet, we can only marvel at the spirit and resilience of that bear.

It is important to tell positive stories if only to offer something of a counter to the constant stream of bad news that greets us each day. We do tend to dwell on the negative but the human spirit needs to be nourished and uplifted by hope and good news from time to time as well.

I had my own recent experience of how resilient nature can be in January when visiting a palm oil plantation in Indonesia. I was in a seriously degraded forest in the middle of a palm oil plantation in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The plantation company had set this remnant forest aside many years ago when it developed the area. We'd wandered in off the road to get a look at the forest from within, to feel its heartbeat, if it still had one. Loggers had hammered the forest in advance of the plantation company taking over. There was no proper canopy, only a few scattered emergent trees left behind after the bulldozers had hacked their way through. My sense wandering in had been that it was a desolate place, devoid of richness and that the company's effort to protect it was an admirable though fruitless gesture.

Standing by a riverbank in the morning stillness, I wondered if the silence was because the house was empty. Then I heard it. At first it didn't register; no gibbons here surely? You don't hear something your mind tells you cannot exist but then, again. "What's that?" I asked my Indonesian colleagues.

"Gibbons" they responded.

"There are gibbons here?" I asked.

"Yes, and orang-utans too" they replied.

"Here, in this forest?"

"Yes, here are our records." The two forest guards produced their observation notebooks. Over the previous two years, they had recorded all the animals they'd sighted during their daily patrols. I was stunned. How did these animals survive here? The forest covered around 1,400 hectares, a long and thin snake of seriously damaged habitat running either side of the river yet it still supported a rich biodiversity of primates, birds and other creatures.

We stayed a good hour in there listening to the gibbons. I heard at least three or four; far less than what you hear in a virgin forest but what hope it stirred in me! What resilience! If these animals could survive here, what else might we achieve?

I subsequently went back to Indonesia in early February to launch the palm oil company's forest conservation policy. If implemented, the policy will see more forest, just like the gibbon's in Kalimantan, set aside, protected and given a chance to re-grow. It's long-term stuff. There are many mountains to climb before we'll get to where we need to be but the hope inherent in that gibbon's call is driving me, and others, forward.

That gibbon's call is a real symbol of nature's resilience and of what just might be possible. Many news items reflect how low we go with our disrespect of nature. Yet we owe it to nature, struggling to hang in there just like that gibbon, to hold on to the idea that there could be a better future if only we all work harder.

We each can do something every day to reduce our environmental impact. When everything is gloomy and you can't imagine things ever getting better, the human spirit takes flight and determines to find a better way. A sense that something is possible, that yes, we can do what was thought impossible has recent history of bringing about dramatic change. Let's take hope from that gibbon's call and redouble our efforts to bring change to how we treat nature. Go on, let yourself go.

Follow Scott Poyton on Twitter.

Rally 'Round the Rodent: small mammals are ecological foundation

When one thinks of animals and conservation, a range of iconic images come to mind: whales, sharks, polar bears, wolves. These tend to be larger species and, while they certainly deserve our attention, there is a large group of land-based animals that also deserve protection. Rodents.

Rodents, you say? Are we talking rats here? Protect the rat, save the rat? Well, yes and no. Of course, when one thinks of rodents, rats and mice and other pests that have thrived because of man's presence, particularly in our urban areas, come to mind. And they have been a problem through destruction of stored seeds and grains or through transmission of disease. However, rodents serve an important ecological role and, in so doing, deserve a measure of protection as much as any other land animal.

Of the approximate 4,000 species of mammals on the planet, about 1,500 fall into the rodentia family, primarily identified by having a single pair of incisors - front teeth that require continually being worn down through gnawing on hard surfaces. In fact, that's where the name comes from, "gnawing animal." In addition to rats and mice, rodents also include squirrels, beavers, porcupines, prairie dogs, and many more. In fact there is an incredible range of rodents in tropical and jungle environments from tiny little critters up to 110-pound capybaras found in South America.

Rodents constitute some of the earliest prehistoric mammals. While dinosaurs were stomping their way into eventual oblivion, as far back as the Paleocene era, rodents were scurrying about their feet. Actually, there were some incredibly large rodents in prehistoric times, some as large as a bear. However, those toothy behemoths, along with other over-sized animals like dinosaurs, couldn't survive the radical climatic changes that the earth has gone through, from ice ages to meteors.

Today, while rodents in developed countries can be pests, causing billions of dollars in crop losses or pest control expenses, in many parts of the world they provide food and fur for local or tribal populations. And in the big scheme of things, they are a major food source for a variety of other animals. Just like with the predator-prey pyramid for marine species wherein plankton and small bait fish are highly reproductive to balance out the fact that they also are prey to a wide range of other animals, rodents serve as a cornerstone and key foundation for the chain of life in the terrestrial world.

Conservation International recognizes the significance of the rodent in a properly maintained ecology. With a little humor, they are making the case that rodents deserve our understanding and protection. They have a Facebook page designed for visitors to choose a favorite rodent for Valentine's Day. Here's Conservation International's take on why rodents deserve something more that a trap baited with cheese:

"We share our planet with millions of incredible species.

Just consider the bright color of spring flowers, the morning calls of migratory birds, or the snow-covered plumage of emperor penguins. We're lucky to live in a world where these creatures exist.

At Conservation International (CI), we've been working since our founding to protect and preserve species around the world. And with Feb. 14 quickly approaching, I hope you'll join me in sending a valentine — to some amazing species of rodents.

Rodents? Amazing? Yes, amazing. Sure, they're sometimes household pests. But they underpin the ecosystems that provide us with clean air and water, regulate our climate, and give us medicines.

And in many cultures, species play an important role — yes, even rodents. The Chinese zodiac has not one but two rodent representatives (the rabbit and the rat). And in the U.S. and Canada, today is Groundhog Day, a quirky holiday that, folklore says, determines how long the continent will remain under a winter chill.

Some rodents are even kind of cute.

Yet around the world, on land and at sea, species like rodents are in trouble. It's estimated that one species goes extinct, on average, every 20 minutes. Human activity, such as habitat destruction and pollution, is largely responsible. And for every species of plant or animal that disappears, we forever lose the unique and sometimes critical benefits that people receive.

How can you get involved in protecting species like these? Join us in celebrating rodents this Valentine's Day — and help us spread the word that people need nature to thrive.

Visit CI's Facebook fan page and click on 'Vote Now' to vote for your favorite rodent: http://www.facebook.com/conservation.intl

You can also visit Crowdrise, an online fundraising site that makes it easy for you, your friends, and your family to donate small amounts of money to CI if you'd like. Each of our four rodents has its own Crowdrise page, so you can vote for your favorite not just with a click, but with your wallet!

The rodent with the most votes and dollars raised by Valentine's Day, Feb. 14, will be named the most loved rodent (as voted by CI supporters). So this Groundhog Day, send a valentine to a furry creature. Vote for your favorite rodents on CI's Facebook fan page and on Crowdrise."

Read more about rodents from UCMP.

Microbes: new life forms on Earth and perhaps beyond

Bacteria, microbes, single-cell organisms - the planet is teeming with them, literally in the billions. There are tens of thousands in a single drop of seawater and, worldwide, they constitute the greatest biomass on Earth. If their numbers are an indication of success then perhaps that success is due to both the simplicity of their existence and their ability to adapt to changing environments.

Two recent announcements regarding these tiniest of creatures caught my eye (no pun intended) because they had to do with the aquatic world and involved places I've been or would very much like to be.

Bacteria that challenges our notions of life
In the arid, alien-like landscape of Mono Lake, researchers have found bacteria that has adapted to an arsenic-rich environment. What is most unusual in this adaption was that the bacteria incorporated arsenic into its basic metabolic structure, replacing phosphorus. This is rather unique as phosphorus is one of nature's building blocks for all living things. Scientists have long held that carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and phosphorus are the basic elements of life as they help make up nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and other fundamental components of all living matter.

However, researchers from Arizona State University have found in the water of Mono Lake, in east central California, bacteria that has exchanged phosphorus for the more prevalent arsenic, thereby challenging our notions of what constitutes what or where life can exist either here on Earth or elsewhere.

"At the moment we have no idea if life is just a freak, bizarre accident which is confined to Earth or whether it is a natural part of a fundamentally biofriendly universe in which life pops up wherever there are Earth-like conditions," said Paul Davies, the Arizona State University and NASA Astrobiology Institute researcher.

The researchers are very cautious not to draw too many conclusions from this preliminary research. Though the implications are tantalizing, with the possibility of life forms on other planets based on a totally different structure than what exists on Earth, there is still a considerable amount of work to be done before scientists decide to re-define our established notions of what constitutes life. Still, it makes you wonder just what our planetary probes in space should be looking for.

John Elliot, a UK researcher who has been involved in the search for extraterrestrial life, said, "It starts to show life can survive outside the traditional truths and universals that we thought you have to use... this is knocking one brick out of that wall."

Microbes that went down with the ship, way down
Ever since I read my parent's original copy of A Night to Remember by Walter Lord when I was a child, I have had a soft spot for anything Titanic. I'm not alone in this fascination with the great ocean liner that epitomized both man's industrial might and arrogance. But while the name and the vessel represent all things huge, scientists also study some of the wreck's smallest features - like a new form of iron-eating bacteria.

The genus Halomonas covers salt water bacteria that slowly breakdown metals, typically leaving behind evidence of their handiwork in the form of long, trailing icicle-like structures known as rusticles. Covering the Titanic along its hull and decaying metal superstructure, rusticles form a bizarre wintry scene to remind us of the cold depth 2.5 miles below the surface where the ship lies in two great pieces.

Reported in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, researchers from universities in Ontario, Canada and Seville, Spain have discovered a new bacteria, named Halomonas titanicae, by studying rusticle samples taken by the Russian submersible, Mir 2, back in 1991. Cultured in the lab from the 19-year old samples, these bacteria are of interest beyond just the fascination in lifeforms that are able to survive in some of the planet's harshest environments. The fate of offshore oil and gas pipelines at the hands of these metal-devouring microbes is an important area of research, particularly in the aftermath of this year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Additionally, understanding how these smallest of creatures can breakdown and possibly "recycle" some of mankind's largest structures could assist in developing safe and effective disposal methods of ships and oil rigs.

From the deepest depths of the ocean to perhaps beyond the stars, life continues to show scientists that it has a tenacious drive to survive, adapting to its surroundings sometimes in the most fundamental of ways.

Read about the arsenic bacteria in BBC News.
Read Titanic microbe study in the IJSEM journal.

Fins to Limbs: study identifies possible gene trigger

In the complex web of evolution, one of the pivotal moments occurred with the transition from aquatic animals to land animals - an event marked by the change from fins to limbs. While fossils have shown us evidence of this transition, the actually biological processes, what accomplished this change, has not been clear.

In a report recently published in Nature, a research team from the University of Ottawa conducted experiments that could shed some light on evolutionary change. Their studies identified a group of genes responsible for the supportive fibers found in fish fins, not found in tetrapods (land animals). These genes, known as actinodins, were found in both the researchers' primary laboratory specimen, the zebrafish, and in the elephant shark - an example of an ancient fish that has changed very little from its millions year old ancestors.

By chemically suppressing the actinodin genes in zebrafish embryos or in adults that were regenerating new fins, the resulting fins lacked the supporting fibers. What could not be tested is the causal event that might have triggered the gene change millions of years ago or whether the gene loss occurred as the instigator of change or as a reaction to some other evolutionary biological process.

"It's a very nice example of how changes in one or two genes can be responsible for a huge evolutionary transition," says Axel Meyer, a evolutionary biologist at the University of Konstanz. "We tend to think that new genes bring new functions, but this study shows that the presence of genes constrains or directs development in certain directions. Gene loss is actually a creative force in evolution."

Evolution is an incredibly complex process that not only provides historical insight but has the potential for unlocking secrets into the processes that impact species today in their ability to alter or adapt to changing circumstances. While some people do not subscribe to theories of evolution for religious reasons, I find that, if there is a higher power, there is no clearer evidence than in the intricacies of evolution, from single-celled organisms eons ago to the diversity of life that graces this planet today - a diversity that is being threatened by one of its most successful species.

Read more about the study in Scientific American.

Conservation of Nature & Faith: author brings two ideologies together

What motivates someone to care about the environment and conservation? Is it political ideology or commercial interests, something personal or a broader altruistic concern? Obviously, there can be as many reasons as the number of micro-organisms in a seasonal plankton bloom, but one motivator was recently brought to my attention that, frankly, I have not given much thought about: religion.

I received a copy of Beauty of the Lord, part of a four-volume paperback set of books on environmental theology, written by Richard Austin, a Presbyterian minister. This book - and indeed the entire series - tries to establish a Christian perspective on why we should appreciate and protect the environment. Through detailed biblical references, the author establishes a religious foundation for accepting our need and moral responsibility to be active conservationists.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I do not adhere to any form of organized religion. In fact, I believe that some of the tenants of Judeo-Christian dogma have contributed, perhaps subtly, to our current ecological crisis. For man to have dominion over the earth, I feel, has been subverted over centuries to mean to dominate, taking only for our personal gain - and we are now realizing the price to be paid.

Austin recognizes this viewpoint:
"In Western culture Christianity has been a major interpreter of life's meaning and purpose. Like other social institutions, though, our churches were not prepared for the change in perception of the earth. This lack of foresight has generated resentment among some who are frustrated by our society's sluggish response to this new reality and look for a scapegoat. In his famous essay, 'The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,' Lynn White, Jr. claimed that the primary culprit of the contemporary crisis was the traditional Christian affirmation of the right of humanity to dominate nature. White's view is accepted widely, often uncritically, in the environment movement."

Rather than debate this issue, Austin lays out a path for re-orienting religious thinking, citing biblical passages that support the need for man to actively participate in preserving our natural resources. He makes the argument that man is not truly whole in a religious sense without an appreciation for nature.

"The Christian event of 'awakening' or 'conversion,' characteristic in the American religious tradition, may lead to a more creative personal identity; yet human identity is not complete without an affectionate relationship with nature and a sense of moral purpose that reaches beyond human culture to other life. Regard for nature may contribute to the moral beauty of our faith."

This volume from the four-volume set makes many references to Jonathan Edwards, an 18th century theologian, and in other volumes Austin turns to John Muir and others for support. For myself, in reviewing the book as an agnostic - or to be contemporary and hip, as an adherent to a "personal spiritualism" - I found the book to be impressive (almost overwhelmingly detailed) in its position that a religious foundation exists for conservation.

And Austin brings a positive spin to a situation that often seems mired in doom and gloom: "Campaigns for environmental protection are often built on fear - fear of the disaster which will ensue if we do not, for example, control pollutants or protect genetic diversity. However, I believe that love for the earth is a stronger motive than fear. It is more likely to generate creative action, and it is more likely to persist through the long effort required for change."

I am not too particular as to what motivates a person to embrace conservation - the why is less important to me than the what, what is accomplished. I have said that industry will probably be pulled kicking and screaming until they realize a commercial incentive. And politicians may act for fear of retribution at the voting booth. So, if you are a person of religious faith and you are struggling with, or even just mildly curious, as to where your beliefs and nature intersect, I would suggest you take a look at this environmental theology series of books by Richard Austin.

"We have built our nest in the tree of life; now we must save the tree."

The books are available online individually or as a set at Creekside Press.

Nature: the ultimate oppressed group

Well, here in the U.S., the Independence Day holiday weekend is coming to a close. Canada had their Canada Day on the first of this month and many nations around the world celebrate important moments in their history wherein oppression was shed in favor of social or political harmony. Unfortunately, across the globe, there are still people living without the freedoms they deserve and hopefully they will someday reap those benefits.

But there is one group that is still oppressed on a daily basis, the results of which can and are having an impact on the entire planet, and that is the oppression of nature.

Mankind has yet to fully embrace the notion that we are a part of nature, not separate from it. Whether it's our own hubris in being the most "advanced" species on the planet (a debatable notion, for sure) or whether it's the result of religious dogma, man still persists in seeing things as "us and them," or shall I say "us and it." We have perverted the concept of dominion - meaning to protect - to become the worst form of domination, to control and take for our own self-interests. In doing so, we fail to appreciate the impact we have on nature and how nature can impact upon us.

Now this did not happen overnight. Man has taken this approach in the past for centuries but it is in the relatively recent present that we are now understanding the consequences by either actually seeing the drastic results or at least having a better knowledge of the intricacies of nature's web. We are now able to scientifically forecast a dire future if we do not take a different strategy sooner rather than later.

We are part of the little picture, the microcosms that might include the loss of a single plant or animal species, all the way up to the big picture, macrocosms that support our climate, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. We stand perhaps on the cusp of a global realization, that by denying our place within nature, we will certainly face issues that will dwarf all of our own self-interests - political, social, economic, or otherwise.

Nature evolves; it does so to perpetuate itself, to survive. Nature will make adjustments to the climate, the land and seas, the flora and fauna, in response to internal or external factors. And it does so very objectively; there are no favorites. So when we put nature in peril, we are actually putting ourselves in peril.

Now a fatalist might say, "Well, there's nothing we can do. If nature wants to take us out, it will. So you might as well enjoy the ride while you can." But perhaps it's my own human arrogance that says, "No, our fate is what we make." Mankind is the oppressor but it can be the steward, helping itself by helping nature; being a part of nature rather than against it.

Or for you sports fans, here's a metaphor: like it or not, we are part of the ultimate team . . . and the coach is watching. I'd like to survive the next round of cuts. How about you?

Putting A Price On Nature: WWF starts new project to aid conservation

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) is one of the largest conservation organizations with a broad range of interests and projects ranging from conservation of endangered species like tigers, gorillas, and rhinos to big picture issues like this one: putting a price on nature.

In essence this is a bit similar to the carbon credits concept that has been bounced around of late. Basically, the WWF is looking at the relationships between human society and nature, where ecosystems support economic development in a variety of ways; and then establish an economic model where those who benefit from the ecosystem would compensate those whose responsibility it would be to maintain the ecosystem. Well, here's an excerpt from their web site to explain it further:

Natural Capital: Putting a Price on Nature

By Dr. Taylor Ricketts

Sometimes pushing the limits of conservation means changing our perspective on a problem or challenging established assumptions. Doing so can unlock whole new approaches to conservation and lead to waves of success on the ground.

Assumption: Conservation and economic development are by nature at odds - a family can either earn money off their land or set it aside for conservation. With colleagues at Stanford University and The Nature Conservancy, we decided to turn this assumption on its head: What if people could be rewarded for conserving their land through payments from other people who value the "ecosystem services" that land provides? Could those who use the water that is cleaned when it flows through wetlands pay the owners of the wetlands to conserve that ecosystem? How cool would that be? That's how the Natural Capital Project was born.

To be fair, the concept of ecosystem services - and payments - has been around for a while. The goal our three organizations now share is to make them an operational force for conservation. We have set up experimental sites - in China, Tanzania, the Mesoamerican Reef, California and Hawaii - to test valuing ecosystem services in explicit economic terms. Some say it is politically dangerous to put a price tag on nature; others say it can't be done. Both could be true, but we believe the venture is worth the risk, as the rewards could be huge.

In Tanzania's Eastern Arc Mountains. Ancient forests here sustain thousands of species unique to the area. They give birth to half a dozen rivers providing water and electricity to more than 4 million people. Local villagers depend on the forest for firewood, medicinal plants, building materials and food. But in recent decades over 70 percent of the forest has been destroyed by logging, fires and farmland conversion. River flows have declined, interfering with hydropower and leading to increasingly frequent rolling blackouts in Tanzania's capital, Dar es Salaam. In short, the links between nature and human well-being are as tightly forged here as anywhere on Earth.

My WWF colleague Dr. Neil Burgess and I are working with international researchers, local experts and decision makers to calculate the forest's economic value to local, national, and global populations. With funding from the Packard Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust, we're creating maps that plot the value of ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, water purification, flood control, crop pollination, and harvested forest products. Only a few months into a five-year project, we've hit the ground running. Teams are in the field collecting data on water purification, carbon sequestration and timber. By the time you read this, we'll have met with leading decision makers to ensure our research is as useful as possible. In early 2008 we'll use the data and software we're now developing to publish our first maps. We already see clear political support and interest in using our products: The Tanzanian government has commissioned a task force on ecosystem services, based in part on the technical advice Neil has provided them for years. The Natural Capital Project is simply the most exciting initiative I've been involved with at WWF. Combining powerful research with strong and immediate application, we aim to break new intellectual ground and achieve big conservation results. It is experimental, with all the uncertainties that go along with any experiment. But we have the right partners, wonderful support from our leaders, and a powerful idea: making conservation economically attractive.

You can learn more about this and other WWF projects by visiting their web site, one of the most comprehensive in the conservation field.

RTSea Blog: back online following move

Back online after making a move of the RTSea Productions office (boy, is that ever temporary insanity or what? Boxes, cameras, furniture, computers . . . ugh!). Filming this week and back to shipping Island of the Great White Shark DVDs to Amazon and other distributors. Also, have some interesting projects coming up, but first, back to nature. New posts coming . . .

Geoengineering: big ideas to change the planet

I was reading through several scientific articles on geoengineering. Lots of big words and science jargon to stumble over, but I found it both fascinating and a bit alarming.

In a nutshell, geoengineering is the use of techniques and/or processes that alter some of the normal geological processes that nature has devised. As it relates to climate change, this is different than taking steps to reduce CO2 emissions (which we should continue to do regardless). Instead or in addition to, the attempt is made to counteract the ecosystem's reaction to the various influences that contribute to climate change. It's a bit like taking medicine to treat symptoms as opposed to preventive medicine - like taking a cold medication to alter your body functions to hopefully better fight the cold (symptomatic) as opposed to staying warm and eating right to avoid getting the cold in the first place (preventative).

Some of the approaches being considered range from seeding the stratosphere with certain sulfate aerosols that will counteract the global temperature change, or using seawater particles to seed maritime clouds which would "scrub" more heat-generating CO2 out of the atmosphere, to fertilizing select areas of the ocean with iron that would stimulate phytoplankton blooms which would capture and retain more CO2.

These are all very ambitious and large-scale concepts, but some scientists feel that this is what will be needed. There are those who feel that the global ecosystem has been pushed beyond its self-regulating capabilities to maintain the current status quo and will shift to a new status quo that will have drastic implications for life on this planet - and that this new condition will last for centuries or longer regardless of our immediate success in reducing greenhouse gases. Therefore, geoengineering is needed to either possibly prevent the shift or alter the effects of the new shift.

On the one hand, it all sounds very fascinating and illustrates some of the necessary forward-thinking that we need from our scientific community. But at the same time, the research is very new, does not have much baseline scientific study or modeling behind it, and there are a host of possible or unforeseen complications - just like the side effects of any medication.

It's interesting to read about but alarming to think that we have gotten ourselves to a point where such grandiose solutions must be considered.

Antarctica redux: climate change

My previous post discussed a report that was meant to verify that overall temperatures in Antarctica were slowly on the increase. The report, featured in the journal Nature, has come under considerable scrutiny and the methodologies used to derived the results are being questioned.

Should it be proved that the researchers involved in the report chose to stretch the limits of sound, solid research and analysis, that would be unfortunate as it provides fodder for critics of climate change. In the end, the extremist positions taken on any issue never seem to help the various camps on either side of the debate.

Some critics of climate change seem to take the position that it doesn't exist at all, that it's a total fabrication amounting to some elaborate conspiracy theory to make money or gain political power.

Others seem to accept that the climate is changing but that it is due to a natural cycle, not influenced by man-made activities, and therefore there is nothing that can be done about it (unfortunately, I do not hear much from them in the way of suggestions on how to deal then with the inevitable consequences).

Something is happening to the planet's climate. And with a population of over 6.5 billion, we are definitely having an impact on the depletion of many natural resources - from water to timber to wildlife and sealife. After two centuries of dependence on fossil fuels, resulting in vast and verified quantities of greenhouse gases being generated, it doesn't take a phenomenal leap of faith or judgment to consider that our quality of life would be improved by developing alternatives to our current consumption habits.

For the brief time I have remaining on this planet, I would like to think I can make a positive difference in my life, the lives of my children, and the planet. Go ahead, call me an optimistic dreamer. I don't mind.

Antarctica: cooling in the east, but overall temps on the rise

Antarctica has been described as the "beating heart" of the planet - this massive expanse of ice actually expands and contracts over the course of the year as it regulates and impacts much of the planet's weather systems. And as we have all heard, it's future in the face of global warming can have a profound effect on the future of the planet.

Recent studies have shown that East Antarctica has actually been cooling slightly, and this has provided fodder for skeptics of climate change who claim that scientific projections of temperature change are in error.

However, a report just published in the journal Nature details a study of Antarctic temperatures over the past 50 years and finds that the icy continent's overall temperature is increasing.

"We now see warming taking place on all seven continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases," said coauthor Eric J. Steig of the University of Washington.

In fact, West Antarctica has experienced slightly higher increases in temperature and has summarily seen greater erosion or melting. The East Antarctica anomaly is being attributed to the location of the hole in the ozone layer, positioned over this area of the continent. The loss of ozone over the white ice of East Antarctica allows for reflective sunlight to escape, thereby lowering the temperature. With the banning of chlorofluorocarbons, the ozone hole should be closed by the middle of the century and by then temperatures for the entire continent of Antarctica will be warming at a much higher rate.

Nature and the Seas: steps forward and challenges in 2009

Covering a range of conservation and environmental issues, here are a few success from 2008, compliments of the World Wildlife Fund:

• Sumatran elephant and tiger habitat protected in Indonesia, doubling the size of Sumatra's Tesso Nilo National Park.
• U.S. Congress extended tax incentives for individuals and businesses to install renewable energy systems and build energy-efficient buildings.
• United States became first country to prohibit import and sale of illegally-sourced woods - the loss of which has impacted forest animal habitats.
• U.S. House of Representatives passed the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, to protect lions, leopards, cheetahs and other imperiled species.
• The House also passed important legislation to protect tropical forests and coral reefs. Similar legislation passed a key senate committee.

Now, turning to our oceans, here are some challenges we face in 2009:

• Overfishing - We are still faced with losing most commercial fish species within 40 years (swordfish and tuna populations have already been reduced by a whopping 90%). The Magnuson-Stevens Act must be implemented. (Info on the M-S Act.)
  
• Bycatch - Commercial fishing still discards up to one million tons of fish each year, not to mention the countless numbers of marine mammals, turtles, and more. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Sea Turtles - Even though listed as endangered or threatened in U.S. waters, sea turtles are still exposed to harm from fisheries and loss of nesting and foraging habitat. (More info on sea turtles.)
  
• Sharks - The slaughter continues, up to 100 million sharks per year. While governments need to exercise greater effort in management and/or prohibition of species, continued efforts must be made to enhance public awareness and reduce demand for shark products. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Seafood Contamination - Mercury levels in many types of seafood is increasing. Government efforts must be increased to curb industry's use or disposal of this dangerous neurotoxin. (Mercury calculator for seafood.)
  
• Climate Change - We are continually learning more about the man-made effects of global warming, not only in terms of increased temperatures, but in its many byproducts like ocean acidification. And we are finding that the effects, like changes in Arctic, are accelerating faster than previous models predicted. (Previous post on subject.)
  
• Offshore Drilling - Many moratoriums on offshore drilling are set to expire soon. Before billions of dollars are spent to extract a diminishing resource, governments need to pressure the energy industries in refocusing their efforts. The U.S. needs a coherent energy policy based on long-term, not short-term, goals. (Previous post on subject.)
  

Time to roll up our sleeves, everyone.

Best Wishes from the RTSea Blog

Whatever your personal beliefs, may you all have a joyous holiday season spent with family and friends. Let's hope that in 2009 and for many years to come, mankind focuses its attention on the importance of the planet's natural resources.

Richard Theiss/RTSea Productions

RTSea Blog: dedicated to communicating in 2009

The sun is beginning to set on 2008 and, to say the least, it has been an interesting year. The RTSea Blog, in existence for more than a year, has been in its current format for six months now. It has been a very stimulating and motivating experience; I seem to learn as much as I mean to convey to others about some of the important environmental issues we are facing.

But now I would like to hear back from my readers as to any comments, ideas, or suggestions you may have to make it a better blog. I will probably always lean toward marine conservation issues, but if there are topics of interest you would like me to cover or changes in tone - more or less confrontational, more or less political, etc. - please let me know.

All comments come to me as emails for my review before being posted in the blog, so if you would prefer not to have your comment posted, just let me know in your comment.

Hopefully the year will end on a positive note. It would be a great precursor to 2009!

Decision 2008: The conventions are over; now comes the hard part

I don't wax political too often, but as we enter the last 8 weeks of our U.S. presidential election, I'll throw in my two cents worth. No, I won't tell you my choice; my opinion is my vote and you're smart enough to make your own call. Just be sure to get the facts.

Having finished their convention speeches, right now both candidates are talking a similar game: change. And when it comes to the environment, they're both throwing out pretty much the same promises. So, you're going to have to do some homework. We have a lot of important national issues to address, but in the big picture (something politicians are notoriously unable to deal with), Nature - the environment, conservation, climate change - will trump them all.

Former Vice President Al Gore has chosen to focus his efforts towards environmental issues, specifically global warming. Okay, cynics, it has brought him fame and some fortune, but he does realize that in the end, environmental issues make all other problems look like small potatoes.

So think hard about your choices: Who can bring together the people in a common purpose regarding the environment? Who can move the forces of politics and commerce in the right direction? Who is determined to set us on a new course beyond our 100-year old fossil fuel industrial model?

After all the cheers, balloons and confetti have subsided, where will we be? What happens in the next 4 to 8 years can have a lasting impact for decades or longer. Think hard. It's only the planet's future at stake.

The Cascade Effect: more accurate than the domino theory

There was a time when the term "domino effect" was used to describe everything from conservation issues to world domination. When talking about adverse effects on the ecology, scientists today prefer the term "cascade effect" as it more accurately reflects what is happening. Rather than one change affecting something else which affects something else, and so on (like dominoes), the cascade effect reflects how one change affects several others, which affects several more, broadening its overall impact over an entire eco-system.

The once precipitous decline of timberwolves in the U.S. and Canada is a typical example. Heavily hunted because of concerns over cattle losses, the decline in the wolf population caused an increase in the deer population which, in turn, encroached on the cattlemen's grazing land. But also, there was an explosion in the rodent population (also part of the wolves' diet) which impacted insect populations and birds (through loss of bird eggs and chicks) and so on and on . . .

Mankind has a tendency to look for simple cause and effects and simple solutions. Nature is much more complex than that and so we must be constantly aware of the wide-ranging impact of our actions.

Thanksgiving 2007: Forward thinking for Nature's sake

On 11/12/07, RTSea wrote: As we in the U.S. approach our Thanksgiving holiday, I find myself thinking more about the challenges ahead than whatever bounty we have enjoyed over the past year. Today, I listened to a roundtable of respected journalists give their opinions as to whether corporations will truly embrace the necessary changes to address global warming. Their responses were not encouraging. Actions taken by individuals and corporations when it comes to climate change, must be the result of decisions based on long-term thinking, not short term. And that has always been a tremendous challenge - whether satisfying our personal finances or the needs of corporate shareholders.

There is no time like the present to re-orient our thinking when it comes to the long term demands of the environment. We cannot wait for some ecological disaster to occur and then we spring into action to save the day. Nature does not work like that. Think of Nature as one of those huge ocean liners. As it approaches port, to turn or slow down, the crew must initiate action many miles off shore. To wait until you see the dock only guarantees that there will be a tremendous crash.

While I do not accept all of the concepts behind the Gaia environmental theory, one concept I do see as valid is the fact that Nature will always seek a balance. It will do what it takes to try to continue to exist in some manner or another. And if that means the reduction or even extinction of a species - including humans - then so be it. So we must be conscious of what we are doing now as our actions will have a lasting legacy for years to come.

In regards to forward-thinking and the environment, Bill Clinton was recently quoted in Rolling Stone, "Think of this: As far as we can tell, the first Homo Sapiens rose up from the African savannah give or take 150,000 years ago. That means it took us 150,000 years to grow to our present population of 6.5 billion. Now all of a sudden, in the next forty-three years, we are going to go from 6.5 billion to 9 billion - at the very time we are facing climate change, resource depletion and real identity tensions all over the world. That is why I think more about fifty years from now than fifty days from now."