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.
 

  • Biodiversity is not just about saving exotic species from extinction

     

    Ahmed Djoghlaf, the general secretary of the treaty signed by 192 countries since 1992 to protect biodiversity, is blunt about efforts to preserve the health of biodiversity since the Rio Earth summit 18 years ago. Governments worldwide have failed to meet the treaty’s target of reversing the trend for declining biodiversity, he says, and urgently need momentum to hit its targets for 2020.

    Biodiversity is integral to our daily lives. It is not about the loss of exotic species which have been the focus of conservation activities by the foundations and trusts of wealthy nations. It is about the vital resources which underpin the wealth and health of the world’s poor and that provide the vital needs for the heath and wellbeing of us all.

    The equivalent to the Stern report for biodiversity is called The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). It warns that our neglect of the natural services provided by biodiversity is an economic catastrophe of an order of magnitude greater than the global economic crisis. Year on year, the irreversible loss of natural diverse genetic resources impoverishes the world and undermines our ability to develop new crops and medicines, resist pests and diseases, and maintain the host of natural products on which humans rely.

    Equally significant, are the vital natural services that the world’s ecosystems provide. These include providing vital oxygen, decomposing waste, removing pollutants, providing the natural buffers that help manage drought and flood, protect soil from erosion, ensure soil fertility, and provide breeding nurseries to maintain fish ocean stocks. The list goes on, and among these immeasurable vital functions of nature is of course its ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The ability of forests, bogs and salt marches, tundra, coral and ocean plankton to sequester carbon should be our greatest ally in managing the increased emissions of fossil fuel activity – a key theme of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month.

    Rather than seeing biodiversity and ecological mechanisms being eroded, we need to see a massive effort towards finding a more effective sustainable relationship between human society and nature. This is not a scientific or environmental issue, it is a social question and an ethical one about what our generation leaves for those in the future.

    • Dr Robert Bloomfield is the coordinator for the UK International year of biodiversity, which features talks, exhibitions, public dialogues, art work and citizen science experiments encompassing both science and the arts.

  • Summer in Australia-enjoy it at your peril

     

    On the beaches, lifesavers rescued more than 180 people around Australia in less than two weeks over Christmas and the new year, but still nine drowned.

    Certain crime statistics ascend towering peaks at this time. Burglaries are most common in January. Domestic violence-related assault is at its worst this month while non-domestic assaults typically peak in December. Both types double on New Year’s Day – most of it probably fuelled by oceans of alcohol.

    It is peak season for extreme weather events, from the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 and Black Saturday last year, to this summer’s floods in regional NSW and the fires that appear imminent in South Australia this week.

    Even Christmas ham is bad for you in repeated doses. The journal BMC Cancer has reported that those who ate cured meats more than once a week had a 74 per cent higher risk of leukaemia than those who rarely ate them.

    The American travel writer Bill Bryson cottoned on to how dangerous Australia is. When writing his book Down Under he said: ”It has more things that will kill you than anywhere else.”

    Last month the Englishman who won Tourism Queensland’s ”Best Job in the World” was stung by a irukandji jellyfish because he wasn’t wearing a stinger suit.

    Clearly, being Australian – or even playing at it – is not merely unsafe. It’s downright bloody hazardous. We confront a mini-apocalypse each year in this country. We call it ”summer”.

    The question that inevitably arises is: what can we do about it? And the answer, much as politicians and lobbyists would have us believe otherwise, is ”not much” – or at least, not much more.

    Someone ought to tell that to our hyperactive new Premier, Kristina Keneally. She has solved the problem of her first Australian summer in the top job by, variously: blaming the Federal Government for underfunding roads; launching a speed-trap plane that got off the ground only a handful of times due to rain; dispatching her minions to draft ”tough new penalties” for those who lead police on high-speed pursuits – as if your average crim in a stolen car is likely to consider them before making one of the most impulsive decisions in the crooks’ armoury: to hit the accelerator.

    Calls to remove trucks from the roads during summer were equally well meaning but fanciful, and were undermined by coming from the union representing rail workers.

    And does anyone really believe that the NSW Opposition’s promise of $230,000 a year to build 10 new shark observation towers is going to make a difference in the number of attacks?

    The state is not the Sydney Cricket Ground, where geographical limits and substantial resources have allowed administrators to turn a bacchanal into a safe, lily-white nanny stadium in the past decade, to mixed reviews.

    Inundating us with advertising campaigns advising us to know our limits, to slip slop slap, or to swim between the flags is about the most that can be done to rescue us from the perils of being Australian.

    As we all know, the risks are well worth the rewards. Anyone who tells you otherwise is probably seeking more funding, re-election or jobs for their members. Or they’re just plain unAustralian.

  • Deep Freeze in the Northern Hemisphere


    Here are two websites  that may explain the current freezing weather being experienced
    in the Northern Hemisphere

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

  • Britain.s cold snap does not prove climate change wrong

     

    Here’s what Martyn Brown says in today’s Express:

    As one of the worst winters in 100 years grips the country, climate experts are still trying to claim the world is growing warmer.

    There’s a clue as to where he might have gone wrong in that sentence: “country” has a slightly different meaning to “world”. Buried at the bottom of the same article is the admission that ” … other areas including Alaska, Canada and the Mediterranean were warmer than usual.” But that didn’t stop Brown from using the occasion to note that “critics of the global warming lobby said the public were no longer prepared to be conned into believing that man-made emissions were adding to the problem.”

    The ability to distinguish trends from complex random events is one of the traits that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is also the basis of all science; detecting patterns, distinguishing between signal and noise, and the means by which the laws of physics, chemistry and biology are determined. Now we are being asked to commit ourselves to the wilful stupidity of extrapolating a long-term trend from a single event.

    The Express would have us return to the days in which the future course of human affairs could be predicted by solar eclipses and the appearance of comets. It has clearly made a calculated decision in recent months that climate scepticism plays to its readership – and therefore shifts papers – just as the daily drip-feed of conspiracy theories about Princess Diana and Madeleine McCann has done in the past.

    Brown is by no means alone in his idiocy. On Sunday, the Telegraph and the Mail published almost identical articles; one by Christopher Booker, the other by his long-term collaborator, Richard North. Both claimed that the Met Office had predicted a mild winter, and that it had made this prediction because it has been “hijacked” by a group of fanatics – led first by its former chief executive Sir John Houghton, now by the current boss Robert Napier – who stand accused of seeking to to corrupt forecasts to make them conform to their theories on climate change.

    If this story were true, it would be huge: the UK’s official weather forecasting service is deliberately changing its forecasts to make them fit a political agenda. It would also be fantastically stupid, as forecasts can always be checked against delivery. Booker and North offer no evidence to support this humongous conspiracy theory, just a load of unrelated facts cobbled together in the usual fashion.

    Even their premise – that the Met Office “confidently predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain” – is wrong. Here’s what it actually said:

    Early indications are that it’s looking like temperatures will be near or above average. But there’s still a one in seven chance of a cold winter – with temperatures below average.

    No confidence there, no certainty, and no single prediction. But Booker and North use the presumed contrast between the forecast (which was, of course, for the whole winter) and the current event to imply not only that climate change is a giant conspiracy coordinated by the Met Office, but that long-term temperatures are not rising. North suggests that the regional cold snap derails the global temperature prediction for the whole of 2010.

    Echoing each other’s fantasies, extracting sweeping conclusions from single events, these two are like the Old Man and Ross in Macbeth.

    John Redwood, the Tory MP for Wokingham, was at it in the Commons yesterday, too, when putting a question to Ed Miliband, after the secretary of state for climate change and energy had made a statement about the Copenhagen climate change conference.

    Redwood: Why are we in the northern hemisphere having such a very cold winter this year? Which climate model predicted that?

    Miliband: I can hardly believe that question, Mr Deputy Speaker. The weather fluctuates, as anyone knows, and the notion that a cold spell in Britain disproves the science of climate change is something that I believe not even the Right Hon. Gentleman believes.

    Redwood was evidently not happy with the “weather fluctuates” response and returned to the issue this morning on his blog:

    I was expecting some answer that told me you can have severe winters within a pattern of global warming, with reference to some climate change model analysis which allowed for adverse variations within the assumed pattern of warming. How wrong I was. Instead Mr M threw his toys out of the pram, declined to offer a civil answer to a civil question, and told me the science of global warming was settled! Some other MP from a sedentary position offered the profound advice that I needed to understand climate was different from weather.

    It’s a pity really that he didn’t listen to the profoundly obvious advice being offered by the MP in the sedentary position, but that would have undermined his climate scepticism that oh-so-conveniently chimes with his free-market, anti-EU, rightwing views. But isn’t that the story with so much of the climate scepticism on offer these days? It seems to be far less about genuine scientific scepticism and more about confirmation bias of a politicised world view.

    One wonders, too, how Australia’s legion of climate sceptics are currently spinning today’s news from the country’s Bureau of Meteorology which states that the past 10 years were officially the hottest decade since records began.

    Yes, it is colder than usual in some parts of the northern hemisphere, and warmer than usual in others. Alaska and northern Canada are 5-10C warmer than the average for this time of year, so are North Africa and the Mediterranean. The cold and the warmth could be related: the contrasting temperatures appear to be connected to blocks of high pressure preventing air flow between the land and the sea.

    This is called weather, and, believe it or not, it is not always predictable and it changes quite often. It is not the same as climate, and single events are not the same as trends. Is this really so hard to understand?

    Posted by Leo Hickman and George Monbiot Wednesday 6 January 2010 13.44 GMT

  • The resurgence of el nino means that 2010 could be the hottest year on record

     

    “If that keeps up for the next few months, it will result in a great deal of heat being pumped into the atmosphere,” added Smith. “The signs are that it will. If so, our computer models indicate that this year is more likely than not to be the hottest on record. Even if it isn’t, I am quite sure a record breaker will still occur in the next few years.”

    The headlines then will look very different from the “Britain in deep freeze” variety that have appeared over the past few days, though we should note a key caveat here. Soaring global temperatures do not guarantee hot weather for Britain. We may still get a poor summer, but that does not mean the world is not continuing to heat up, a point ignored by most climate-change deniers.

    In fact, there is a world of difference between the British weather at any given time and the inexorable shift that is taking place in the climate of the planet, as Peter Inness, a Reading University meteorologist, makes clear. “Britain covers only a very small part of the globe. It takes up less than one thousandth of the world’s surface. The temperature here is almost irrelevant when considering the issue of global climate change.”

    It is a point that should be kept in mind as councils struggle to grit roads, cars and vans slither on the ice, exams are disrupted, and farmers battle to get food to their animals. Yes, we are feeling the cold but many other parts of the world are having no such problem, as Richard Betts, head of climate impact at the Met Office, argues.

    “It is true that Britain is having a spell of extremely cold weather, as is much of northern Europe and the United States. But at the same time, Canada and the Mediterranean region are having unusually warm weather for the time of year. We shouldn’t get so absorbed with what is going on in our backyard.”

    This argument is also made by Inness – though rather more forcibly. “I think it is really stupid to say that the current cold weather proves that climate change is not happening. Climate refers to changes in the weather patterns over a 20- to 40-year period. What is happening in Britain at present represents little more than a point on a graph.”

    This takes us to the heart of the matter. Meteorologists may make errors with specific long-range forecasts. (This winter was more likely to be mild than severe, they thought.) There is no doubt about the overall trend. Each year, humanity pumps billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The inevitable result will be global warming and major, catastrophic climate change.

    It is a bit like playing Pooh sticks, says Betts. “When you throw sticks off a bridge, you know they will all be swept downstream. You just don’t know which one will move the fastest. It is the same with climate and the weather. We know the world is warming inexorably but we cannot say specifically which year is going to be the warmest. We can only indicate what are the general prospects of getting a record-breaking year. And despite the horrible weather at present, it is quite possible that we will get one this year.”

  • The proliferation of nuclear panic is poltitics at its most ghoulish

     

    Radiation, says Allison, is nothing like as dangerous as the anti-nuclear lobby and its paranoid regulators claim. The permitted radiation level in the waste storage hall at Sellafield is so low (1 mSv per hour) as to be negligible, a figure achieved at vast cost in construction and inspection. This compares with the 100 mSv threshold for even remote cancer risk and 5,500 for radiation sickness. According to Allison, someone would have to live for a million hours in Sellafield to absorb the same radiation as is administered in a hospital radiotherapy suite. Higher doses are permitted in food processing and even in medicinal resorts, with supposed beneficial or at least harmless effects. Only yesterday research suggested that mobile phone radiation may relieve Alzheimer’s.

    Allison analyses successive studies into the only serious nuclear accident since Hiroshima, the Chernobyl fire, which killed no more than 60 people, all in close contact with the fire. Other than some thyroid cancers caused chiefly by a failure to distribute iodine tablets, long-term cancers in survivors were below the regional average. The truth is that low-dose radiation effects wear off quickly. In some parts of India and Brazil people live happily with ambient radiation of 200-300 mSv.

    Yet the mere word, Chernobyl, induces such terror in regulators as to lead to the unnecessary sterilisation of thousands of acres (with now thriving wildlife) and the continued slaughter of Cumbrian sheep, despite the risk to lamb-eaters being negligible. The trouble is that nobody makes money by downplaying risk. Nuclear inspectors need work, and contractors can claim astronomical safety costs, assuming that governments will pay. The losers are the public and life on earth.

    Meanwhile, over in Ohio, Mueller describes the same terror infecting reaction to nuclear weapons. He points out that nuclear bombs are extremely hard to make, let alone deploy, and their destructive power and radiological aftermath are grossly overstated. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was largely the result of the buildings bombed being made of wood. Numbers killed were similar to those dying in conventional bomb attacks at the time. Yet we memorialise Hiroshima but not Tokyo, where 100,000 were killed in March 1945. Subsequent diseases from exposure to low-level radiation were harder to detect. Modern nuclear weapons are obviously more powerful, but again their blast areas would remain limited and their likely contamination, says Mueller, much exaggerated.

    I used to believe that, for all their horror, atom bombs brought an end to the war in Japan – which other bombs had failed to do. After that war, they stabilised the nervous confrontation between east and west, deterring Soviets and Americans from going jointly berserk at such flashpoints as Berlin, Hungary or Cuba. Deterrence sort of worked.

    History may be moot on those points, but what is surely clear is that nuclear weapons are now virtually useless. Like Allison, Mueller goes beyond the two iconic incidents of Hiroshima and Chernobyl to show how special interests have hijacked the nuclear mystique to exploit public fear.

    The risk of anyone exploding a nuclear weapon, even in politically charged regions such as the Middle East, is infinitesimally small. Whoever did so would be too mad to be deterred by an enemy possessing nuclear weapons, any more than Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, Argentina’s Galtieri or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein were deterred by America and Britain. Nor, says Mueller, would the consequence of even a serious bomb attack be as horrible as is claimed. Cities recover with remarkable alacrity, as even Hiroshima did from contamination. The second world war and many American bombing campaigns since have shown that human settlements are resilient to aerial bombardment.

    As for the much-vaunted risk of a terrorist getting a nuclear weapon – the “1% chance” that kept poor Dick Cheney awake at night – Mueller points out that the chance must be not one in a hundred but one in millions. Cheney would have done better worrying about the proliferation of AK47s. Even were a “dirty” bomb somehow to be assembled and deployed, its radiological contamination is exaggerated by defence contractors and lobbyists frantic for contracts.

    The billions of dollars being devoted to countering “cataclysmic” terrorism, in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Yemen, and to confronting such proto-nuclear states as Iran or North Korea, is not just disproportionate to the risk. The money would be better spent on other ways of reducing terrorism. In a futile pursuit of nuclear non-proliferation, America and Britain are combing the world accusing states of threatening somehow to destroy their civilisations when the risk of this happening is near meaningless.

     

    As Mueller notes, it is not only ghoulish science and ghoulish journalism that sells, ghoulish politics does too. He has nothing against negotiating nuclear non-proliferation, but pleads “to avoid policies that can lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people under the obsessive sway of worst-case scenario fantasies”, as is the case in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is these fantasies that line the streets of Wootton Bassett each week.

    It is a monumental irony that rightwing politicians who rearm against the tiny risk to humanity from nuclear weapons are often the same as deny the risk to humanity from global warming. Both are risks. Both may be improbable, but the risk from radiation is minimal and containable, while the worst-case scenario from global warming is truly cataclysmic. Nor is such hypocrisy confined to the right. Many of those who claim global warming as the “greatest threat to the planet” tend also to be those who oppose nuclear energy as “too risky”, or even too expensive.

    This is all a massive failure of science to pierce the carapace of public ignorance. As Allison and Mueller argue, nothing is as potent as the politics of fear, and there is no fear as blind as that which comes from a bomb and a death ray. So what is science doing? The world is in the grip of a prejudice from which nothing seems able to free it. At least these books try.