Category: Uncategorized

  • Study of Rodent Family Tree Puts Brakes On Commonly Held Understanding of Evolution

    Science News

    … from universities, journals, and other research organizations

    Science News

    … from universities, journals, and other research organizations

    Study of Rodent Family Tree Puts Brakes On Commonly Held Understanding of Evolution

    Dec. 12, 2013 — Rodents can tell us a lot about the way species evolve after they move into new areas, according to a new and exceptionally broad study conducted in part by Florida State University biological science Professor Scott J. Steppan.


    Share This:

    The study of the evolutionary history of rodents calls into doubt a generally held understanding that when a species colonizes a new region, such as a continent, evolution leads to a dramatic increase in the number and variety of species.

    “Biological diversification, or adaptive radiation, is generally thought to be the major explanation for diversification across all of life,” said Scott J. Steppan, a Florida State University professor of biological science. “One of the most fundamental questions in biology is why some groups of plants and animals have lots of species and others do not. To address this question, we developed the most comprehensive DNA-based family tree of the most evolutionally successful group of mammals — the muroid rodents.”

    In the study, “Ecological Opportunity and Incumbency in the Diversification of Repeated Continental Colonizations by Muroid Rodents,” published in the journal Systematic Biology, Steppan, John J. Schenk of Tulane University and Kevin C. Rowe of Victoria Museum, Australia, used the phylogeny, or evolutionary family tree, of these rodents to test whether the adaptive radiation model of biological diversification actually is as common as presumed.

    In one of the most complex studies of the question in any group of organisms, the researchers demonstrated that muroids have colonized continents at least 28 times. Muroids include most of the species used in biomedical research, such as mice, rats, hamsters and gerbils.

    When a species first colonizes a new area with no close competitors, biologists would expect the rate at which new species are created to increase rapidly. Then, adaptation into new niches should make the descendent species very different from one another. Finally, as niches fill up, these first two processes should slow down.

    “In this study, we discovered that contrary to expectations, colonizing even entire continents does not generally lead to a rapid adaptive radiation, thus calling into question this model as a general explanation about the diversity of life on Earth,” Steppan said.

    The researchers did find that there is a weak general effect of first colonizers suppressing diversity among later colonizers, and that there is one clear exception to the general pattern. The first colonization of South America by muroid rodents between 7 million and 10 million years ago did lead to one of the great radiations in mammals — with more than 320 species — that fits the model well.

    In addition to the most commonly known species of rodents, muroids also include an enormous number of more specialized and lesser-known species, from the kangaroo-like hopping mice of Australia to the giant-maned rat of East Africa, which is the only poisonous rodent. With 300 species included in the study, it is the largest such single study conducted in mammals and one of the largest ever in animals.

    “Our study, which includes this muroid family tree, is significant because it firmly establishes the evolutionary history of this most diverse mammal group,” Steppan said. “It also provides the new standard phylogenetic framework for future studies comparing different rodent species, whether wild species or those used for biomedical research.”

    In studies ranging from the process of aging to the effects of diet on heart disease or cancer susceptibility, it is important for biomedical researchers to compare multiple species of rodents and consider their evolutionary relationships, according to Steppan. This allows researchers to determine which aspects of rodent biology are related to unique adaptations and which features or results are more generally applicable to humans.

    Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

    Dec. 12, 2013 — Rodents can tell us a lot about the way species evolve after they move into new areas, according to a new and exceptionally broad study conducted in part by Florida State University biological science Professor Scott J. Steppan.


    Share This:

    The study of the evolutionary history of rodents calls into doubt a generally held understanding that when a species colonizes a new region, such as a continent, evolution leads to a dramatic increase in the number and variety of species.

    “Biological diversification, or adaptive radiation, is generally thought to be the major explanation for diversification across all of life,” said Scott J. Steppan, a Florida State University professor of biological science. “One of the most fundamental questions in biology is why some groups of plants and animals have lots of species and others do not. To address this question, we developed the most comprehensive DNA-based family tree of the most evolutionally successful group of mammals — the muroid rodents.”

    In the study, “Ecological Opportunity and Incumbency in the Diversification of Repeated Continental Colonizations by Muroid Rodents,” published in the journal Systematic Biology, Steppan, John J. Schenk of Tulane University and Kevin C. Rowe of Victoria Museum, Australia, used the phylogeny, or evolutionary family tree, of these rodents to test whether the adaptive radiation model of biological diversification actually is as common as presumed.

    In one of the most complex studies of the question in any group of organisms, the researchers demonstrated that muroids have colonized continents at least 28 times. Muroids include most of the species used in biomedical research, such as mice, rats, hamsters and gerbils.

    When a species first colonizes a new area with no close competitors, biologists would expect the rate at which new species are created to increase rapidly. Then, adaptation into new niches should make the descendent species very different from one another. Finally, as niches fill up, these first two processes should slow down.

    “In this study, we discovered that contrary to expectations, colonizing even entire continents does not generally lead to a rapid adaptive radiation, thus calling into question this model as a general explanation about the diversity of life on Earth,” Steppan said.

    The researchers did find that there is a weak general effect of first colonizers suppressing diversity among later colonizers, and that there is one clear exception to the general pattern. The first colonization of South America by muroid rodents between 7 million and 10 million years ago did lead to one of the great radiations in mammals — with more than 320 species — that fits the model well.

    In addition to the most commonly known species of rodents, muroids also include an enormous number of more specialized and lesser-known species, from the kangaroo-like hopping mice of Australia to the giant-maned rat of East Africa, which is the only poisonous rodent. With 300 species included in the study, it is the largest such single study conducted in mammals and one of the largest ever in animals.

    “Our study, which includes this muroid family tree, is significant because it firmly establishes the evolutionary history of this most diverse mammal group,” Steppan said. “It also provides the new standard phylogenetic framework for future studies comparing different rodent species, whether wild species or those used for biomedical research.”

    In studies ranging from the process of aging to the effects of diet on heart disease or cancer susceptibility, it is important for biomedical researchers to compare multiple species of rodents and consider their evolutionary relationships, according to Steppan. This allows researchers to determine which aspects of rodent biology are related to unique adaptations and which features or results are more generally applicable to humans.

    Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:
  • Puppet Show MONBIOT

    1 of 42
    Why this ad?
    $4990 5kW Solar Systemwww.dollarsolar.com.au/ – 5kW solar system for $4990 Limited time – NSW, QLD only

    Monbiot.com

    Inbox
    x
    George Monbiot news@monbiot.com via google.com
    6:48 PM (12 minutes ago)

    to me

    Monbiot.com


    Puppet Show

    Posted: 12 Dec 2013 05:11 AM PST

    Amazingly, the BBC seems  happy to be exploited by covert corporate lobbyists.

     

    By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 12th December 2013.

    I expected the BBC to wriggle. I didn’t expect this flat refusal to uphold its own editorial guidelines.

    Two weeks ago, I wrote an article explaining how the BBC routinely flouts its professed commitment to impartiality and transparency, by allowing people who appear to be little more than corporate lobbyists to pose as independent pundits.

    I used the example of an interview with Mark Littlewood on the Today programme. He was introduced by Mishal Husain as “the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and a smoker himself”.

    What we were not told is that the institute, which calls itself a thinktank, has for many years been funded by the tobacco industry.

    This funding has been repeatedly exposed: for example in the archive of documents the tobacco companies were forced to make public as part of their class action settlement in the US, through leaks and in an article in the Observer earlier this year.

    I pointed out that this is one of many cases in which groups that call themselves thinktanks often look and sound more like lobbyists for corporations. Usually we have no idea who is funding them, because most refuse to declare their interests. But in this case it is well established.

    This is important because the BBC is considered by many listeners to be an impartial source of information which, unlike many other media outlets, has not been captured by corporate interests. If it is being exploited by controversial companies using covert channels to try to sway public opinion, you might have expected the BBC to take an interest.

    I encouraged readers to complain. Many did. They have all received the same response from the BBC Complaints Unit. Here’s what it says:

    “We raised your concerns with ‘Today’, who responded as follows:

    “’We don’t believe it was appropriate or necessary in this case to include details about where the Institute of Economic Affairs gets its funding, information which the IEA does not publish.

    “’The introduction described Mark Littlewood as a ‘smoker’, which indicated to the audience his likely approach to the subject. Furthermore, we mentioned his official position as the Director of the IEA.

    “That said, we accept it would have been better if we had followed our usual practice and described the Institute as a ‘free-market’ think-tank. This would have clarified the ideological as well as personal background to his arguments.’”

    I find this response extraordinary. Does the BBC really believe that listeners should not be told that someone arguing against the tougher regulation of cigarettes is funded by the tobacco industry? Who cares whether or not it says the IEA is a free market thinktank? This conveys little useful information. The issue here is on whose behalf it might be speaking.

    Would the BBC allow an acknowledged public relations firm, such as Burson-Marsteller or Hill and Knowlton, to speak about proposed regulations without revealing whether or not it is paid by the businesses trying to stymie those regulations? I am sure it would not. So what’s the difference?

    But most interesting is the excuse it uses: it won’t mention the IEA’s funders because the IEA refuses to disclose them. Surely a lack of candour should encourage more scrutiny, not less?

    What makes this even more striking is that it’s the opposite excuse to the one that Newsnight used when challenged on the same issue. A viewer complained that when the MP Peter Lilley was interviewed about climate change (he argued against taking major action), the programme did not disclose that he’s the vice-chairman of an oil company. In this case the BBC responded:

    “It is a matter of public record that Mr Lilley is Vice Chairman and Senior Independent Non-Executive Director of Tethys Petroleum – it appears in Parliament’s register of members interests.”

    So the BBC won’t reveal who is paying its contributors on the grounds that they haven’t declared their interests, and it won’t reveal who is paying its contributors on the grounds that they have declared their interests. It’s a perfect Morton’s Fork, which means that the BBC can allow anyone to pose as an independent expert, even if he is up to his neck in corporate money.

    One or two of the people who received this pathetic response have complained a second time. Here’s the answer the BBC gave them:

    “We forwarded your further concerns to Dominic Groves, one of the output editors of the Today programme who explained in response that:

    “’All we have to go on are newspaper reports. In the absence of any independent verification therefore, it remains an allegation that the IEA receives funding from tobacco companies. But that is not the central point here.

    “’The BBC guidelines require us to ‘provide the credentials’ of contributors. Our argument is that indicating Mark Littlewood’s status as a smoker, and the ‘free-market’ leanings of his think tank, would have been sufficient for the purposes of this piece to allow audiences to judge his status.

    “’We are sorry the script did not include the latter but don’t believe anything beyond that was necessary.’”

    It remains an allegation? Well I suppose you could call it that, but it’s an allegation the tobacco companies have confirmed. Here’s what they told the Observer:

    Philip Morris International said: “We confirm that we are a member of the Institute of Economic Affairs, but cannot provide you with any further details.”

    Japan Tobacco International said “We believe the contributions of organisations like the ASI [the Adam Smith Institute] and the IEA are very valuable in an open and free society. We respect their work and share their views on many issues”

    and

    “We work with the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute as their economic and behavioural expertise help us better understand which tobacco regulation measures will work and which will not.”

    And as for “the absence of any independent verification”, what better verification could you have than the internal documents of the tobacco companies revealed by the class action disclosure? Not only does Dominic Groves appear happy to trample on the BBC’s guidelines, but he also seems unaware of the vast body of material supporting the case he so lightly dismisses. You might have expected the Today programme to have done a little research before responding to this complaint. You would, it seems, have been wrong.

    On the issue of providing the credentials of its contributors, is the audience supposed to deduce from the fact that Littlewood is a smoker that he works for a body funded by the tobacco industry? Or does the BBC believe that this information is irrelevant?

    One of the people fobbed off in this manner has now gone to what the BBC calls “Stage 2 of the complaints process”: which means a letter to the Editorial Complaints Unit. If you have received a response you consider inadequate, I would urge you to do the same. Its email address is ecu@bbc.co.uk

    I have also just launched a petition at change.org, calling on the BBC to “disclose the financial interests of the people you interview in the issues they are discussing.” Please sign it.

    On Friday 13th, the BBC’s consultation on its news and current affairs output closes. Please have your say while you can.

    I should emphasise that I have no problem with the IEA or any other group being allowed to speak as often as the BBC might wish – if their interests are disclosed. Let anyone speak, as long as it’s done with transparency and accountability.

    It’s hard to understand how the BBC can sustain its bizarre position, unless it’s content for people to see it as an organisation incapable of upholding the most basic standards of journalism. Eventually, if enough people complain, and pursue those complaints, I believe it will have to change its policy: the gulf between its editorial guidelines and editorial practice is just too great.

    So unless you are content for the BBC to be used as a covert propaganda outlet by tobacco, fossil fuel and other controversial companies, please don’t give up. It’s time the BBC stopped collaborating in the deception of its listeners.

     

  • ABC campaign update

    3 of 43
    Why this ad?
    McAfee Next Gen Firewallmcafee.com/NextGenFirewall – Proxy-Based Firewall Blocking The Latest Threats. Learn More Today!

    ABC campaign update

    Inbox
    x
    GetUp!
    7:56 PM (1 hour ago)

    to me
    Let’s ramp up the campaign to protect the ABC. Everyone who chips in $5 or more today will have a “GetUp for our ABC” bumper sticker sent to them: https://www.getup.org.au/defend-our-abc

    Dear NEVILLE,

    It’s gone bananas.

    In just 72 hours, the GetUp petition in response to the attack on the ABC was signed by nearly 215,000 Australians, and it’s still growing by the hour.

    That’s incredible. And the campaign is just getting started.

    Next move? Let’s put our message where it will have maximum impact.

    Right now, we’re on the phones with media buyers to secure prominent, high traffic, attention-getting billboards inside the electorates of Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull. We’ll place them smack-bang on the roads where they, and the voters they answer to, live and work. Our message is clear: Australians want our ABC to remain free of ads, free from cuts, free to remain fair and balanced. They’ve secured some great last minute rates for us and are just waiting for the green light.

    Will you chip in to make it happen? Click here to see where your billboard will run: https://www.getup.org.au/defend-our-abc

    The recent government tirade against our ABC from inside the Coalition party room is not an isolated incident. Nor are the near daily slurs against the ABC published in hysterical columns of the Murdoch-owned press; or the motion passed just two weeks ago by the Victorian Liberal Party conference to sell off our nation’s public broadcaster. These attacks are simply the latest in the right wing’s long history of interference with the only broadcaster in our country that operates in the interest of the public, not profits.

    Why? Conservative forces both inside and outside our government – which have Mr. Abbott’s ear – are sowing the seeds for funding cuts, or worse, well ahead of budget decisions early next year. They want to see how the public reacts, gauge how much it’d cost them politically.

    Let’s give them a taste. Will you donate to put up targeted billboards, run ads and facilitate a community visibility campaign over the Christmas break and months leading up to budget?

    https://www.getup.org.au/defend-our-abc

    Think this would never happen to such a widely popular public service? Think again.

    When Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi called our ABC a “taxpayer-funded behemoth” and suggested that “we could perhaps cut the ABC budget and allow the commercial media operators to compete” – he was only picking up where many in the Howard Government left off. Howard famously stacked the board with right-wing cronies and climate deniers, and starved the broadcaster of funds until GetUp members rallied with one of our first big campaigns ever, back in 2006.

    Now is the time to head-off the attack. As Mike Carlton wrote in Saturday’s Sydney Morning Herald:

    “The next move is bleedin’ obvious. In due course, Abbott will instigate an ‘inquiry’ into the ABC, with a suitable stooge to run it and the result predetermined. It will recommend a reworking of the ABC charter to bring the place to heel and, most important of all, to kybosh any activities attracting audiences that Rupert sees as rightfully his. Then they’ll slash the funding. Bring on the Murdochracy.”[1]

    Not if we can help it.

    We know the Australian public deeply values our ABC, and we’re prepared to remind any politician who forgets that they answer to us. Chip in to launch our ABC lovers fight back campaign now.

    https://www.getup.org.au/defend-our-abc

    For a free and fair independent media,

    the GetUp team

    PS. Want to help take the message to the streets? Or your local shop window, car, laptop or bike? We’re sending out

  • Disaster dice loaded against poorest countries

     

    Thursday 12 December 2013 Members login

    Disaster dice loaded against poorest countries

    Source: Thomson Reuters Foundation – Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:45 AM

    hum-nat cli-wea cli-ada
    Sri Lankans displaced by floods use a raft made of discarded tar barrels to cross a flooded paddy field in the northeastern district of Pollonaruwa. TRF/Amantha Perera
    Tweet Recommend Google + LinkedIn Bookmark Email Print

    Jump down to related content

    TOKYO (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – It is often said that people in the poorest countries suffer most from climate hazards and the effects of a warming world. Now we have the data to prove it.

    Between January 1980 and July 2013, climate-related disasters caused 2.52 million deaths around the globe. Of the total, a disproportionately high number of deaths – 1.28 million or 51 percent – were recorded in the world’s 49 least developed countries (LDCs), according to a recent briefing paper from the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

    And the situation isn’t getting any better, warned the IIED ahead of last month’s U.N. climate talks.

    “Taking just the period from January 2010 to July 2013, deaths from climate-related disasters in LDCs rose to a staggering 67 percent of the world total, reaching 5.5 times the overall global per-capita death rate due to climate-related disasters,” it said.

    “In Japan, if a big disaster is looming, then the biggest concern would be economic losses. In a place like Bangladesh or in Africa, the fear would be mass loss of life,” said Venkatachalam Anbumozhi, a capacity-building specialist at the Asian Development Bank Institute (ADBI) in Tokyo.

    Experts say the high human losses in poor countries are primarily due to the difficulties they face in securing resources – both nationally and from donor governments – to put in place effective measures to reduce the risk of natural disasters and adapt to climate change.

    Anbumozhi said developing-state governments should be much more concerned about the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, and take appropriate steps.

    “Governments should assess how much they are likely to lose in case of a cyclone or a drought, and take measures as if they were dealing with any other risk – say a possible oil price hike,” he said.

    While a certain level of economic losses may be inevitable, lives can be saved with a little bit of forward planning, the ADBI expert said.

    He cited the example of the two East Indian states of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa, which were struck by Cyclone Phailin in early October. Over a million people were moved out of vulnerable areas and the death toll was kept below 50, although government authorities estimate that close to 12 million people may have been affected by the storm.

    “We see similar investments in effective adaptation being made in Bangladesh to minimise cyclone impacts, but overall, more needs to be done,” Anbumozhi said.

    ‘PAUCITY’ OF CLIMATE FINANCE

    The IIED paper argued that financial assistance from richer countries to poorer nations to adapt to shifting climate patterns has been woefully inadequate.

    Figures from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), suggest the global cost of adapting to climate change impacts will be $86 billion to $109 billion. But wealthy countries have provided only $4 billion annually for such measures in the past three years, the IIED noted.

    “This paucity of climate finance contrasts sharply with global defence spending, at more than $4.6 billion a day, as well as national subsidies to fossil fuels, which may have been as high as $1 trillion in 2012 overall,” the paper said.

    Scarce climate funds mean that resources may be diverted from longer-term adaptation programmes to meet more pressing needs. In Sri Lanka, for example, low levels of funding have translated into inadequate stocks of emergency response supplies.

    In the middle of this year, the Sri Lankan Red Cross said it had stocks to assist 11,000 families. But officials at the aid agency said that ideally they should be in position to help 100,000 families in the immediate aftermath of a disaster.

    SRI LANKA

    According to the DesInventar Disaster Information Management System, a global tool to generate inventories of disaster losses, more than 2.6 million Sri Lankans have been affected by disasters in the last two years, more than a tenth of a population of just over 20 million.

    Since late 2010, Sri Lanka has suffered major floods in the north and east, which were followed by a severe drought. Extremely strong winds have also affected the south coast, killing more than 60 people.

    In 2012, Sri Lanka’s Disaster Management Centre spent around Rs 211 million (around $1.6 million) on disaster prevention measures and emergency relief.

    Senaka Basnayake, head of the climate risk management department at the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC) in Bangkok, who has worked in Sri Lanka, said the signs are that the island nation needs to boost efforts to reduce the risks of extreme weather events and adapt to longer-term climate shifts.

    “We see a strong reason for assessing the future risks, incorporating the changing patterns of weather and climate trends,” he said.

    Atiq Kainan Ahmed, another ADPC expert, said there should be stronger links between early warning of potential hazards and emergency response at the local level.

    “Building resilience is not just making a single tool available in a community, but working in a concerted manner to connect (disaster) preparedness and response with a simple procedure that people can practice in a sustained manner,” Ahmed said.

    But officials at Sri Lanka’s Department of Meteorology said they have been unable to implement even urgently needed programmes, such as installing new weather radar systems, due to a lack of funding.

    Amantha Perera is a freelance writer based in Sri Lanka. He can be followed on Twitter at

  • As the science on the coastal impacts of climate change gets stronger, the protections for Australia’s coastal communities are getting weaker.

    As the science on the coastal impacts of climate change gets stronger, the protections for Australia’s coastal communities are getting weaker. If that continues, everyone will pay. Along the eastern seaboard of Australia, where most of us live, state governments are relaxing their policies and largely…

    Eroded beaches in Surfers Paradise on Queensland’s Gold Coast, May 2013. John Reid, Environment Studio, ANU School of Art

    As the science on the coastal impacts of climate change gets stronger, the protections for Australia’s coastal communities are getting weaker. If that continues, everyone will pay.

    Along the eastern seaboard of Australia, where most of us live, state governments are relaxing their policies and largely leaving it to local councils to decide if homes can be built in low-lying areas.

    The Queensland government confirmed this week that sea level rise will be removed from its State Planning Policy, just as it was in New South Wales a year ago, while Victoria has also relaxed its sea level rules.

    Yet nearly 39,000 homes are already located within 110 metres of soft, erodible shorelines, according to the Australian Department of Environment, which states exposure to the effects of sea level rise “will increase as Australia’s population grows”.

    With 85% of Australians living in coastal areas, and billions of dollars of buildings and roads at stake, if we don’t get coastal planning right we risk facing huge human and economic costs.

    The Local Government Association of Queensland has warned that councils could be sent broke by the state policy change, particularly because of the legal liability they could face if they approve coastal developments that are subsequently hit by future storm damage or flooding.

    And as we saw with the devastating Queensland floods of 2011 and other major disasters, when individual homeowners were not insured and needed help, or when individual councils can’t afford to fix damaged roads and infrastructure, who ends up footing much of the repair bill? All Australian taxpayers.

    So this is not just a problem for the lucky few with homes by the beach: we all have something at stake in getting coastal protections right.

    Sea level rise science

    As the Department of Environment explains, the risks from rising sea levels are serious, and not limited just to the coast:

    Where Australians live, June 2012: coastal areas, especially along the eastern seaboard, are the most densely populated. Australian Bureau of Statistics
    Click to enlarge

    Rising sea levels will increase the frequency or likelihood of extreme sea level events and resultant flooding. The risks from sea level rise are not confined to the coast itself. In many cases flooding may impact areas some distance from the sea for example along estuaries, rivers, lakes and lagoons.

    A study of 29 locations in Australia found that for a mid-range sea level rise of 50cm, extreme sea level events that happened every few years now are likely to occur every few days in 2100.

    On average, Australia will experience a roughly 300-fold increase in flooding events, meaning that infrastructure that is presently flooded once in 100 years will be flooded several times per year with a sea level rise of 50cm.

    But when you consider that many homes and suburbs that we build in Australia today will still be standing for decades to come, and that we don’t want to see those home owners left out of pocket or suing their council for letting them build in low-lying areas – just how much sea level rise should we be planning for?

    I asked Dr John Church, a CSIRO Fellow and a coordinating lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chapter on sea level, what the latest science indicated. He replied:

    The science is clear. Historical sea level information around the world and in Australia tells us that in times of a warmer climate, sea level has been metres higher than at present and that the rate of sea level rise has increased since pre-industrial time.

    The emission of greenhouse gases has been a significant contribution to the 20th century rise and will very likely result in a faster rate of rise during the 21st century than over the last 40 years, or the 20th century as a whole.

    Projections for sea level rise around Australia are similar to the global average. If there was very significant mitigation of greenhouses gas emissions, the global average rise is projected to be 28cm to 61cm by 2100, but, if emissions continue to grow in a business as usual fashion as is happening at present, the rise is projected to be 52cm to 98cm, and possibly up to several tens of centimetres above these values if marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet collapse. Sea level will continue to rise well after 2100. – John Church, correspondence with the author, 9 December 2013.

    Queensland’s old planning rules had factored in a sea level rise of 30 centimetres by 2050 and 80 centimetres by 2100. That meant that coastal development in such hazard areas was generally only permitted in special circumstances, such as for marine and fishing precincts .

    As Dr Church and the Australian government’s sea level site both indicate, on current trends 80cm is within the range of business as usual projections.

    A 2011 report by the Australian government found that more than A$226 billion worth of Australian homes, offices blocks, roads, rail and other built infrastructure would be potentially flooded or eroded with a sea level rise of 1.1 metres, which is the high end scenario they examined for 2100.

    Ironically, of all Australian states, that report found Queensland faced the greatest combined risk from high tides and storm surges, and the costs they would face to replace damaged infrastructure. (The state-by-state cost estimates are shown below.)

    Climate Change Risks to Coastal Buildings and Infrastructure, Australian Government, 2011
    Click to enlarge

    A national response to a national problem

    In the two short years since that report was published, we have gone from a situation where all Australian governments were working together on a national approach to coastal planning, under the former National Coasts and Climate Change Council, to a trend towards dumping the risks and liabilities for coastal planning onto local councils.

    This is already leaving some communities very exposed to rising costs. For instance, the Gold Coast is already hit by beach erosion costing tens of millions of dollars to remedy, and even greater costs could be incurred with further seawater intrusion and damage to infrastructure, such as storm water networks.

    An aerial view of the Gold Coast, looking from Surfers Paradise down to Coolangatta, August 2013. www.shutterstock.com/Steven Bostock
    Click to enlarge

    Yet there is plenty of evidence to show why protecting coastal areas is the sensible option, and how to do it.

    Over the past 50 years, there have been 25 national inquiries and reports into coastal management, including a comprehensive 396-page 2009 Coasts and Climate Change federal parliamentary report. Those inquiries have overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that rather than leaving it to local councils, we need one set of clear, national guidelines on coastal development and infrastructure.

    That’s the opposite of what we’re now seeing around Australia, with a mish-mash of different rules in different states.

    All of which increases the risk of more development in areas at risk of coastal erosion, sea level rise and storm surges. Unless this changes, who’ll pay the price for this lack of foresight and planning? If you’re an Australian taxpayer, you will, and in the future so will your children.

  • Rivers and streams release more greenhouse gas than all lakes

    Rivers and streams release more greenhouse gas than all lakes

    Posted: 09 Dec 2013 09:41 AM PST

    Rivers and streams release carbon dioxide at a rate five times greater than the world’s lakes and reservoirs combined, contrary to common belief.