Hi - We're going to get passionate about the environment; so, grab a beverage, take your shoes off, sit down and get comfy. If global warming is an interest of yours - add your comments, subscribe to the feed and/or become a follower. Don't forget to check out the ads to the right side of the column. There is some very interesting material to be had there. Read, comment, enjoy!!!
The world's largest tiger reserve was recently put into place in the Kachin state in Burma, news which conservationists and champions of the fast-declining species cheered. But it looks like the cheering came too soon -- reports have surfaced that a Burmese real estate corporation is continuing to clear-cut the forests throughout the reserve anyway. It plans on using the land for harvesting crops in a gigantic 200,000 acre monoculture operation, regardless of the declaration by the government that the land was to be used as a reserve.
Such declarations from the 'government' of Burma -- truly a brutal ruling military junta -- are clearly not to be trusted. The real estate firm reportedly has close ties to the junta, and it seems doubtful that it will step in to halt the clear-cutting. Yale 360 has more:
A coalition of organizations promoting sustainable development, the Kachin Development Networking Group, says in its report that Yuzana Company is still bulldozing trees to establish sugar and tapioca plantations and plant jatropha to be used as biofuel. The chairman of Yuzana is U Htay Myint, a prominent businessman with close ties to the government of Burma, also known as Myanmar. "Today, a 200,000-acre mono-crop plantation project is making a mockery of the reserve's protected status," the report says. According to the report, local farmers are being forcibly removed from their land to make room for the plantations.
Clearly, this is far from a healthy habitat for any tiger.
The military junta is renowned for ruling with an iron hand, driving its citizens into forced labor, and not allowing free press or assembly. That it would put the profits of a major corporation it has ties to before an endangered species or the local populace is par for the course.
Hopefully, further international attention to the issues -- both conservation-related and humanitarian -- will help to discourage this kind of behavior. It must be said, however, that so far it has not.
In 1985, the Indian white-backed vulture was described as one of "the most abundant large bird of prey in the world." Since then, things have changed dramatically.
Since the 1990s, the population has dropped by more than 97% and conservationists believe that the species is reaching the point of unavoidable extinction. The culprit: Diclofenac, a bovine painkiller that poisons the birds. Diclofenac is also to help manage severe pain in humans from such maladies as arthritis. In spite of bans, bovine use of the drug is still common in South Asia — a practice that has been perpetuated by its effectiveness.
The painkiller — which is safe for use in humans; but, has been banned for veterinary use in North America, Europe, and parts of South Asia — produces astonishing results in cattle. Often, cows crippled with pain are able to stand and walk minutes after a single injection. This, of course, makes the veterinarian look good and makes it a popular panacea.
While Diclofenac may make the cow feel better, it is lethal to the vultures who digest it when scavenging the meat of dead cattle that have received the drug.
Within days of eating Diclofenac-laced flesh, a vulture's organs are coated in a thick, white paste, eventually causing organ failure.
Fifteen vultures rest in tree in Serengeti Park. Photo courtesy: Wikipedia
The test being proposed to identify diclofenac-tainted meat, which is simple enough for non-experts to administer, could quickly identify tainted carrion, helping conservationists select food for breeding centers and wildlife officials track veterinarians practicing in opposition to the ban.
Though trials have been promising, researchers were quick to add that more work had to be done to ensure the test was completely effective. "We can't afford," said Chris Bowden, the Vulture Program Manager at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, "to get it wrong even once."
Falling vegetable yields could have a detrimental impact on people's diets, Indian researchers warn. Photo courtesy: bbcnews
A decline in pollinating insects in India is resulting in reduced vegetable yields and could limit people's access to a nutritional diet, a study warns.
Indian researchers said there was a "clear indication" that pollinator abundance was linked to productivity.
They added that the loss of the natural service could have a long-term impact on the farming sector, which accounts for almost a fifth of the nation's GDP.
Globally, pollination is estimated to be worth £141bn ($224bn) each year.
The findings were presented at a recent British Ecological Society meeting, held at the University of Leeds.
Each year, India produces about 7.5 million tonnes of vegetables. This accounts for about 14% of the global total, making the nation second only to China in the world's vegetable production league table.
Despite the concern, no study had been done to assess directly the scale of the decline in natural pollinators, explained Parthiba Basu, from the University of Calcutta's Ecology Research Unit.
"The ideal situation would have been if we were able to compare the overall pollinator abundance over the years, but that kind of data was just not available," he told BBC News.
Instead, his team compared the yields of pollinator-dependent crops with pollinator-independent crops.
"Data shows that the yields of pollinator-independent crops have continued to increase," Dr Basu said. "On the other hand, pollinator-dependent crops have levelled off."
He explained that certain crops did not depend on insects for pollination, including cereals. Instead, the plants used other mechanism - such as relying on the wind to carry the pollen.
However, many vegetables - such as pumpkin, squash, cucumber and gherkin - were reliant on insects, such as bees.
He added that the fall in yield per hectare was against the backdrop of a greater area being turned over to crop production each year.
The exact cause for the decline of pollinators, especially bees, still remains a mystery. Photo courtesy: bbcnews
In an attempt to identify an underlying cause for the pollinator decline, the team is carrying out a series of field experiments, comparing conventional agriculture with "ecological farming".
Defined as "a farming system that aims to develop an integrated, humane, environmentally and economically sustainable agricultural production system", ecological farming is almost a hybrid of conventional and organic farming, looking to capitalise on returns from modern farming methods as well as drawing on natural ecological services, such as pollination.
Dr Basu said: "There is an obvious indication that within the ecological farming setting, there is pollinator abundance. This method typically provides the habitats for natural pollinators - this is the way forward."
He added that if the team's findings were extrapolated, this would offer a "clear indication" that India was facing a decline in natural pollinators, as ecological farming was only practiced on about 10-20% of the country's arable land.
Figures show that agriculture accounts for almost one-fifth of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP), compared with the global average of just 6%. The sector also provides livelihoods for more than half of India's 1.2 billion population.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that of the slightly more than 100 crop species that provide 90% of food supplies for 146 countries, 71 are bee-pollinated, primarily by wild bees, and a number of others are pollinated by other insects.
In order to gain a clear insight into the scale of the global problem, the FAO has established the International Pollinators Initiative, which includes a project involving seven nations (India is among them) with the aim of identifying practices and building capacity in the management of pollination services.
In a 2007 assessment of the scientific data on the issue, the UN Environment Programme observed: "Any loss in biodiversity is a matter of public concern, but losses of pollinating insects may be particularly troublesome because of the potential effects on plant reproduction and hence on food supply security."
Dr Basu said food security was unlikely to be the main consequence facing India.
"There has been a debate within India about this, but most of the cereal crops are not pollinator dependent, so if there is a pollination crisis it is not going to affect food security as such.
"What is going to be affected is nutritional security."
The concept of food security was first established by a FAO committee in 1983. Nutritional security was soon added as a key pillar to ensure "access by all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life".
Dr Basu said that vegetables such as pumpkins, squash, cucumber, and gherkins were "quite substantial" in terms of delivering necessary nutrients to the population.
"But there are many other vegetable crops that are eaten by people who are around the poverty level, so-called minor vegetable crops like eggplant, for which is there is no or very little data," he explained.
About a quarter of India's population is believed to live below the poverty level, which - under the UN's Millennium Development Goals - refers to people who live on less than US$1 a day.
In industrialised nations, such as the US and in Europe, many farms employ the services of commercial hives to pollinate fruit trees and food crops, and ensure they harvest adequate yields.
But Dr Basu said the use of domesticated bees in this context was not widespread in South Asia.
"There are honey farmers, but using hives in the field to pollinate crops is not at all common in India," he said.
"That is why a lot of the political noise about a global pollination crisis came from the US and Europe, because their managed/domesticated bee population was declining."
In 2007, about one third of the US domesticated bee population was wiped out as a result of a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), with some commercial hive owners losing up to 90% of their bees.
The exact cause remains a mystery, and last year a number of UK agencies - including the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) - began a £10m project to help identify the main threat to bees and other insect pollinators.
A number of possible causes have been suggested, including the misuse of pesticides, habitat loss and fragmentation, and the spread of parasites and diseases.
Dr Basu said that as a result of his team's field experiments, it was clear that India too was experiencing a decline.
However, he cautioned: "There are many kinds of natural pollinators. As a result, we - not only in India, but in other parts of the world - do not really know what is happening to natural pollinator populations."
Everyone remembers the Flintmobile. The stone-age vehicle driven entirely by the foot power of Fred Flintstone. The HumanCar is a step above this...in a very good way. The small electric engine is powered by the driver or passengers in the vehicle. The action needed to power the car is demonstrated in the video.
The plus sides to this car are many.
1. It doesn't pollute. The small electric engine is powered by muscle power. No emissions. No pollution. 2. Relaxing. If you are motoring on safe roads, it is a slower-paced ride that allows you to take in the sights. 3. When it needs "refueling", the driver (or passenger) can refuel as the car is moving or it can be pulled over to the side of the road for a quick recharge/refuel. 4. Safer. There would be far less accidents if everyone were in these vehicles. 5. Lowers dependence on oil products. 'Nuff said.
Builders working on a tiny Saxon church have unearthed Britain's oldest working window, dating back to pre-1066.
The wooden-framed window was built 1,000 years ago but lay buried in the wall of St Andrew's Church for about 150 years after it was covered up by Victorian renovations. It has now been revealed after shocked workmen spotted the distinctive frame while renovating the Saxon building, in the village of Boxford, near Newbury, Berkshire.
Archaeologists and historians have studied the workmanship of the window and have found that it dates back to before the Norman Conquest.
The tiny wooden frame measures 2ft tall by 1ft wide and had been buried in the church's wall. Photo courtesy: mailonline
It is one of just a handful of windows in the country that pre-dates 1066 but is the only one that opens.
The opening was first uncovered in July this year as the small church underwent restoration.
Workmen carefully removed a concrete render, which had been placed on the outside of the north wall of the church in the Victorian era.
They unpeeled the concrete to reveal a rough-hewn oak frame of the 2ft by 1ft window, containing a wooden panel of the same material which would have been tied using hemp as a hinge.
Stunned church staff called in archaeologists and medieval specialists, who determined the method of building the window dated back to well before 1066.
Experts from the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings have confirmed the findings and said the window is 'remarkable in its completeness.'
The window is now fully displayed at the church - one of just five specimens dating back to before the Norman Conquest, and believed to be the only one with a working shutter.
The small wooden frame on the side of the church is thought to have been used to allow a draft of fresh air through the building. Photo courtesy: mailonline
Andrew Plumridge, conservationist and church architect at St Andrew's, said: 'It's really very exciting - it is one of just three windows in the whole of Britain which pre-dates the Norman Conquest.
'It was discovered during a general restoration programme for the church.
'A concrete render had been placed outside over the window by the Victorians and was beginning to crack and let in water behind it.
'Part of the renovation was to take off the render, but when they took it away they noticed a small window filled with loose flint.
'We took the flint out to see what was underneath but we were not prepared for what we would find.
'It is a wooden frame made from oak, with an oak shutter on a string side hinge which probably would have been made from hemp. It has been described rather inelegantly as an ancient cat flap. Although it holds a working shutter, the window cannot open fully nowadays due to an enormous monument on the inside of the building.
Mr Plumridge said: 'We have decided not to reveal the inside of the window, because there is a huge monument in the way which is too important for us to move.
'We will leave this for future generations to discover and enjoy.' Julian Munby, archaeological advisor for the Oxford diocese, said: 'It's an interesting find and very exciting indeed.
'It is believed to be a Saxon window, dating back to pre-1066, and is therefore one of the oldest in Britain.
'The window is cut from a single timber and has a shutter, making it the oldest working window we are aware of.
'The Romans would have built some windows using glass, but none of these exist in Britain any more.
'It has been covered up for very many years and was only discovered during building work - it is a very important find.'
Matthew Slocombe, from the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, said: 'We were hugely excited when Andrew told us of his discovery.
'This is such a rare and unusual find.
'It is a great privilege to be able to see the work of a Saxon craftsman who lived more than 1,000 years ago.
'It's a delight to see that a traditional, wooden, hand-crafted window can stand the test of time more than a millennia after its construction.'
A genetically modified salmon, rear, and a non-genetically modified salmon, foreground. Photograph: AP. Photo courtesy: guardian
Buried in a prospectus inviting investors to buy shares in a fledgling biotech company is an arresting claim attributed to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation.
"Commercial aquaculture is the most rapidly growing segment of the agricultural industry, accounting for more than $60bn sales in 2003. While land-based agriculture is increasing between 2% to 3% per year, aquaculture has been growing at an average rate of approximately 9% per year since 1970."
And then the prospectus for the US company AquaBounty offers this observation to tantalise prospective investors: "The traditional fishery harvest from the ocean has stagnated since 1990."
So what is to be done to satisfy the world's seemingly insatiable appetite for fish? An appetite that will see the consumption of farmed fish outpace global beef consumption by nearly 10% within five years, according to the UN?
AquaBounty, whose shares are sold on London's Alternative Investment Market, thinks it has the answer. And if, as looks increasingly likely, the US government agrees, the implications for global food production will be enormous. Welcome to the new world heralded by the "GM salmon".
The company's dream of selling genetically modified salmon eggs that allow the fish to grow to maturity in half the normal time received a giant fillip last week when it announced that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was close to granting approval.
A positive FDA response would see salmon become the first GM-engineered animal marketed for human consumption. Dramatically speeding up the time it takes to harvest a mature salmon could stimulate a huge rise in production, making salmon plentiful and cheaper, GM enthusiasts say.
AquaBounty expects to receive the nod by the end of this year, meaning GM salmon could be on supermarket shelves within three years. The company's share price doubled on the strength of the announcement.
But the euphoria the company and its investors experienced following last week's announcement quickly evaporated amid a furious backlash from consumer groups.
"The furore over this fish puts paid once and for all to the myth that US consumers are content eating GM food," said Eve Mitchell, European food policy adviser at Food and Water Watch Europe, which opposes GM food. "Consumers are not, and in fact jammed up the White House telephone lines last week protesting any approval. Quite understandably the salmon industry is not happy either, as people will simply avoid all salmon rather than risk getting this stuff. Only those who stand to gain financially think this is a good idea."
Predictably, vested fishing interests have waded into the row. Local radio stations from Ireland to Canada carried interviews with angry fishermen who fear that initial reluctance to consume GM salmon will be overcome by simple economics. "Genetically modified food is just a bad deal," a commercial fisherman in Charleston, South Carolina, told his local station. "This will attack our marketplace. It'll come on the market so cheap that people will buy it, because we're all on a budget."
Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty's chief executive officer, is keen to play down these particular fears. His company is more interested in selling its technology to the burgeoning markets of Chile, China and Asia rather than competing with Atlantic fishermen. "The global salmon market is very, very large and the opportunity is in areas that cannot raise salmon," Stotish told the Observer. "We don't believe it need threaten any national markets, particularly for the high-value premium markets. We are hopeful that people don't regard us as an economic threat, but simply look to us as a technology that maybe can become part of the future."
If Stotish, a biochemist by training and an urbane advocate for his cause, succeeds, other companies are waiting in the wings to exploit similar GM technologies. AquaBounty itself is looking at GM trout, according to its prospectus, and has conducted trials on catfish. Up to six other species of fish – including tilapia and cod – are viewed by biotech companies as ripe for genetic modification, according to experts.
Not that Stotish enjoys being the vanguard of a GM food revolution. "It would be far easier to be the third or fourth or fifth [company to bring a GM animal to market]. If you are the first, you attract all of the attention and the burden of attention falls to you. It's a difficult position for a small firm like us."
AquaBounty is also battling dire warnings that its chief product threatens the natural food chain. The company's genetic technology ensures that more than 98% of its salmon cannot reproduce, Stotish says. In addition, the eggs it produces (which are all female thus ensuring the GM fish cannot reproduce among themselves) will be sold only to strictly monitored growers operating fish farms under licence from the FDA.
"This biological and physical containment almost certainly guarantees no interaction with wild salmon," Stotish pledged, pointing out that about 95% of the world's salmon is already produced in farms.
But Helen Wallace, of the anti-GM group GeneWatch, said she had serious concerns. "AquaBounty admit that they expect more than 1% of their fish to be able to reproduce," Wallace said. "If, as they intend, they end up producing large numbers of eggs, that's a large risk." Escaped GM salmon could "outcompete" its wild counterpart by reproducing earlier and threatening its food supply. Some researchers have suggested that even a small number of escaped GM salmon could cause extinction of wild populations in as little as 40 generations.
With potentially weak constitutions, the new salmon might then struggle to adapt to life outside captivity. Food and Water Watch goes as far as to suggest the GM salmon "may only last long enough in the wild to prevent natural populations from reproducing, leading to a total extinction of salmon in open waters".
Escapes are not uncommon. In March, nearly 100,000 farmed Atlantic salmon escaped into the wild from just one hole in a net at a UK fish farm.
Such concerns take place against the backdrop of a much wider battle between pro-GM groups and an increasingly vocal organic movement. GM crop production is promoted aggressively on the grounds that it can help eliminate global hunger and bring down food prices. Opponents claim the promised GM revolution that saw crops made resistant to potent herbicides – something that could dramatically reduce farmers' spraying time – has resulted in the rise of superweeds across vast tracts of US farmland.
Experts said they had been expecting the battle over GM food to move to fish for some time because they are easier to modify. Stotish said his company was focused purely on aquaculture. But GM pork already looks a real possibility. The Enviropig, a trademarked pig that has been genetically modified to excrete less polluting phosphorous in its faeces, has been developed by researchers in Canada. Genetically modified chickens capable of laying eggs containing proteins needed to make cancer-fighting drugs have been created by Scottish scientists.
A goat that produces a spider's web protein – paving the way for silk to be farmed – is under development. GM goats have also been raised to produce human breast milk and to deliver a special protein for people whose blood cannot flow smoothly. And then there is the GloFish, a genetically modified fluorescent zebrafish that, according to its sales blurb, would grace any aquarium and comes in three "striking colours" – starfire red, electric green and sunburst orange.
But amid the rush to spread GM's reach and scope, at least one government has recently had second thoughts. Muhyiddin Yassin, Malaysia's deputy prime minister, last week announced his government would not be releasing genetically modified male Aedes mosquitoes capable of sterilising female mosquitoes. "We must consider several aspects of the proposed release, including its impact on the environment," Yassin said. "In addition, the release of the mosquitoes must be endorsed by several international organisations."
For GM opponents, the U-turn was a cause for celebration, a sign that politicians still accept that the technology carries massive risks. But the ultimate victory in the argument about genetically modified food comes down to the invisible hand of the market. Both sides agree it is significant that none of the big GM technology companies such as Monsanto is attempting to create GM meat or fish, preferring to focus on more lucrative GM crop production.
"The process of genetically modifying animals has been a commercial failure," Wallace said. "Too many scientists and small biotech companies have engineered animals just because they can, without thinking through the technical, economic, marketing, animal welfare, environmental or social issues."
Yet Stotish senses opportunity for his fledgling industry. "Once the [GM] technology was adapted for plant systems, the size of that opportunity dwarfed the efforts on the animal side. We've lagged behind." If the FDA gives the green light to GM salmon, expect a frantic game of catch-up.
THE RISE OF GM
1980: First biotechnology patent granted: US researchers awarded a patent that allows them to make human insulin from genetically modified bacteria.
1982: US government approves tests to evaluate how genetically engineered bacteria can control frost damage in potatoes and strawberries.
1986: The US Environment Protection Authority approves the first GM crop - a virus-resistant tobacco plant.
1990: The first successful field trial of GM herbicide-tolerant cotton is conducted in the USA. In the same year the first GM dairy cow is created.
1994: The first genetically engineered food product, the Flavr Savr tomato, receives US Food and Drug Administration approval.
2002: Researchers sequence the DNA of rice, the first crop plant to have its genome decoded.
2003: UK approves a GM herbicide-resistant corn used for cattle feed.
2005: Cow genome sequence published.
2006: GM rice approved for human consumption in the US.
2007: Scottish researchers genetically modify chickens to lay eggs capable of producing drugs that fight cancer.
Laos' proposed hydropower plant threatens the habitat of giant Mekong catfish, such as this one weighing in at 292kg. Photograph: Suthep Kritsanavarin/AFP/Getty Images. Photo courtesy: guardian
Despite the risks to the world's biggest freshwater fish, Laos has rejected calls for a dam moratorium on the lower reaches of the Mekong because it wants cheap power to develop its economy.
The south-east Asian nation moved this week to secure regional approval for the first major hydropower plant on its stretch of the river in the face of protests from international conservation groups.
Catfish the length of cars and stingrays that weigh more than tigers are threatened by the proposed 800m barrier, but the government said the economic benefits outweigh the environmental risks.
"We don't want to be poor any more," said Viraphone Viravong, director general of the country's energy and mines department. "If we want to grow, we need this dam."
In a submission to the Mekong River Commission (MRC), Laos said it wants to build a 1.26GW-hydropower plant at Sayabouly in northern Laos to generate foreign exchange income.
If approved, about 90% of the electricity would be sold to neighbours Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.
It is part of a major plan to expand the economy through the utilisation of natural resources. According to Viravong, 20% of Laos' GDP will come from hydropower and mining by 2020, up from about 4% today.
Sayabouly is the first of 11 proposed dams on the lower reaches of the Mekong, a river that is already heavily dammed upstream in China.
The MMRC – made up of representatives from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand – will now assess the environmental impact of the project, but conservation groups fear the procedure is flawed and have called for a 10-year moratorium on hydropower on the river.
"This dam is the greatest challenge the MRC has faced since it was formed. It is the most serious test of its usefulness and relevance," said Marc Goichot, of the WWF. "It is already very clear this dam would amplify and accelerate the negative impacts of Chinese dams to the Mekong delta. What are the other impacts?"
Concerns have been raised about sedimentation, fisheries and the migration patterns of endangered freshwater species.
Four of the world's 10 biggest freshwater fish migrate up the Mekong to spawn. Among them is the Mekong giant catfish, which is the size of a bull shark, and the Mekong stingray, which can weigh up to 600kg.
The dam – which is being designed by Swiss company Colencois and the Thai contractors Karnchang – is also likely to affect the flow of nutrients along a delta that sustains tens of millions of people.
The Laos authorities insist the dam will be designed to mitigate the impact on food security, ecosystems and wildlife, but officials acknowledge that no solution is ideal for the environment.
"It won't be 100% perfect, but we believe mitigation measures will be effective. We must balance out the costs and benefits," said Viravong.
He felt there was no alternative. "We have done studies on micro-energy and renewables, but they are expensive. I don't think the world can subsidise that. If we do it ourselves, only cheap energy from hydropower will do." Laos' proposed hydropower plant threatens the habitat of giant Mekong catfish, such as this one weighing in at 292kg. Photograph: Suthep Kritsanavarin/AFP/Getty Images
Despite the risks to the world's biggest freshwater fish, Laos has rejected calls for a dam moratorium on the lower reaches of the Mekong because it wants cheap power to develop its economy.
The south-east Asian nation moved this week to secure regional approval for the first major hydropower plant on its stretch of the river in the face of protests from international conservation groups.
Catfish the length of cars and stingrays that weigh more than tigers are threatened by the proposed 800m barrier, but the government said the economic benefits outweigh the environmental risks.
"We don't want to be poor any more," said Viraphone Viravong, director general of the country's energy and mines department. "If we want to grow, we need this dam."
In a submission to the Mekong river commission (MRC) on Wednesday, Laos said it wants to build a 1.26GW-hydropower plant at Sayabouly in northern Laos to generate foreign exchange income.
If approved, about 90% of the electricity would be sold to neighbours Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia.
It is part of a major plan to expand the economy through the utilisation of natural resources. According to Viravong, 20% of Laos' GDP will come from hydropower and mining by 2020, up from about 4% today.
Sayabouly is the first of 11 proposed dams on the lower reaches of the Mekong, a river that is already heavily dammed upstream in China.
The MMRC – made up of representatives from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Thailand – will now assess the environmental impact of the project, but conservation groups fear the procedure is flawed and have called for a 10-year moratorium on hydropower on the river.
"This dam is the greatest challenge the MRC has faced since it was formed. It is the most serious test of its usefulness and relevance," said Marc Goichot, of the WWF. "It is already very clear this dam would amplify and accelerate the negative impacts of Chinese dams to the Mekong delta. What are the other impacts?"
Concerns have been raised about sedimentation, fisheries and the migration patterns of endangered freshwater species.
Four of the world's 10 biggest freshwater fish migrate up the Mekong to spawn. Among them is the Mekong giant catfish, which is the size of a bull shark, and the Mekong stingray, which can weigh up to 600kg.
The dam – which is being designed by Swiss company Colencois and the Thai contractors Karnchang – is also likely to affect the flow of nutrients along a delta that sustains tens of millions of people.
The Laos authorities insist the dam will be designed to mitigate the impact on food security, ecosystems and wildlife, but officials acknowledge that no solution is ideal for the environment.
"It won't be 100% perfect, but we believe mitigation measures will be effective. We must balance out the costs and benefits," said Viravong.
He felt there was no alternative. "We have done studies on micro-energy and renewables, but they are expensive. I don't think the world can subsidise that. If we do it ourselves, only cheap energy from hydropower will do."
Water pollution arising from the immersion of plaster-of-paris idols of the Hindu god Ganesh is a growing problem in India. Photograph: Ajit Solanki/AP. Photo courtesy: guardian
Last Saturday morning, Hindu devotees around the world flocked to bodies of water. Their hands were filled with some combination of coconuts, flowers, uncooked rice and coloured powder. After spending the last 10 days in prayer and celebration, it was now time to say goodbye to the beloved Lord Ganesh.
The annual Ganesh Chaturthi celebration is highly spirited, filled with days of dancing, dousing one other with colour and loudly chanting: "Ganpati bappa morya" (Hail Lord Ganesh). The celebration ends on the 11th day, when devotees formally bid farewell to the elephant-headed god by immersing physical idols into the sea. The idols, historically constructed of clay, are intended to dissolve in minutes and become part of the ongoing circle of life – a fitting choice, given how Ganesh himself was supposedly concocted out of sandalwood paste.
In theory, Ganesh Chaturthi is a beautiful festival. Like many Hindu festivals, its exact origins are unknown. We know that it has been celebrated in private homes for centuries, and that in 1893, freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak gave it an unprecedented public face. Tilak specifically began installing large images of Ganesh in various pavilions around Pune city, in an effort to subvert the British ruling that prevented Indians from freely gathering. Since then, the festival has grown phenomenally around western India and, to some extent, globally.
Unfortunately, the growth of the Ganesh Chaturthi festival has not necessarily been sustainable. Over time, public celebrations have become more lavish: neighbourhood temples have become grander, renditions of Marathi folk songs have become louder, and Ganesh idols have become larger. Statues that were once constructed of earthy clay are now built using the less expensive – and less biodegradable – plaster of paris. Harmless vegetable dyes have similarly given way to more vivid – and more toxic – chemical-based paints.
I doubt this is what Tilak had envisioned.
What is the result of this? Considering that Mumbaikars alone immersed almost 190,000 statues last year, some of which were over 10ft tall, one can imagine that Indian waters are crying for help. Unlike clay and sandalwood paste, plaster of paris is not a naturally occurring material; rather, it is a calcium sulfate hemihydrate, which can take years to fully dissolve. In addition, most chemical paint contains heavy metals like mercury and lead, which do not dissolve at all.
As a result, the Central Pollution Control Board reports that the annual immersion of Ganesh idols has significantly increased the content of iron, copper, mercury, chromium and acid in water surrounding Mumbai and other western Indian towns. Equally worrying is how Indian fishing communities often find pieces of once-revered Ganesh idols tangled in their nets, alongside dead mercury-laden fish.
The good news is that unlike industrial water pollution, this breed of water pollution can be addressed through effective and widespread grassroots action. It is not so much a question of changing written policies and laws, but more one of challenging individual attitudes and societal norms.
This has already begun in a small way: local NGOs regularly petition for devotees to immerse biodegradable Ganesh statues, to "symbolically" immerse reusable idols by sprinkling water on them, or to immerse idols in a tub at home.
But these steps are not enough. We need action on a much larger scale. On paper, the best solution would be to place an outright ban on plaster-of-paris Ganesh statues. Such a ban would, in theory, bring the festival back to its organic roots.
However, ornate celebrations in India are often seen as "better" or "more religious" than their austere counterparts, and banning toxic statues may inadvertently hurt some religious sentiments.
A more effective solution may be to marry legislation with well-crafted public awareness efforts. Local politicians, who often fund Ganesh statues to garner votes, can easily showcase their commitment to a greener India by only backing biodegradable statues. Respected religious leaders can also remind the public of the festival's humble origins and of the spirit of Lord Ganesh.
In cases such as these, public attitudes often need to be jolted before changing. For the collective sake of India's aquatic life, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and the spirit of Lord Ganesh, let us hope these and other efforts form a piece of India's greener tomorrow.
COLD WORKS WELL: About 80 percent of the energy used in conventional laundry goes toward heating the water. (Photo: Loren Sztajer/Flickr) Photo courtesy: mnn
It's laundry day! Actually, if you have kids, you know there's no such thing as "laundry day." Every day is laundry day and will include several loads, depending on your lifestyle.
That's a lot of water and energy. And a lot of expense, too. Want to save some money, while being kinder to the Earth at the same time? Let's make our laundry eco-friendly!
Try washing in cold water: But doesn't hot water get clothes cleaner? Yes, if we're talking about clothes with greasy dirt. But these could just as easily be pre-treated before tossing them in with the rest of the wash.
Eighty percent of the energy used in conventional laundry goes toward heating the water. Most homes could save at least $60 a year just by switching to cold. You'll also stop putting over 1,200 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year by reducing your energy needs.
You don't even need one of those commercial cold-water cleaners. Most detergents will dissolve just fine in any temperature water. If yours doesn't, switch brands, move to liquid, or dissolve your regular detergent in two cups of hot water before adding it to your machine.
With cold water washing, your clothes will last longer, too. Most of the world washes in cold. It'll work fine for you.
Switch to a vegetable-based detergent: Most commercial laundry detergents are petroleum-based. Apart from the fact that petroleum is an increasingly precious resource, switching to a vegetable-derived cleaner is a quick way to reduce your family's output of things that aren't good for our land and water.
You're washing clothes in a chemical soup. Phosphates are linked to algal blooms which choke the oxygen out of water and kill aquatic life.
And you really don't need those dyes, optical whiteners and heavy perfumes — particularly if there are people in your household with sensitive skin.
There are lots of natural detergent options these days, including Seventh Generation's Free and Clear Laundry Liquid (it also comes in powder form). You can also try EnviroRite detergent. Neither product is tested on animals — something which can't be said for most commercial laundry products.
Wash early and late in the day: For most people, power costs the same, regardless what time of day it's used. But doing the laundry produces heat, and there's no point paying to cool your living space unnecessarily. Do the laundry before it warms up.
Revive the family clothesline: Humans have used the sun and wind to dry their clothes for thousands of years. While modern dryers are certainly fast and convenient, you can save money and energy by hanging a few loads a week.
A clothesline can be something as simple as a rope between two trees. But if you're going to be doing big loads, you'll appreciate the capacity of an umbrella-style dryer. These can usually be found for around $50 USD, and will quickly pay for themselves.
An added benefit to line drying — other than that great "fresh laundry" smell — is that the sun's UV rays do a great job disinfecting clothes. The clothesline is a great companion to cold water washing.
Consider more efficient washers and dryers: Hooray for the front-loading washer! Less water, and much less energy when it's time to dry thanks to their aggressive spin cycles. They're easier on fabrics, too.
Washers and dryers are big-ticket purchases. But when it's time to replace yours, look for one of the energy-efficient models. Standard washers use up to 40 gallons of water per load; the new resource-misers only require 18-25.
EnergyStar has developed a rating system for washing machines. You can get a rated model in either front- or top-loading styles. You'll find EnergyStar’s current list of recommended models here.
I'm fortunate to have several passions in my life. I am absolutely an eco-nut. I am always trying to find new ways to reduce, reuse, recycle. We, as a species, have done more harm to this planet in the short time we have been here, than any other catastrophe or happening ever has. It's up to us to fix it.
I care about the environment whether it is as small as a single cell or as large as the universe.
I adore creativity and think we can all do more with much less. This earth has enough resources for us all to live comfortably if we all learn to share. Wasn't that a lesson we were supposed to learn in kindergarten?
I also love the bizarre, unusual, the weird and the strange. Be prepared for the odd "different" blog.
Photo courtesy: Daily Times
Photo courtesy: TreeHugger
Photo courtesy: TreeHugger
Posts
