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.
 

  • Depleted soils and food additves are killing us

    When Bathurst doctor Carole Hungerford graduated in the late 1960s, breast cancer was late-life disease diagnosed in about one in fifteen women.

    “Now the surgeons are saying it’s one in eight, perhaps one in seven,” Dr Hungerford said.

    “And a lot of it is the young person’s cancer, the aggressive one.

    “We didn’t even look for it 40 years ago.”

    What’s happened? According to the author of Good Health in the 21st Century, we’ve stuffed up.

    “Nature didn’t stuff up, we stuffed up. Modern humans have been on the planet for 200,000 years, and in the last few decades have we thrown out a lot of challenges to the body,” she said.

    “We’ve started putting chlorine in the drinking water, sulfates in the wine, additives in the food … people don’t know where they are getting their headache from because they are reacting to everything.”

    At the same time, Dr Hungerford says, people are getting less nutrient from their food.

    “Some of us are eating good food grown in bad soils, or good food that is not fresh. More of us are eating bad food that is neither fresh nor grown in good soils.”

    For many people, the result is an immune system compromised on one hand by lack of resources to do its job, and on the other by a raft of environmental challenges that the human body has never before encountered.

    According to Dr Hungerford, a host of modern diseases have their roots in this situation: cancer, arthritis, asthma, autism, Alzheimers, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease, to name a few.

    Teasing out what is behind these diseases, which are swallowing the health budgets of Western nations whole, has been a long obsession for Dr Hungerford.

    It culminated in her 2006 book—among other things, a short course in human biochemistry—which swelled the waiting list at her practices in Bathurst and Balmain out to three months and more.

    Health is complicated, something that changes from individual to individual, but after years of research and medical practice, Dr Hungerford has come to believe health starts in the soil.

    “I think if we were all eating organic foods growing in pristine volcanic soils, and we didn’t process that food—so if we ate rice we ate brown rice, and if we ate wheat we ate whole wheat—I think we’d conservatively slash our health budget by 70 per cent,” she said.

    This may be a logistical impossibility, particularly in Australia and its old, depeleted soils, but Dr Hungerford feels that farming practices, and food processing, need to develop practices that better acknowledge the vital health component of food.

    In the meantime, she believes that “most, if not all of us” needs to supplement their diet with key minerals like zinc, selenium, calcium and magnesium.

    That’s not a common view in the medical profession, which Dr Hungerford believes is one of the reasons that health services everywhere are foundering against a tide of ill-health.

    In focusing on “the disease model” and the science of curing disease, Western medicine and related policy has neglected the science of prevention.

    “In America, one per cent of the cancer research budget goes into prevention; 99pc goes into other areas—early detection, and looking for the magic bullet. Or it goes into support groups,” she said.

    “That’s all supported by the medical profession. We cure disease. Where’s the excitement in prevention?

    “Even Medicare isn’t funded for prevention. If you come and see me and say, ‘Look, I feel terrific, and I want to stay that way, can you advise me how to do that?’—that’s not covered under Medicare.”

    In her book, she eloquently argues that prevention of disease begins with soils capable of growing nutrient-dense food; with food supply chains that nuture that nutrient through to consumers; with consumers willing to eat a balanced, healthy diet; and with a general willingness to stop fouling the environment with toxins that are making many of us sick.

    “I think it’s an idea whose time has come,” Dr Hungerford says.

    “Once your mother and your sister and your best friend’s wife have all got breast cancer, young, you start to think what’s happening—what’s gone wrong?”

    In her experience, a lot has gone wrong, and is still doing so.

    Signs that this is the case recur every time she does an interview: afterwards, the desk staff at her medical practises deal with a barrage of phone calls, explaining to desperate people that her waiting list already stretches months ahead.

    “I don’t need any more patients, but it’s a message that needs to be told,” Dr Hungerford says.

  • Liberals split over biochar

    A senior economist advising Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull on the federal government’s emissions trading scheme has warned that a key component of the coalition’s climate policy has yet to be scientifically proven.

    The Australian Financial Review reports that Centre for International Economics executive director David Pearce has said biochar, which involves storing carbon in soil, requires more scientific analysis and would work only if Australia adopts a carbon price.

    But Mr Pearce condemned the government’s handling of the ETS debate, claiming it had failed to provide any analysis on the short-term costs of the reform or whether other mechanisms, such as a carbon tax or a hybrid scheme, could cut greenhouse emissions more cheaply.

    Mr Turnbull has claimed the coalition’s climate policy could deliver deeper emission cuts at less cost to industry by placing greater emphasis on measures such as energy efficiency, soil carbon sequestration and biochar.

    But Mr Pearce told the committee that although biochar had potential, it was not yet ready.

    “I’m not sure that all the science is in,” he said. “In order for [biochar] to be economic, you would need to have a carbon price in place.”

  • Farmers describe Senate as Environmental Vandals

    Read Rachel Siewert’s speech.

    National Farmers Federation press release.

    FARMERS, scientists and environmental groups will be mystified by the findings of the Senate Inquiry into the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which misguidedly attempt to shift the EPBC Act away from sustainable ecological development to a destructive ‘lock up and leave’ focus.

    “This can only result in poor environmental outcomes through feral pests and diseases and heightened bushfire dangers across habitats, all of which can potentially wipe out the very ecological communities and endangered species the EPBC Act is supposed to protect,” National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) President David Crombie declared.

    “I fear Senators simply do not understand the environmental issues on their plate. Under a ‘lock up and leave’ approach there will be little, if any, active management of the environment on the ground, including essential weed and pest control, fire management, fencing or enhancing biodiversity through planting vegetation.

    “Such an approach is in stark contrast to the Australian Government’s commitment to the NFF’s Environmental Stewardship initiative, funded under the 2007 Federal Budget, which embraces the benefits of actively protecting environmental assets – backed by farmers, scientists and environmental groups.

    “Beyond the obvious environmental problems such a retrograde move would create, neighbouring landholders, principally farmers, would be lumped with all of the negative impacts on their properties.

    “Further, the recommendations also add greater and unnecessary red tape, which contravenes the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) agreement to move away from the added costs and regulatory burdens of bureaucratic processes. Indeed, shedding red tape in the primary sector has been one of the Productivity Commission’s key commitments since its 2007 Red Tape Review.

    “The Senate Inquiry’s findings seek to impose new federal requirements where state provisions, covering the very same issues, already exist. Ultimately, this extra red tape would see funding diverted from resources to protect ecological communities and endangered species on the ground, in favour of more bureaucracy.

    “The Senate Inquiry recommendations are out of step with government policy and environmental science.

    “Resources should be invested in extending the Environmental Stewardship program to cover more, if not all, of the ecological communities and endangered species listed under the EPBC Act, as the NFF detailed in our Federal Budget Submission 2009.”

  • Sisters of the planet project promotes climate action

    From Oxfam

    We are all feeling the effects of climate change. Whether it’s reduced rainfall in Australia and Uganda, increasingly severe cyclones in Bangladesh, or sea level rise and storm surges in the Pacific.

    Climate change affects women the most – particularly those living in developing countries. But these women are fighting back, often leading the response to the climate crisis in their communities.

    Join Oxfam Australia and Make Poverty History as we launch Sisters on the Planet in support of these remarkable women.

    Sisters on the Planet tells the stories of six women from very different parts of the world. They face unique challenges but together are finding solutions and bringing about change. These stories of courage, tenacity and inspiration offer us hope in the face of increasingly bleak climate predictions.

    The challenges we face from climate change are so big, you could be forgiven for not knowing quite where to start.

    Until now.

    Watch the Sisters on video

  • Melting permafrost threatens monsoons

    Read the New Scientist story

    I AM shocked, truly shocked,” says Katey Walter, an ecologist at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. “I was in Siberia a few weeks ago, and I am now just back in from the field in Alaska. The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling up out of them.”

    The permafrost is melting fast all over the Arctic, lakes are forming everywhere and methane is bubbling out of them

    Back in 2006, in a paper in Nature, Walter warned that as the permafrost in Siberia melted, growing methane emissions could accelerate climate change. But even she was not expecting such a rapid change. “Lakes in Siberia are five times bigger than when I measured them in 2006. It’s unprecedented. This is a global event now, and the inertia for more permafrost melt is increasing.”

    No summer ice

    The dramatic changes in the Arctic Ocean have often been in the news in the past two years. There has been a huge increase in the amount of sea ice melting each summer, and some are now predicting that as early as 2030 there will be no summer ice in the Arctic at all.

    Discussions about the consequences of the vanishing ice usually focus either on the opening up of new frontiers for shipping and mineral exploitation, or on the plight of polar bears, which rely on sea ice for hunting. The bigger picture has got much less attention: a warmer Arctic will change the entire planet, and some of the potential consequences are nothing short of catastrophic.

    Changes in ocean currents, for instance, could disrupt the Asian monsoon, and nearly two billion people rely on those rains to grow their food. As if that wasn’t bad enough, it is also possible that positive feedback from the release of methane from melting permafrost could lead to runaway warming.

    Runaway warming

    The danger is that if too much methane is released, the world will get hotter no matter how drastically we slash our greenhouse gas emissions. Recent studies suggest that emissions from melting permafrost could be far greater than once thought. And, although it is too early to be sure, some suspect this scenario is already starting to unfold: after remaining static for the past decade, methane levels have begun to rise again, and the source could be Arctic permafrost.

    What is certain is that the Arctic is warming faster than any other place on Earth. While the average global temperature has risen by less than 1 °C over the past three decades, there has been warming over much of the Arctic Ocean of around 3 °C. In some areas where the ice has been lost, temperatures have risen by 5 °C.

    This intense warming is not confined to the Arctic Ocean. It extends south, deep into the land masses of Siberia, Alaska, Canada, Greenland and Scandinavia, and to their snowfields, ice sheets and permafrost. In 2007, the North American Arctic was more than 2 °C warmer than the average for 1951 to 1980, and parts of Siberia over 3 °C warmer. In 2008, most of Siberia was 2 °C warmer than average (see map).

    Positive feedbacks

    Most of this is the result of positive feedbacks (see illustration) from lost ocean ice, says David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. His modelling studies show that during periods of rapid sea-ice loss, warming extends some 1500 kilometres inland from the ice itself. “If sea-ice continues to contract rapidly over the next several years, Arctic land warming and permafrost thaw are likely to accelerate,” he says.

    Changes in wind patterns may accelerate the warming even further. “Loss of summer sea ice means more heat is absorbed in the ocean, which is given back to the atmosphere in early winter, which changes the wind patterns, which favours additional sea ice loss,” says James Overland, an oceanographer at the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. “The potential big deal is that we now may be having a positive feedback between atmospheric wind patterns and continued loss of sea ice.”

    Incidentally, the changing winds might also be to blame for some of the cold and snowy weather in North America and China in recent winters, Overland says. Unusual poleward flows of warm air over Siberia have displaced cold air southwards on either side.

    Going global

    The rapid warming in the Arctic means that a global temperature rise of 3 °C, likely this century, could translate into a 10 °C warming in the far north. Permafrost hundreds of metres deep will be at risk of thawing out.

    This is where things go global. The Arctic is not just a reflective mirror that is cracking up. It is also a massive store of carbon and methane, locked into the frozen soils and buried in icy structures beneath the ocean bed.

    A quarter of the land surface of the northern hemisphere contains permafrost, permanently frozen soil, water and rock. In places, deep permafrost that formed during the last ice age, when the sea level was much lower, extends far out under the ocean, beneath the seabed. Large areas of permafrost are already starting to melt, resulting in rapid erosion, buckled highways and pipelines, collapsing buildings and “drunken” forests.

    Locked away

    The real worry, though, is that permafrost contains organic carbon in the form of long-dead plants and animals. Some of it, including the odd mammoth, has remained frozen for tens of thousands of years. When the permafrost melts, much of this carbon is likely to be released into the atmosphere.

    No one knows for sure how much carbon is locked away in permafrost, but it seems there is much more than we thought. An international study headed by Edward Schuur of the University of Florida last year doubled previous estimates of the carbon content of permafrost to about 1600 billion tonnes – roughly a third of all the carbon in the world’s soils and twice as much as is in the atmosphere.

    Time bomb

    Schuur estimates that 100 billion tonnes of this carbon could be released by thawing this century, based on standard scenarios. If that all emerged in the form of methane, it would have a warming effect equivalent to 270 years of carbon dioxide emissions at current levels. “It’s a kind of slow-motion time bomb,” he says.

    One hotspot is the 40,000-year-old east Siberian permafrost region. It alone contains 500 billion tonnes of carbon, says Philippe Ciais, co-chair of the Global Carbon Project, a research network analysing the carbon cycle. East Siberia was at times 7 °C warmer than normal during the summer of 2007, he says.

    Higher temperatures mean the seasonal melting of the upper layer of soil extends down deeper than normal, melting the permafrost below. Microbes can then break down any organic matter in the thawing layer, not only releasing carbon but also generating heat that leads to even deeper melting. The heat produced by decomposition is yet another positive feedback that will accelerate melting, Ciais says.

    Potent greenhouse gas

    What’s more, if summer melting depth exceeds the winter refreezing level then a layer of permanently unfrozen soil known as a talik forms, sandwiched between the permafrost below and the winter-freezing surface layer. “A talik allows heat to build more quickly in the soil, hastening the long-term thaw of permafrost,” says Lawrence.

    The carbon in melting permafrost can enter the atmosphere either as carbon dioxide or methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas, molecule-for-molecule. If organic matter decomposes in the low-oxygen conditions typical of the boggy soils and lakes in these regions, more methane forms.

    Researchers have been monitoring the Stordalen mire in northern Sweden for decades. The permafrost there is melting fast and, as conditions become wetter, it is releasing ever more methane into the air, says Torben Christensen of Lund University in Sweden. This is the future for most of the northern hemisphere’s permafrost, he says.

    Disturbing picture

    It’s not just existing boggy patches that are the problem. In low-lying areas, the loss of volume as ice-rich permafrost melts leads to the collapse of the ground and the formation of thermokarst lakes from the meltwater. Satellite surveys show the number and area of these lakes is increasing and, as the work by Walter and others shows, they could be a major source of methane.

    Put together, the latest research paints a disturbing picture. Since existing models do not include feedback effects such as the heat generated by decomposition, the permafrost could melt far faster than generally thought. “Instead of disappearing in 500 years, the deepest permafrost could disappear in 100 years,” Ciais says.

    The permafrost is not the only source of methane in the Arctic. Shallow ocean sediments can be rich in methane hydrates, a form of ice containing trapped methane. Particularly worrying are the huge amounts of methane hydrate thought to lie beneath the Arctic Ocean. Because the waters here are so cold, methane hydrates can be found closer to the surface than in most other parts of the world. These shallow deposits are far more vulnerable to the warming of surface waters.

    Blowouts

    Juergen Mienert at the University of Tromso in Norway, who has analysed past eruptions of methane hydrates from the Arctic, says current conditions are disturbingly similar to those in the past when warming waters penetrated sediments, triggering the release of hydrates. “Global warming will cause more blowouts, more releases,” he says.

    While shrinking sea ice in 2007 may have attracted all the headlines, some researchers say what is really scaring them is a simultaneous jump in methane levels. While the level of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled since pre-industrial times, for the past decade or so there has been little change.

    Then, in 2007, several million tonnes of extra methane mysteriously entered the atmosphere. Detailed analysis from methane monitors around the world suggests that much of it came from the far north. Ciais says it looks like the biggest source was Siberian permafrost.

    Unstoppable

    This is still contentious. Matt Rigby of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has analysed the methane surge, says we cannot yet say whether emissions from melting permafrost contributed most to the rise. “But 2007 was unusually warm in Siberia, and we would expect emissions increases when temperature rises,” he adds.

    The rise could just be a blip – or the start of something big. “Once this process starts, it could soon become unstoppable,” Ciais says.

    Walter agrees. Right now, she estimates, only a few tens of millions of tonnes of methane are being emitted. “But there are tens of billions of tonnes potentially available for release.” And the faster the warming, the faster the emissions will rise.

    Out of control

    Most worrying of all is the risk of a runaway greenhouse effect. The carbon stored in the far north has the potential to raise global temperatures by 10 °C or more. If global warming leads to the release of more greenhouse gases, these releases will cause yet more warming and still more carbon will escape to the atmosphere. Eventually the feedback process would continue even if we cut our greenhouse emissions to zero. At that point climate change would be out of control.

    There is another concern about Arctic melting: the growing amount of fresh water flowing into the Arctic Ocean. The shrinking thickness and extent of sea ice has added a huge amount of fresh water already. Meanwhile, rivers are pouring up to 10 per cent more water into the ocean than they did half a century ago. This is partly the result of rising precipitation as the air warms – warmer air can hold more moisture – and partly the result of melting permafrost, ice and snow. Yet more fresh water is coming from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. As the Arctic warms further, these flows of fresh water will increase.

    All this extra fresh water could weaken the pump that drives the thermohaline circulation, or ocean conveyor current. Its most famous element is the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic, but the conveyor travels all the oceans. It has its beginnings in the far north of the Atlantic, off Greenland, where unusually dense water plunges to the ocean floor. The water becomes dense here partly because it cools and partly because the formation of sea ice increases salinity. As the water gets a bit warmer and a bit less salty, thanks to all the extra fresh water, the worry is that the pump could slow down.

    Fears that the conveyor will soon shut down altogether, causing a fall in temperatures in northern Europe, have receded. Models of the climate system do not predict a shutdown any time within the next century, says oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    Monsoon warning

    Even a slowdown in the conveyor could produce dramatic changes, though. Climate models suggest that changes in the ocean conveyor will alter rainfall patterns around the world. The models are backed by studies of how the climate has changed during past shutdowns of the ocean conveyor.

    The biggest consequence, says Buwen Dong of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research at the University of Reading, UK, is likely to be a disruption, and quite probably a complete collapse, of the Asian monsoon, causing severe droughts in south Asia. “It could have enormous social and economic impacts on these nations,” he says.

    The disruption of the monsoon would have enormous social and economic impacts in south Asia

    You can say that again. The Asian monsoon is the main source of water for large areas of the most heavily populated continent. An estimated 2 billion – getting on for 1 in 3 citizens on the planet – rely on it to grow their food. Take away the monsoon and they would starve. All because of warming in the Arctic.

    Unquantifiable

    Nobody can be sure how likely all this is. Indeed, the scientists at the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) who compile its reports cannot even reach agreement on how to quantify the probabilities of such events. As a result, the “scary scenarios” were barely mentioned in the last report.

    Nonetheless, the latest findings suggest we cannot afford to ignore these possibilities, especially given that everything to do with global climate is linked. The loss of Arctic sea ice could lead to the release of ever more methane from permafrost and methane hydrates. That in turn would make a dramatic reduction in the strength of the ocean conveyor sometime this century increasingly likely, which could lead to abrupt changes in the Asian monsoon.

    With the summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean already shrinking much faster than the IPCC models predicted, one thing is for sure. It is not just the polar bears who should be worrying about the warming Arctic.

    Editorial: Climate crunch warning

    Fred Pearce is an environment correspondent for New Scientist

  • US Coal fights for its life

    Among the hundreds of industry and environmental groups that are ramping up their lobbying in anticipation of climate change legislation, the coal and power industries stand out — because they have the most to lose. Consequently, they seem to have the most to spend.

    The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents 48 major coal producing and consuming companies, was officially formed in April 2008, but it grew out of another group, Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, which had been lobbying since 2000 for the fossil fuel industry.

    Between 2002 and 2007, the earlier group spent an average of $93,000 annually on federal lobbying. In 2008, the renamed group saw that figure rocket to $9.9 million — which came on top of a $38 million ad campaign extolling the virtues of so-called clean coal.

     
    DIGGING IN: The coal and power industries have accelerated their lobbying on climate change. (BLOOMBERG NEWS / ALIZA MARCUS)  

    Comparing spending is difficult because such associations can report lobbying costs under different laws — one requiring more detail and the other, a broader scope of spending. The Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, for instance, includes more general advertising costs in its disclosure reports than other lobbying groups do but provides fewer details.

    Nevertheless, the coal and power industry’s spending last year was staggering. Of the nine other multi-company coalitions that lobbied the federal government on climate change, none reported spending more than $1 million. The largest, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a vocal alliance of 30 major corporations and nonprofits, spent $870,000.

    The coal companies say the surge was essential. “We’re fighting for our livelihood,” says Steve Miller, the coalition’s president. That’s probably not an overstatement.

    “Relative to what’s at stake for the coal industry,” says Ken Kollman, a lobbying expert who teaches political science at the University of Michigan, “that’s not a lot of money.”

    Tackling climate change by limiting carbon emissions is a top priority of President Obama, and though Congress may spend the next year wrangling over the details, industries see the writing on the wall — and none more clearly than coal, which produces 36 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

    The clean-coal coalition won’t try to block a climate bill — it’s inevitable, Miller says — but will try to influence how it’s structured, chiefly by delaying emission limits until clean coal is a commercial reality — if it ever is. That means the companies are lobbying lawmakers to pump billions into technology that could capture carbon emissions and store them underground. In Congress, the group targets influential moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, who chairs the Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee.

    So was the money worth it? Dorgan helped put almost $3.5 billion in the economic stimulus law for clean-coal research — but that also had the support of the administration and lawmakers from Illinois delegation, which hopes to revive a clean-coal pilot project. Privately, some K Street insiders say the spending is probably overkill. “You can only influence and pressure people so much,” says one lobbyist. “If you’re spending that kind of money, you’re not getting your money’s worth.”

    The group’s barrage of ads led to a backlash of commercials by environmental groups, but coal is not letting up and has hired major Washington firm Quinn Gillespie & Associates. “We are ramping up even more beyond the effort we had last year,” Miller says. “These issues are too big, too important for us not to address them fully, and we will.”