Category: Environment

How Much Does Elephant Slaughter Matter?

Every 15 minutes, a poacher kills an elephant for its tusks.

Does one elephant matter? Check it out:

https://www.paulallen.com/china-takes-aggressive-steps-to-close-ivory-trade/#1545-2

Previously I raised the issue of, how much do we want to pour resources into the protection of “charismatic” species such as the elephant, when more humble unnoticed creatures (and plants) go  ignored at the planet’s peril?  Not to mention the multitudes of suffering human beings.

It’s a serious question, but let me be irrational for the moment, since it seems that a little irrationality can go a long way toward positive outcomes, where sheer logic falls short (read Antonio Damasio).

Continue reading “How Much Does Elephant Slaughter Matter?”

Good News, Good News, and Unsurprising Bad News on the Environment: Tigers, Amur Leopards Get a Break, Not So Elephants

For those of us depressed by the continuing hammer blows delivered to the environment by humans, there are a few bright spots. A couple below, although one can’t sugarcoat them.

Bengal Tiger Resurgence

I recently heard that the population of Bengal Tigers is on the upswing in India (they have been increasing in Nepal too). I couldn’t find that recent story with a Web search, but here’s a report from January 2015, with numbers cited by India’s Environment Minister: Bengal Tiger Numbers Up

Assuming we can trust NDTV and India’s environment minister, these are promising numbers—an increase of 58% in seven years. 

Unfortunately, there’s a downside to these stats: the populations are scattered, meaning genetic diversity is still low, and the total number of the big cats, unsurprisingly, is 1/50th of what it was circa 1900 (then 100,000).  At the same time, India’s human population has gone up by a factor of 4.

Continue reading “Good News, Good News, and Unsurprising Bad News on the Environment: Tigers, Amur Leopards Get a Break, Not So Elephants”

Seismic Airgun Blasting Permits – Oh No!

A press release from Oceana signals problem of seismic airgun blasting while praising President Obama’s slick use of an existing act to protect millions of acres offshore from mineral extraction.

Good News, and as Usual, some Bad

There’s always another environmental insult to be found in fossil fuel industry practices. I never heard of this sound-bombing until today. More damage to sea creatures in order to get carbon out of the Earth and into the air. Absolutely sickening.

We might be able to stop it. See press release (above).

Environmental Wrecking Ball to Head EPA, Continue War on Science – Why??

It seems that every sentient being on the planet has felt obliged to weigh in on the U.S. Presidential election and what it spat out: Donald Trump. I have kept quiet on this matter on this blog up to now, because (1) I’m “partisan,” so what is my biased opinion worth? (2) every insightful thing that can be said has already been said by others.

But Donald Trump’s nominating Scott Pruitt to head the EPA is a call to arms.  If you don’t know the scope of the damage Pruitt can do, check out this in The Guardian: Pruitt Nomination Implications

Most of what you need to know about the policy issues can be gleaned from The Guardian piece and elsewhere on the Web. But there’s a more sweeping issue represented by the nomination of a climate “skeptic” (in actuality, a denier) to this critical post. That of course is the War on Science. From whence does it spring?

Continue reading “Environmental Wrecking Ball to Head EPA, Continue War on Science – Why??”

A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science

Yesterday, I heard repeated for the umpteenth time the fact that, on average, Climate Change deniers know more science than believers. (I haven’t seen the polls, but this news came on NPR so I’m inclined to believe it.)

It’s really not so surprising. The history of science is littered with wacky contrarian claims—such as, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is wrong. (Let’s be clear: modifications of Einstein’s theory are in the works by many researchers, but the core of the theory is undisputed by the vast majority of physicists.)  By and large these claims are made by people who are highly science-literate, but who grasp at straws of evidence that are either misleading, misinterpreted, or outright bogus. Their partial knowledge seduces them to believe in their competence to chop away at the basic foundations of modern science.  For variations on the attack on General Relativity, see http://www.crank.net/

Continue reading “A Little Learning. . . Climate Change Denial and Crank Science”

“Air Shepherd” : Drones Protecting Elephants and Rhinos

Good news about drones?!

I recently heard the end of an interview on the BBC with a speaker for the Lindbergh Foundation’s “Air Shepherd” program.  See link to their website below.

Scared of drones? Me too. But in this case you have drones performing a vital service in the campaign to protect African elephants and rhinos from poachers and other threats.

Apparently, the drones are so quiet they can perform reconnaissance at heights as low as 400 feet without poachers hearing them. Mostly done at night with infrared cameras of course, but that’s when many poachers are active anyway.

http://airshepherd.org/

– Mark

Reasons to Cheer for Natural Gas

First off, since fracking has gotten an often deservedly bad rap for environmental damage, the case for natural gas must address fracking. Yes, fracking is bad in many places where it’s been done—places of high environmental and geological sensitivity. Fracking needs stricter and more vigilant regulation, and harsher penalties for malfeasance. In particular, the injection of waste fluids into underground wells. But we need natural gas for electricity generation as a bridge to a renewable energy future—not to mention its already widespread use for heating, where it is more efficient than electricity (and you have to think what generates your electricity), far cleaner than oil, and still farther cleaner than coal.

Continue reading “Reasons to Cheer for Natural Gas”

Carbon Debt from Biomass Burning

Burning “biomass”—trees, grasses, and other plant matter—to generate electricity has been considered a “clean” technology in some quarters. Currently, European countries do not count carbon dioxide emitted from biomass burning as part of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is curious, given that burning biomass does emit carbon dioxide, as well as a small amount of methane.  How renewable is biomass burning? Does it leave a “carbon debt” of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Continue reading “Carbon Debt from Biomass Burning”