Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • NASA’s ‘new form of life’ untrue, scientists say

     

    NASA’s ‘new form of life’ untrue, scientists say

    Date
    July 10, 2012 – 9:36AM
    • 66 reading now
    • 127
    Mono Lake ... bacterium found here was said to redefine the building blocks of life.

    Mono Lake … bacterium found here was said to redefine the building blocks of life. Photo: Henry Bortman

    Washington: Two new scientific papers have disproved a controversial claim made by NASA-funded scientists in 2010 that a new form of bacterial life had been discovered that could thrive on arsenic.

    “Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive,” said a statement by the US journal Science, a prestigious, peer-reviewed magazine.

    I don’t know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they’re unscrupulously pushing NASA’s ‘There’s life in outer space!’ agenda.

    Science published Sunday the much-hyped initial study in December 2010, with lead researcher Felisa Wolfe-Simon, then a fellow in NASA’s astrobiology program, announcing that a new form of life had been scooped from a California lake.

    The bacterium in arsenic-rich Mono Lake was said to redefine the building blocks of life, surviving and growing by swapping phosphorus for arsenic in its DNA and cell membranes.

    Biologists consider these six elements as necessary for life: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur.

    Arsenic is similar to phosphorus but is typically poisonous to living organisms.

    The original study needed to be confirmed in order to be considered a true discovery, and two separate teams found that indeed, the bacterium needed some phosphate to survive, and could not fully substitute arsenic to live.

    NASA has conducted numerous probes at eastern California’s Mono Lake, an unusually salty body of water with high arsenic and mineral levels, as it is likely to reflect conditions under which early life evolved on Earth, or perhaps Mars.

    While Wolfe-Simon and colleagues acknowledged that there were very low levels of phosphate within their study samples, they concluded that this was a level of contamination that was insufficient to permit GFAJ to grow.

    Two separate Science articles “now reveal that, in fact, her medium did contain enough phosphate contamination to support GFAJ-1’s growth,” said a statement by the magazine issued late Sunday.

    One paper was written by Marshall Louis Reaves and colleagues at Princeton University, Rosemary Redfield at the University of British Columbia, and Leonid Kruglyak of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

    It found that the bacterium was not really replacing phosphorus with arsenic throughout its DNA but “may sometimes assimilate arsenate into some small molecules in place of phosphate.”

    Co-author Redfield, a Canadian microbiologist, was among the first outspoken critics of the initial study.

    “I don’t know whether the authors are just bad scientists or whether they’re unscrupulously pushing NASA’s ‘There’s life in outer space!’ agenda,” wrote Redfield in a blog that ignited the web furor shortly after the paper was first published.

    The other paper to refute the findings was written by Tobias Erb and colleagues at the Institute of Microbiology, ETH Zurich, and found that the bacterium, while able to live in a high-arsenic environment, still needed phosphorus to survive and grow.

    Rather than being a new form of life that thrives on arsenic, Science’s statement summed up the latest studies by describing the bacterium as “a well-adapted extremophile that lives in a high-arsenic environment.”

    It “is likely adept at scavenging phosphate under harsh conditions, which would help to explain why it can grow even when arsenic is present within the cells,” said the journal’s statement.

    “The scientific process is a naturally self-correcting one, as scientists attempt to replicate published results,” it added.

    The journal did not retract the original study but said it was “pleased to publish additional information on GFAJ-1.”

    Wolfe-Simon said in a statement that the data in the new papers “are consistent with our original paper” and that she and colleagues expect to publish new information in the next few months.

    “A great thing about science is that the ability to do rigorous tests with controls provides an increasingly accurate knowledge of life and the universe that is extremely useful,” she said.

    AFP

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasas-new-form-of-life-untrue-scientists-say-20120710-21sgq.html#ixzz20Bga9syZ

     

  • Canada’s PM Stephen Harper faces revolt by scientists

    Canada’s PM Stephen Harper faces revolt by scientists

    Scientists to march through Ottawa in white lab coats in protest at cuts to research and environmental damage

    Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper

    Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper: his government is accused of jeopardising Canada’s scientific reputation. Photograph: Todd Korol/Reuters

    Canada‘s prime minister, Stephen Harper, faces a widening revolt by the country’s leading scientists against sweeping cuts to government research labs and broadly pro-industry policies.

    The scientists plan to march through Ottawa in white lab coats on Tuesday in the second big protest in a month against the Harper government’s science and environmental agenda.

    Harper is accused of pushing through a slew of policies weakening or abolishing environmental protections – with an aim of expanding development of natural resources such as the Alberta tar sands.

    His government is also accused of jeopardising Canada’s scientific reputation by shutting down the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a research station that produced critical evidence to help stop acid rain.

    “In my view there are a lot of attempts in this country, and other countries too, to push through resource-based economies,” said Prof John Smol, a freshwater lake biologist at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. “People working at ELA are constantly finding reasons why you can’t just put a pipeline here, or an industry there, because there are going to be environmental costs.”

    Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, was even more pointed. “It’s not about saving money. It’s about imposing ideology,” he said. “What’s happening here is that the government has an ideological agenda to develop the Canadian economy based on the extraction of oil out of the Alberta tar sands as quickly as possible and sell it as fast as it can, come hell and high water, and eliminate any barriers that stand in their way.”

    However, a spokeswoman for Gary Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, said the government remained committed to funding science. “Our government has made historic investments in science, technology and research to create jobs, grow our economy, and improve the quality of life for Canadians,” she said.

    But Canadian government officials also indirectly confirmed scientists’ charges that Harper was far more interested in funding research with direct industry applications, than in funding pure science or environmental research.

    “As a country we have been lagging behind our peer nations on applied research and commercialisation and our government is taking steps to correct that,” the official said.

    The official provided a list of new projects supported by the government. Among the largest was $105m for marketing forest products.

    The showdown between the government and scientists was set late last month by the passage of a budget bill that weakened or abolished scores of environmental laws.

    The government claims the cuts are intended to shift more resources towards monitoring development of the Alberta tar sands, the core of Harper’s economic strategy.

    Critics say the changes gut the country’s strongest environmental law, the Canadian Fisheries Act, by easing earlier requirements on mining and other industries to protect fish habitat.

    In addition, the C-38 budget bill cut dozens of jobs for government scientists, scrapped research projects, and pollution control programmes. It abolished the unit in charge of monitoring emissions from power plants, furnaces, boilers and other sources, for a net saving of about $600,000.

    It cut funding entirely for two-well established bodies: the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, an advisory panel, and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Science, which awards research grants. It also cut other research grant programmes.

    The Harper government has clashed regularly with environmental groups over its strategy of developing the tar sands and shipping the oil to America and China.

    Earlier this year, the natural resources minister, Joe Oliver, accused foreign radicals and “jet-setting celebrities” of trying to hijack the country, by opposing development of the tar sands.

    The government has also directed the tax authorities to investigate the funding of environmental groups.

    There were protests, too, when government scientists were banned from speaking to media without an official “minder”, and when news of the cost-cutting proposals first trickled out.

    More than 500 groups took their websites down for 24 hours last month in protest at the budget cuts, which they claim were an excuse to weaken environmental protections.

    But the cuts that seem to have galvanised the protests on Tuesday was the government’s decision to shut down the Experimental Lakes Area in March 2013.

    “It’s a culmination of all of the cuts to government science and environment,” said Diane Orihel, a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta, leading the campaign to save the labs. “The ELA is one small little morsel in a much broader problem.” But she added: “We are starting to see momentum.”

    Since the decision first trickled out – as a government leak – the Harper government has faced widening criticism in Canadian media.

    Scientists say the closure, due in March 2013, would rob researchers of a rare chance to conduct science on a real-life scale – not just in a laboratory flask, said Smol.

    Over the years, it has provided critical evidence on the causes of acid rain, and the effects on fish and their habitats of dumping fertilisers, detergents, or mercury.

    “Any water quality problem we have on the planet, the research started out there,” Smol said. “I think we need that information to get solid policy to deal with our environmental problems.”

    The government argues it can no longer afford the research station, which costs about $2m a year to run.

    Critics dismiss that argument, pointing to the Harper government’s promotion of the Alberta tar sands and its opposition to the Kyoto protocol agreements on climate change.

    “The Harper government is the most environmentally hostile one we have ever had in Canada. Harper pulled Canada out of the Kyoto protocol, gutted the Fisheries Act (our strongest freshwater protection law), and hollowed out our environmental assessment legislation, making it easier for extractive industries to get licences to exploit,” said Maude Barlow, a former UN advisor on water and chair of the Council of Canadians. “It is heartlessly shutting down a programme that costs very little to run given the incredible benefits it brings, in order to silence the voices who speak for water.”

  • Delegates to discuss climate impact on reefs

    Delegates to discuss climate impact on reefs

    ABCUpdated July 10, 2012, 9:29 am

     

    Delegates at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns will today turn their attention to the impact of climate change on coral reefs around the world.

    More than 2,500 scientists met yesterday to discuss the Consensus Statement on Climate Change and Coral Reefs and heard reefs are in danger from rising sea temperatures and over-development.

    Dr Alana Grech from James Cook University says current development decisions will have long-term impacts on reefs.

    She has called for governments to design “mega-ports” similar to airport hubs to lessen the impact of the shipping trade on the Great Barrier Reef.

    A foundation of facts established that ocean temperatures have climbed by half a degree in the past decade, ocean acidity has increased by 25 per cent and sea levels have risen by around 30 centimetres.

    The Australian Institute of Marine Science’s Peter Doherty says those changes have had a negative effect.

    “I have certainly witnessed many changes in the places that I used to go to 30 years ago and almost none of those changes are for the better,” he said.

    The Director of the Global Change Institute, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, says ocean acidification poses a huge challenge for organisms on the reef.

    “Carbon dioxide doesn’t just stay in the atmosphere, and a lot of it is going into the ocean,” he said.

    “When it goes into the ocean it reacts with the water, it changes the chemistry, and part of that chemistry is that it becomes more acidic and that has consequences for marine life.”

    Dr Hoegh-Guldberg the scale of the change threatens the existence of the reef in its current form.

    “What we expect to see in the coming decades is some corals doing better and others doing worse, and that probably goes for a lot of other organisms as well,” he said.

    “But in the long term, because we’re pushing conditions well beyond those we’ve seen for the last million – possible 40 million years, it’s likely that organisms like cyanobacteria, which is the slimy green thing that goes over rocks, that may be ultimately the winner.”

    To fast to adapt?

    He says climate change is affecting the ocean environment at rates beyond what has been experienced before.

    “On the issue of adaptation the jury’s out, what we do know is that things are changing more rapidly than they have in the past, phenomenal rates of change compared to even an Ice Age transition,” he said.

    “So this is really testing long-lived organisms like corals to be able to rapidly adapt. Most scientists are feeling there are big questions about whether biology will keep up.”

    Dr Hoegh-Guldberg also says evidence of coral being found in waters previously too cold to survive in, is not enough to compensate for the destruction of existing reefs.

    “Well, there is no question that some organisms as waters are warming that they’re being able to penetrate those,” he said.

    “But the important issue here is that a single coral arriving on a reef at a high [or low] latitude is not the same as key coral with all the ecosystems that depend on it arriving.

    “I think it’s put into sharp relief when you consider how fast the reef would have to move to higher latitudes if it’s to keep up with climate change.

    “And that number, which is essentially moving from the north to the south of the Great Barrier Reef, is between 15 and 20 kilometres per year.”

  • Preference move is kryptonite to Greens

     

    VOTERS WILL DECIDE WHEN IN THE BALLOT BOX , NOT NECESSARILY BY WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE HOW TO VOTE CARD HANDED TO THEM BY PARTIES. THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SECRET BALLOTS.

    Preference move is kryptonite to Greens

    Date
    July 10, 2012
    • 6 reading now
    • 14
    • Vote
    Phillip Coorey

    Phillip Coorey

    Sydney Morning Herald chief political correspondent

    View more articles from Phillip Coorey

     

    Video settings

    Please Log in to update your video settings

    Video settings

    Please Log in to update your video settings

    Labor’s stoush with Greens intensifies

    Senior Labor ministers join the effort to stand apart from the Greens.

    Video will begin in 1 seconds.

    THREATS by NSW Labor to relegate the Greens to last on the ballot paper could be adopted nationally and cost the minor party the balance of power in the Senate.

    As the Greens warned Labor that such a move would likely hand a Coalition government control of the Senate, officials outside NSW did not rule out following suit but would reserve a decision until closer to the election.

    The push by the NSW Right is part of a strategy by Labor to differentiate itself from the Greens and restore its flagging fortunes.

    While the NSW Left is likely to support the motion at this weekend’s state Labor conference, it will be demanding assurances that it does not mean a policy shift to the right.

    ”My only concern is someone using this to go further to the right,” said the NSW senator Doug Cameron. ”I don’t support that but I do have real criticism of the Greens. It’s all care and no responsibility for those guys.”

    The West Australian Labor MP Melissa Parke, a member of the Left, said she too had problems with the Greens but the NSW Right was in no position to lecture given its own role in Labor’s demise. She said the assault was ”trumped up” to distract from the damage the faction had inflicted on Labor.

    ”The Mark Arbib-Karl Bitar model of doing business is what caused our problems,” she told

    the Herald. ”Where Labor has suffered in the polls is when it has equivocated on its principles. I’ve got no interest in taking advice from the NSW Right.”

    The NSW Labor general-secretary, Sam Dastyari, will move a motion to give the party the flexibility to preference the Greens last at the next federal election.

    Labor tends to preference the Greens first but the Greens do not always respond in kind. Labor now reasons that the Greens need Labor’s preferences more than it needs theirs and Mr Dastyari’s motion, if adopted, will give himself and other party officials greater power when negotiating preferences.

    The Greens have nine senators, three of whom will be up for re-election at the next ballot. At least two will struggle to be returned without Labor support, raising the possibility the Coalition or independents having the balance of power. The Greens warned that Tony Abbott could then easily revoke the carbon and mining taxes.

    Many in Labor blame the government’s woes over the carbon tax on their alliance partner and are angry at the Greens’ intransigence on such policies as asylum seekers.

    Some in Labor suspect the assault is to prepare for a return of Kevin Rudd who would demand the Greens’ support to soften the carbon tax by moving quickly to a floating price.

    Mr Dastyari said his motion was about Labor taking back ownership of progressive issues.

    ”It’s not about abandoning that space” he said of the left. ”You can only do this in conjunction with winning over those voters.”

    twitter Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/preference-move-is-kryptonite-to-greens-20120709-21rtn.html#ixzz20AqzXJmZ

     

  • Largest Hydroelectric Project in the World is Completed, but at What Cost?

    Largest Hydroelectric Project in the World is Completed, but at What Cost?

    Posted: 06 Jul 2012 02:47 PM PDT

    On Wednesday the Three Gorges dam in China had its 32nd, 700-megawatt turbine installed, completing the mega-project and bringing its total capacity up to 22.5 gigawatts, making it the largest hydropower installation in the world.The Three Gorges project has been fully connected to the power grid where it generates 11 percent of China’s total hydroelectric output. Construction started in 1994, and first started generating power for the grid in 2003, since which time it has saved, on average, 200 million tonnes of coal a year.Zhang Cheng,…

    Read more…

    China Looks to Russia’s Hydroelectricity to Meet Growing Energy Demands

    Posted: 06 Jul 2012 02:46 PM PDT

    Industrialisation has enabled economies in Asia to develop faster than ever, and this has shifted the balance of world energy consumption from the West to the East. China is by far the largest energy consumer, mostly driven by its huge manufacturing sector and infrastructural development projects.Whilst the rapid growth creates opportunities, it also creates challenges for China. It now accounts for 30% of total world energy consumption, and has invested heavily in developing new sources of power generation. Unfortunately the majority of this power,…

    Read more…

  • Arms Trade Treaty: You are our ammunition oxfam

    Arms Trade Treaty: You are our ammunition

    Inbox
    x
    Oxfam Campaigns campaigns@updates.oxfam.org.uk
    1:32 AM (8 hours ago)

    to me
    Images are not displayed.Display images below – Always display images from campaigns@updates.oxfam.org.uk
    Oxfam Arms Trade TreatyTake action
    Forward to a FriendCan’t read this email?
    Take action Arms Trade Treaty July 2012
    Arms Trade Treaty: Week 1 recap.

    Dear NEVILLE,

    Last week the Arms Trade Treaty negotiations started in New York. 

    Take action
    You can follow what’s happening in real time and take quick actions by liking Control Arms on Facebook or following Control Arms on Twitter

    Here are the highlights: 

    Sunday 1 July: Millionth Supporter Julius Arile won a 10k race in New York, running on behalf of Control Arms

    Monday 2 July: Control Arms activists, including David Grimason, staged a ‘die-in’ outside the UN in front of the world’s press. 

    Tuesday 3 July: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon accepted the Control Arms petition of 620,000 names calling for a bulletproof Arms Trade Treaty.

    Julius Arile (millionth petition sign up) after winning the New York 10K – this is what all the other runners could see in front of them.
    [Photo: Control Arms]

    Wednesday 4 July: 32 celebrities including Coldplay, Keira Knightley, and Kevin Spacey wrote an open letter to Ban Ki-moon, demanding a bullet-proof treaty. 

    Thursday 5 July: Lib Dem MP Martin Horwood guest blogged about the UK’s position on the ATT and what really goes on behind closed doors… 

    Friday 6 July: Somalia-born hip-hop star K’naan released a powerful short video, “Twin bullets”, calling for tighter regulation of the arms trade. 

    Thank you for your continued support; you are the ammunition we need to demand a safer world.

    Best wishes

    Anna MacDonald
    Oxfam Head of Arms Control

    Join Oxfam online:

    Facebook Twitter You Tube Flickr

    Or visit us at www.oxfam.org.uk

    Oxfam : Be Humankind

    Questions or feedback? Email us: campaigning@oxfam.org.uk

    Privacy policyUnsubscribeAdd us to your address book

    Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales (no 202918) and Scotland (SC039042) and a company limited by guarantee registered in England No 612172 at Oxfam House, John Smith Drive, Cowley, Oxford OX4 2JY. Oxfam GB is a member of Oxfam International.

    Advertisement