Japan Vows Big Climate Cut

Japan’s next leader has promised a big cut in greenhouse gas emissions, saying he will aim for a 25% reduction by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

Democratic Party leader Yukio Hatoyama is due to take over as prime minister on 16 September, after a resounding election victory in August.

His predecessor, Taro Aso, had pledged cuts of only 8%.

Mr Hatoyama said the plan was dependent on other nations agreeing targets at December’s climate talks in Copenhagen.

Analysts say the targets – announced by Mr Hatoyama at a climate change symposium in Tokyo on Monday – are more ambitious than those of many other industrialised nations.

They won praise from the climate change chief of the UN, which is recommending developed countries commit to a 25-40% reduction by 2020.

“With such a target, Japan will take on the leadership role that industrialised countries have agreed to take in climate change abatement,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, told the conference.

Japan is the world’s second-largest economy and fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which are a major contributor to climate change.

Correspondents say some Japanese business groups, including parts of the automotive industry, are expected to lobby against the plans.

The head of business lobby Keizai Doyukai (Japan Association of Corporate Executives) told the climate symposium the new government needed to spell out the policies in more detail.

“We basically welcome [the target], but we want to ask what policies and steps will be taken to achieve this 25% target,” Masamitsu Sakurai told the forum, according to Reuters news agency.

Japan’s new government envisages the plans will be achieved by bringing in emissions trading, renovating housing, subsidising solar panels and introducing low-energy technologies in cars.

Without mentioning China or India by name, Mr Hatoyama said: “We think developing countries are also required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases, as a global effort is needed on the issue of climate change,” reports AFP news agency.

December’s UN-backed climate talks in Copenhagen in Denmark will try to work out a deal on reducing emissions to succeed the current Kyoto Protocol, the first phase of which ends in 2012.

Japan has been under pressure to introduce tougher policies on climate change after its emissions rose last year to 16% above the Kyoto target, which it played a leading role in agreeing in 1997.

Empty Rhetoric?

Mr Hatoyama’s target puts Japan alongside the EU in pledging substantial greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Japan’s plan is conditional on achieving a deal at the UN summit in December, so it presents an additional “carrot” to negotiators; the new Japanese leadership has not spelled out what will happen if a deal is not reached.

The ambitious target amounts to an emissions cut of about one-third from current levels in just 11 years, in a country that already uses energy efficiently.

The new government now has some serious thinking to do about how to turn rhetoric into reality.

- Richard Black, BBC Environment Correspondent

Source: BBC Online

Herbs ‘can be natural pesticides’

Common herbs and spices show promise as an environmentally-friendly alternative to conventional pesticides, scientists have told a major US conference.

They have spent a decade researching the insecticidal properties of rosemary, thyme, clove and mint. They could become a key weapon against insect pests in organic agriculture, the researchers say, as the industry attempts to satisfy demand.

The “plant essential oils” have a broad range of action against bugs. Some kill them outright while others repel them.

Details were presented at the Fall Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Washington DC.

These new pesticides are generally a mixture of tiny amounts of two to four different herbs diluted in water.

The research was led by Dr Murray Isman, from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

Some spice-based commercial products now being used by farmers have already shown success in protecting organic strawberry, spinach, and tomato crops against destructive aphids and mites, Dr Isman explained.

“These products expand the limited arsenal of organic growers to combat pests,” he said.

“They’re still only a small piece of the insecticide market, but they’re growing and gaining momentum.”

Unlike conventional pesticides, these “killer spices” do not require more limited approval from regulatory bodies and are readily available.

An additional advantage is that insects are less likely to evolve resistance – the ability to shrug off once-effective toxins – Isman says. They’re also safer for farm workers, who are at high risk for pesticide exposure, he notes.

But the herb-based pesticides also have shortcomings.

Since the essential oils made from these herbs tend to evaporate quickly and degrade rapidly in sunlight, farmers need to apply them to crops more frequently than conventional pesticides.

Some last only a few hours, compared to days or even months for conventional pesticides.

As they are also generally less potent than conventional pesticides, they must be applied in higher concentrations to achieve acceptable levels of pest control, Dr Isman said.

Researchers are now seeking ways of making the novel pesticides longer-lasting and more potent, he added.

“They’re not a panacea for pest control,” Dr Isman explained.

Conventional pesticides are still the most effective way to control caterpillars, grasshoppers, beetles and other large insects on commercial food crops, he added.

“It comes down to what’s good for the environment and what’s good for human health.”

Source: BBC

Review: Climate Change Expanding Tropics and Sub-Tropical Arid Zones, with Implications

photo: Tim via flickr

A review of peer-reviewed scientific literature done by researchers at Australia’s James Cook University reveals that in the past 25 years there’s been an expansion of the world’s tropical zones and that human activity has contributed to it:

The literature review shows that the areas which climatologists and meteorologists consider to be the tropics (which is defined differently than in geography, where it is defined as within 0 – 23.5 degrees N and S of the Equator) have expanded at minimum 300 kilometers (186 miles).

Future expansion of these zones is harder to predict, but based on what’s now known the planet could see a further spread of the tropical conditions over the next 25 years of between 222-553 kilometers (138-338 miles).

Sub-Tropical Arid Zones Push Into New Areas

The implication of this is that sub-tropical arid zones which border the tropics are being pushed into areas which previously had a more temperate climate, with more pronounced differences in seasonal temperatures and precipitation.

As these areas expand they will begin pushing into more heavily populated areas, with potentially severe impacts on society.

Such areas include heavily populated regions of southern Australia, southern Africa, the southern Europe-Mediterranean-Middle East region, the south-western United States, northern Mexico, and southern South America – all of which are predicted to experience severe drying.If the dry subtropics expand into these regions, the consequences could be devastating for water resources, natural ecosystems and agriculture, with potentially cascading environmental, social and health implications.

Tropical Diseases Spread Into New Areas

Furthermore, the expansion of tropical diseases such as dengue fever could hit areas where the diseases was previously not endemic or where epidemic levels of dengue were previously not present. Researchers said the literature showed that these areas include the southern United States, China, northern Africa in the northern hemisphere, and parts of South America, southern Africa, and most of Australia in the southern hemisphere.

Anthropogenic Causes

As to the cause of all this, the literature is less certain, though the most recent research points to anthropogenic causes. Research published earlier this year in the journalGeophysical Research Letters shows,

…that the observed widening of the tropics can only be accurately replicated by an atmospheric general circulation model that includes direct radiative effects related to human greenhouse gas emissions and stratospheric ozone depletion. Simulation models which did not include anthropogenic radiative effects showed no significant change in the width of the tropics.

Read the full report: Expansion of the Tropics: Evidence and implications (PDF)

Study: Rapid Recovery of Ecosystems

photo: Partners for Fish and Wildlife via flickr.

New research done at the Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Science reinforces the idea that ecosystems are quiet resilient and can rebound from pollution and environmental degradation. Published in the journal PLoS ONE, the study shows that most damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within a single lifetime, if the source of pollution is removed and restoration work done:

Forests Take Longest of Ecosystems Studied
The analysis found that on average forest ecosystems can recover in 42 years, while in takes only about 10 years for the ocean bottom to recover. If an area has seen multiple, interactive disturbances, it can take on average 56 years for recovery. In general, most ecosystems take longer to recover from human-induced disturbances than from natural events, such as hurricanes.

To reach these recovery averages, the researchers looked at data from peer-reviewed studies over the past 100 years on the rate of ecosystem recovery once the source of pollution was removed.

Interestingly, the researchers found that it appears that the rate at which an ecosystem recovers may be independent of its degraded condition: Aquatic systems may recover more quickly than, say, a forest, because the species and organisms that live in that ecosystem turn over more rapidly than in the forest.

Average recovery times by ecosystem type (top), disturbance (bottom). Image: PLoS ONE

Ecosystem Restoration Possible, and Justified
As to what this all means, Oswald Schmitz, professor of ecology at Yale and report co-author, says that this analysis shows that an increased effort to restore damaged ecosystems is justified, and that

“Restoration could become a more important tool in the management portfolio of conservation organizations that are entrusted to protect habitats on landscapes. We recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems”

- Oswald Schmitz, Professor of Ecology at Yale; Report Co-Author

A PDF copy of the report can be found here: Rapid Recovery of Ecosystems (Holly P. Jones, Oswald J. Schmitz)

$467 Million in Stimulus Money Released for Solar Power & Geothermal

photo: David Blaikie via flickr.

Solar power and geothermal power have finally gotten their portion of money allocated in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, to the tune of $467 million. President Obama announced this by touting the usual rhetoric of decreasing dependency on foreign oil and putting people back to work in through green energy jobs. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu too talked up green jobs, plus the role renewable energy can play in combatting climate change Frankly, absolutely nothing new or novel was said, but it is great that solar and geothermal have finally been shown some federal stimulus love. This is how all that money is being divided up:

Geothermal to Get Most of the Funding
All told geothermal is getting $350 million: $140 million is going toward Geothermal Demonstration Projects; $80 million towards Enhanced Geothermal Systems Technology Research and Development; $100 million towards Innovative Exploration Techniques; $30 million towards a National Geothermal Data System, Resource Assessment, and Classification System.

Solar Power Gets One-Third of Geothermal
Solar power has been allocated $117.6 million: $51.5 million for Photovoltaic Technology Development; $40.5 for Solar Energy Deployment (“Projects in this area will focus on non-technical barriers to solar energy deployment, including grid connection, market barriers to solar energy adoption in cities, and the shortage of trained solar energy installers.”); Concentrating Solar Power Research and Development brings up the rear with $25.6 million.

More: Department of Energy

Plants to Monitor Pollution in Two Turkish Cities

Redbud trees are among the plants that will help monitor air pollution in the Turkish cities of Tarsus and Erdemli. Photo by B~ via Flickr.

The bounty of tulips that the Istanbul municipality plants in the city’s public squares, parks, and gardens each April to celebrate the coming of spring shows how radically–and attractively–a bit of nature can transform urban space. But decorative plants are more, so to speak, than just a pretty face. By using them to monitor air pollution, cities can clean up as well as green up.

Monitoring heavy metals
A pilot project has been launched in two cities in the eastern Mediterranean province of Mersin to monitor the heavy metals and other pollutants in exhaust fumes using decorative plants, trees, and shrubs. A joint effort of the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, Çukurova University, and the Tarsus Municipality, with support from the country’s Ministry of Agriculture, the project will last for three years and will be conducted in Tarsus and Erdemli.

Some 390 redbuds, rubber plants, magnolias, orchids, Jacaranda, oleander, and Pyracantha have already been planted along busy roadways in the two cities.

A model for all of Turkey
Dr. Ayhan Aydın, the project officer at the Alata Horticultural Research Institute, where the plants to be used in the research are being cultivated, said if the pilot project is successful, it may be launched nationwide after the conclusion of the initial study period.

Istanbul could certainly use the additional greenery, as well as the new tool in its ongoing, and often seemingly futile, battle against pollution from cars, burning coal, industrial operations, and other sources. The capital, Ankara, and the Mediterranean city of Adana, the country’s fourth largest, are also air-quality trouble spots.

Air pollution a big issue
According to data compiled by the Environment and Forestry Minstry in 2007, out of the country’s 81 provinces, 73 are “faced with serious environmental problems.” Air pollution was named the most pressing problem in 27 provinces, but the ministry said it was an issue in almost all provinces.

A European Union report the same year said progress on the subject has been “limited” and “Turkey needs to adopt further legislation and take steps to start implementation, including upgrading air quality monitoring.” In making this recommendation, the EU may have envisioned something more high-tech than magnolia plants, but from small seeds, great things can sprout.

Via: “Plants to measure effects of exhaust gas,”Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review

Australia: The Politics of Environment – A Brief Round-Up

Kudos to Warren McLaren, Sydney for writing this great article for treehugger.com

They say “a week is a long time in politics.” And this was my first thought when Matthew asked me, a month ago, to consider a round-up of business and politics events from Australia.

It may be a large sunburnt land blessed with many natural assets, but the so called Lucky Country might be using up some of its nine lives, if recent events are anything to go by. Some of the worst weather since records began suggest the climate is a changing. And not just atmospherically, politically as well. Not only are international icons like the Great Barrier Reef at risk via climate change, so are one of the oldestindigenous peoples on the planet. So what should a country, which can claim the dubious distinction of being the world’s highest emitters of carbon dioxide per capita, do to improve it’s environmental footprint? We peek at a smattering of the issues below.

Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariffs

Photo: Peak Energy

Australia has a bit of reputation for being world class innovators, but lousy entrepreneurs. We can problem solve with great flair, but we’re not particular brilliant at bringing products to market, oftentimes selling the new technology to someone else to commercialise. This has been our experience with solar. As a staffer at one of our leading photovoltaic research universities recently told me, “We make engineers, we don’t make solar panels.”

So Australia has the technology. In many cases we invented it. We certainly have the sun. But we have just lacked the political and commercial will to forge this country into the solar dynamo it should be. One of Australia’s leading suppliers of renewable energy, Energy Matters, put its bluntly. Germany, “ … while having half the sunshine of Australia, have 200 times the solar production capacity of our country …” And they put this down to Germany having a generous feed-in tariff program.

A feed-in tariff is where the owner of a a grid connected renewable energy system, like solar, is paid a premium (usually greater than the retail price of electricity) for the energy they feed into the grid (that their electricity utility can on-sell to other users.) There are two basic types of tariffs, net and gross. Net is only paid for any energy supplied to the grid that is greater than what was used. For example, if the system generated 12 units of power, but also drew down on the grid for 10 units, then the tariff would only be paid for the 2 units that were in surplus. With a Gross Feed-In Tariff (FIT) the premium is paid for the full 12 units.

Australia has no national feed-in tariff, with some of the states only just implementing their own disparate versions in the past couple of years. At the time of writing, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) had the most generous solar program. In this our tiniest self governing region, they offer, to those of their 340,000 residents who have grid-connected photovoltaic systems, just over 50 cents AUD (38c USD) per kilowatt hour, for up to 10kw of solar capacity. This is roughly four times the retail price of electricity, depending on the plan an ACT customer is on. The program went live for residential solar systems in March 2009.

However, according to the recently announced Western Australian budget, the ACT has been trumped by a more generous feed-in tariff of 60 cents AUD (45c USD) per kilowatt hour. This high premium will only be open to those customers who also sign up for 100% GreenPower for the energy they purchase. With these rates it has been calculated by the WA Sustainable Energy Association that a solar system could be paid off in nine years. (Most solar panels are designed to function for 20-25 years.) The most populous Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) is currently deliberating on what form of feed-in tariff it will legislate. A result is expected by June 2009. The rest of country has a mish mash of tariff, but there remains a push for a national gross feed-in tariff of 80c /kWh.

Solar Power Adoption

Photo: PV-Tech

The feed-in tariff argument has recently reached prominence, due the success that Germany and Spain have had in rolling out photovoltaic systems. But it has not been the only influencing factoring in the slow adoption of solar technologies in Australia. Being a long way from anywhere has meant panels have been expensive to import. And with a relatively small population, (only 57% that of California!) sparsely spread around the country, they have tricky to produce locally, given high wages and small economies of scale. BP Solar, the only on-shore producer of PV panels announced in December 2008 they would close their Sydney plant to concentrate on production out of Asia.

In the face of such pricing pressures, various Australian federal and state governments have, over the years, rolled out different rebates for solar panel purchases. Initially these were to assist people in remote areas, but more recently with utilities embracing grid-connect systems, rebates for photovoltaics became more pervasive. In general the federal government will pay $8,000 towards the cost of 1 kW residential solar installations. In the 2008 budget the government announced the $8,000 rebate would ‘means tested’ and only available to those households with a combined income of less than $100,000. This sent a tremor of fear through the Australian solar industry. However, they need not have worried as, inexplicably, installation applications increased in such demand that rebate processing times about doubled.

It may have been that the political debate over the changes alerted more people to the fact that rebates were available, or maybe the announcement raised concerns that the rebate was being reviewed and interested parties needed to get in quick while it was still on offer. If the latter, then their instincts were spot on, for change was coming. For as of 30 June 2009 the $8,000 is gone, replaced by a new Solar Credits scheme.

Under this new process, there is no direct cash rebate, but tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) will allocated on a sliding scale of points, depending of the carbon reduction efficiency of the installed system. RECs are already in place for the likes of solar hot water rebates, but with the new Solar Credits program their value will beartificially increased five fold.

This process has drawn flak from many quarters. Some believe it means polluters, like coal-fired power stations, buying the exchangable credits on the market, will be purchasing much cheaper credits to allow them to continue their carbon dioxide emissions,negating the efforts of the homeowner to reduce CO2 output . In pure economic terms, the RECs will not, in many instances, reward the residential householder as much as the current lump sum $8,000 rebate.

Couple these rebate changes, with the aforementioned move to gross feed-in tariffs and with the newly emerging business model of communities, co-ops and businesses bulk buying panels and inverters to bring the price down even further, and you have a mad rush of residential solar installations.

Renewable Energy Targets

Photo: Wind in the Bush

All of which goes to help the government inch closer (sounds better than ‘centimetre closer’) to their stated aim of 20% renewable energy by 2020. Back in April of this year the federal and state governments under the umbrella of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) agreed to expand the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET) to this goal. In reality this means that nationally Australia will strive for a legislated target of 45,000 gigawatt-hours by 2020. More than four times larger than the present MRET.

This won’t just come from solar, but also the likes of wind, biomass and geothermal (aka “hot rocks”). But on the solar side of things, the government of Kevin Rudd, just this weekend past detailed one the ways the federal government will be contributing to this target.

It plans under its Clean Energy Initiative to build four solar plants, which in aggregate will amount to “largest solar energy project in the world.” As the Australian newspaper understands the Solar Flagships proposal, there will be almost $1.4 billion AUD invested in two solar thermal, and two solar photovoltaic stations with a combined output of 1000MW coming on stream by 2015.

Other government initiatives like Solar Schools and Solar Cities will also contribute towards the national MRET. As will wind power, although rolling out wind farms tends to more problematic when the NIMBY (not in my back yard) element comes into play.

Geothermal energy holds great promise as water is flushed into deep holes in the earth’s crust, to be heated by hot rocks and returning to the surface as steam, to drive turbines. Although feasible to the point it is said it could provide for all of Australia’s energy needs, it is currently experiencing some technical teething issues. But not everyone will need to make a contribution, like the big polluters, known as ”emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industry”, who’ll be largely exempt.
In the federal Budget just announced last week the government said they would invest $465 million to establish Renewables Australia to support this sort of leading edge research and make it commercial.

Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

Photo: AAP / Dean Lewins from the ABC

However Australian governments aren’t having the good news stories all flow their way.

The federal Rudd Government have come under concentrated attack from green groups, and particularly the national Greens poltical party, for their 2009 budget announcement, that they’ll be funding so called ‘clean coal’ to the turn of $2.4 billion AUD, most of which will be directed a Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program. That’s $0.4 billion more than the Solar Flagships program.

And the Victorian government has been chastised for its feed-in tariff, which will be a net system, not gross and be eligible for only up to 3.2 kW energy systems (the ACT’s is 10 kW) and will be a credit on their electricity bill, not a payment.

On the much bigger picture is the federal government’s emission trading scheme, or as they prefer to call it, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Many believe that the Labor party was successful at the 2007 election, in part because they promised to sign the Kyoto Protocol and actually do something about climate change, unlike the previous government.

Professor Ross Garnaut, was employed to inform the Australian government on the economic impact of global warming to the country. Part of his recommendations included the establishment of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). (The US has been talking around a similar idea, but using the terminology ‘cap and trade.’ In short, enterprises who want increase their emissions beyond an allowance (or cap), set by the government need to buy (trade) credits from businesses who emit less greenhouse gases.

Anyhow. acting on the Garnaut report, the government developed their version of an ETS. But up until recently they have had no joy getting anyone to like it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the federal opposition party, the Liberal/National Coalition was right when he said, “It’s literally completely friendless.” Environmentalists and The Greens felt it was wishy washy, because it only strove to reduce emissions by 5% and gave a heap of ‘get out of jail’ free cards to the big emitters. The influential mining industry (Australia is the world’s largest exporter or coal) obviously are not keen on any legislation that impedes business opportunities. It was so universally disliked that it did not pass through the parliament. It didn’t look like anything was going to be place by the election promised date of 2010.

Then at the start of May 2009 the government reneged, coming out with a revised plan. They were now moving it back to 2011 and implementing a raft of compromises, like a new low price for carbon — $10 a tonne — and yet more free permits for large polluting industries. Yet these changes enabled them to drop their bombshell (the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had repeatedly stated that “It would be reckless and irresponsible for our economy and for our environment,” to delay the introduction of an emissions trading scheme), supported on the day, by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and mainstream enviro groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Climate Institute and the World Wildlife Fund.

One of the concessions was that Australia would move to a 25% Greenhouse Gas reduction by by 2020. Which on the surface sounded great. But devil is always in the detail. This cut would only occur if a comprehensive global agreement on emissions reduction can be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. Of course, the Greens are incensed at what they see as ‘smoke and mirrors.’ But the government wants some sort of scheme passed by parliament, so it can attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with at least something in its pocket, as a bargaining chip.

And There’s More?

Photo: Warren McLaren / INOV8

With all this talk of emissions trading and solar programs one could be forgiven in thinking there weren’t other environment issues stalking the corridors of Australian political office. Let’s briefly touch on just a few.

As previously noted here the state governments couldn’t agree on national campaign to rid shops and waterways of the dreaded plastic shopping bag, so South Australia went it alone. (As they many years ago, being the only state to have Container Deposit Legislation, placing a redeemable deposit on all beverage containers.)

The food bowl of Australia is the catchment of two major river, the so-called Murray-Darling basin; it is, as Reuters points out, “as large as France and Germany combined, accounts for 41 percent of Australia’s agriculture and provides A$21 billion ($13.54 billion) worth of farm exports to Asia and the Middle East. Around 70 percent of irrigated agriculture comes from the basin. And whether due to the worst drought in over a century, or the early onset of climate change the region is under some pretty severe stress.

“The drought has already wiped more than A$20 billion from the $1 trillion economy since 2002. It is the worst in 117 years of record-keeping, with 80 percent of eucalyptus trees already dead or stressed in the Murray-Darling region.”

It’s not just ecosystems at imminent risk of devastation. If the current dry conditions continue, as they are forecast to, then the South Australian capital of Adelaide may run out of water within two years. Other states have offered to sent drinking water for the city of over 1 million people, but they too draw upon the Murray river, which only has 18% of its capacity at the moment. The federal government has given the The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) $50 million to buy back some of the seven billion litres of water from water licence holders along the catchment, who are willing to sell.

The devastating bushfires in the state of Victoria, which claimed around 170 lives and 2,000 homes, are another aspect of Australia’s dry climate. There are claims that not enough fuel reduction burns were undertaken preceding the fires, though the bush and forest is the reason many of the people live in those locations in the first place. Others believe that with the ongoing drought, there are not enough safe days in the year to undertake the scale of reduction burns needed. A Royal Commission is presently underway to determine the factors that contributed to the most deadly natural disaster in Australian history.

Before the Commission convened and on behalf of more than 13,000 firefighters and support staff, the National Secretary of United Firefighters Union of Australia sent an open letter to the Australian Prime Minister and Victorian Premie. It said, in part:

“Something is going on. As we battle blazes here in Victoria, firefighters are busy rescuing people from floods in Queensland. Without a massive turnaround in policies, aside from the tragic loss of life and property, we will be asking firefighters to put themselves at an unacceptable risk. Firefighters know that it is better to prevent an emergency than to have to rescue people from it, and we urge state and federal governments to follow scientific advice and keep firefighters and the community safe by halving the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.”

And how about this one: The ABC reports that “Tasmania’s Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts will be shut down to help cover a looming budget black hole.”

But there is some good news. A massive amount of environmental rebates available from state and national government to help householders, landlords, schools and community groups. These cover ceiling insulation; rainwater tanks (with added incentives if these are connected up to washing machines and flushing toilets); solar hot water systems; energy and water efficient washing machines; compost bins; drip water gardening systems; grey water systems, green loans, and more.

And we have to stop there. For next week there’ll be a whole new set of challenges and opportunities confronting our elected representatives.

Study: Mercury in Pacific to Rise by 50% by 2050

Simplified mercury biogeochemical cycle

According to a new study, if mercury levels continue to rise at the rate they’re predicted to rise, the amount of mercury in the Pacific will increase by 50% over the next 40 years. The study also shows just how the mercury in emissions from around the world wind up in the North Pacific Ocean.

“This unprecedented USGS study is critically important to the health and safety of the American people and our wildlife because it helps us understand the relationship between atmospheric emissions of mercury and concentrations of mercury in marine fish,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

So, how does the mercury get into the food stream?

[M]ethylmercury is produced in mid-depth ocean waters by processes linked to the “ocean rain.” Algae, which are produced in sunlit waters near the surface, die quickly and “rain” downward to greater water depths. At depth, the settling algae are decomposed by bacteria and the interaction of this decomposition process in the presence of mercury results in the formation of methylmercury. Many steps up the food chain later, predators like tuna receive methylmercury from the fish they consume…it appears the recent mercury enrichment of the sampled Pacific Ocean waters is caused by emissions originating from fallout near the Asian coasts. The mercury-enriched waters then enter a long-range eastward transport by large ocean circulation currents,” said USGS scientist and coauthor David Krabbenhoft.

Via Science Daily

Here’s an abstract for the scientific study:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GB003425.shtml

Marc Ona Essangui awarded 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize

A campaigner who was jailed during his battle to save the rainforest in Gabon has received a top international award.

Marc Ona Essangui was honoured for his fight to stop what he describes as a destructive mining project in the Ivindo National Park.

He is one of seven people from six continental regions to be awarded an equal share of the $900,000 (£600,000) 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize.

It has been described as “the Nobel Prize for grassroots environmentalism”.

Mr Ona has campaigned for three years against the Belinga mine project – a deal between the government in Gabon and the Chinese mining and engineering company, CMEC, to extract iron ore.

The project includes the construction of a large hydroelectric dam, which is already underway, to provide power for the mine.

The dam is being built on the Ivindo River, near the Kongou Falls, Gabon’s highest waterfall.

Mr Ona, who described the falls as “the most beautiful in central Africa”, said that Gabon’s government had failed to consult the local population and had not assessed the impact of the development on the environment before it gave permission for construction to begin.

He told BBC News that he hoped his receipt of the Goldman Prize would “draw international attention to just how precious this area is”.

Political protest

Mr Ona, who uses a wheelchair, dedicated his early career to improving education and communication infrastructure in Gabon, including working with the United Nations Development Programme. He later turned his attention to environmental issues.

He eventually decided to focus his efforts full time on the work of his own environmental NGO, Brainforest, which aims to protect the rainforest for the benefit local of communities.

“The government established 13 national parks here, and I became interested in all the activities within them,” he said.

“In 2006, my colleagues and I noticed that roads were being built within Ivindo.”

(The Ivindo River in Gabon’s Ivindo National Park flows down rapids and then into Kongou Falls. A dam project to power a Chinese-financed iron ore mining venture is threatening to destroy the falls. Photo: Candace Feit for The New York Times)

When Mr Ona investigated, he discovered that there had been no environmental impact studies carried out before the road building started.

On its website, the Gabonese government describes the national parks as having been “classified for the conservation of Gabon’s rich biodiversity”.

The key goals of the national park scheme, it says, are preservation of “the wealth of the ecosystem… for current and future generations” and stimulating “the development of ecotourism as an economic alternative to the exploitation of natural resources”.

Mr Ona said: “All of this construction was carried out illegally and against the code of the national parks.”

He also unearthed and leaked a copy of the Belinga mine project agreement between the government and CMEC, revealing that CMEC had been offered a 25-year tax break as part of the deal.

“When we really started to look into the deal, we noticed that it was China, not Gabon, that was the major beneficiary,” he said.

Under pressure

He and his colleagues embarked on their campaign, working with other environmental NGOs, holding news conferences and meeting with local communities.

“The government even motivated some protests against the NGOs involved,” he recalled.

“They alleged that we were working [on behalf of] Western powers, and we received a lot of pressure to stop the campaign.”

This culminated in Mr Ona being arrested and charged with “incitement to rebellion”.

He was jailed by the Gabonese judicial police on 31 December 2008; but following an internationally co-ordinated campaign for his release, he was freed on 12 January 2009.

Since June 2006, however, he has been banned from travelling outside the country.

His passport was returned to him only 24 hours before he was due to travel to San Francisco for the Goldman award ceremony.

There has been no construction in Ivindo for almost a year, but Mr Ona says this has more to do with the economic crisis and the price of iron ore than with the Gabonese government backing down.

He has no plans to give up his quest.

“Some of the money from this award will go to the functioning of Brainforest, and the rest will be allocated to setting up small- and medium-sized businesses for local communities,” he said.

“I want to set up a clinic near Ivindo where the local people can be treated using traditional medicine. Some of the money will serve to establish this health centre for all of those communities.”

No fear

The organisers of the Goldman Prize describe the six winners as “a group of fearless grassroots leaders, taking on government and corporate interests and working to improve the environment for people in their communities”.

Among the other 2009 recipients are Maria Gunnoe from West Virginia, US, who has faced death threats for her outspoken activism to stop destruction of the Appalachia by the coal industry.

Also rewarded are Russian scientist Olga Speranskaya, who connected NGOs across Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region to identify and safely remove toxic chemical stockpiles, and Rizwana Hasan, Bangladesh’s leading environmental attorney, whose legal advocacy led to tighter regulations on the ship-breaking industry.

Salmon Numbers Dwindle – Fishing Ban in California Expected

You know the fish aren’t jumpin’ when the very people who make their living reeling in chinook salmon are proposing a ban on ocean fishing for a second straight year.

That is exactly what happened Monday at the annual Pacific Fishery Management Council meetings in Seattle, where the gory details of the catastrophic decline of California’s salmon has become woefully apparent.

Fishing-industry representatives on a council advisory panel looked at the dismal state of the fall run of Sacramento River salmon and proposed closing the 2009 ocean salmon fishing season, except, perhaps, for a bit of recreational fishing near the Oregon border.

“It is pretty simple in California,” said Peter Dygert, a fishery biologist for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries service. “Both the recreational and commercial trollers on the advisory panel have proposed no fishing.

“This is grim news for the state of California,” Don Hansen, chairman of the council, said in a statement. “We won’t be able to talk about this without using the word ‘disaster.’”

The management council, a 14-member federal panel that manages the Pacific Coast fishery, is expected to come up with three options for ocean fishing after a week of testimony and the digestion of mounds of documents and studies.

There isn’t much mystery about what the council will propose, given that the folks most likely to lobby for more fishing are proposing the elimination of the season. The only thing to decide, really, is whether to allow recreational fishing on certain dates in the summer from the Oregon border south to a spot near the mouth of the Klamath River, which had a slightly better salmon return than the Central Valley river system. The current proposals would allow sportfishing over the July 4 weekend and from Aug. 15 to Sept. 7. An alternate plan would allow it only from Aug. 29 to Sept. 7.

Biologists estimated only 66,000 adult salmon returned to spawn last fall in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, based on a count of egg nests in the river bed. It was the lowest return on record. The collapse caused regulators to ban ocean salmon fishing in California and most of Oregon last year. The collapse led to an emergency declaration and appropriation of federal disaster assistance to keep fishing businesses alive.

The dismal spawning numbers are expected to continue this year. Fisheries biologists are projecting that the fall run of chinook in the system this year will be a little bit higher than last year. Still, the numbers will barely reach the council’s spawning goals even if there is no fishing, according to the projections.

Both the Klamath and Sacramento rivers have suffered recently from extremely low returns. Declines have also been seen in the Columbia-Snake River System over the past several years. Last year, more than 2,200 fishermen and fishing-related business workers lost their jobs. Fishing communities and fishing-related businesses lost more than $250 million, according to some estimates. Indirect economic impacts were even higher, according to fishing industry representatives.

The collapse in California is especially troubling because the Central Valley fall run of chinook has for many years been the backbone of the West Coast fishing industry. Big salmon from the Sacramento River have been reeled in as far north as Alaska, according to biologists.

The council is considering allowing fishing of only hatchery fish – identifiable because their fleshy adipose fins are removed – off the Oregon coast. Meanwhile, more than 75 commercial and recreational fishing associations and conservation organizations signed a letter Monday urging President Obama to create a new position of salmon director to help restore the West Coast salmon populations, protect fishing jobs and rebuild the salmon economy.

A final decision on the ban and the hatchery fishing is expected in early April.