Scientists Warn Giraffes are at Risk of Extinction

Scientists say giraffes are at risk of extinction. The number of giraffes worldwide has declined nearly 40 percent over the last 30 years. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature warns the species is facing a “silent extinction.” Their decline is part of an ongoing global mass extinction that scientists warn could lead to the disappearance of two-thirds of all wild animals on the planet by 2020 compared to 1970 population levels.

— source

Small Plastics Pose Big Problem

A decade or so ago, scientists first discovered that tiny pieces of plastic debris discarded by human civilization — some only a few thousandths of a millimeter in size — were finding their way into the oceans. But since then, it’s become increasingly apparent that microplastics, as the miniscule trash is called, represent a potentially huge threat to aquatic animals, according to an article in the July 11 edition of the journal Science.

The article, by marine scientists Kara Lavender Law of the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Mass. and Richard C. Thompson of the UK’s Plymouth University, notes that researchers increasingly are focusing upon the danger from microplastics, because their size makes it possible for a huge range of organisms — from large marine mammals, fish and birds to zooplankton — to ingest them. (Indeed, a 2012 study found that they pose a health threat to Baleen whales.)

A report issued in June by the Global Ocean Commission estimated that 10 million tons of plastic is dumped into the oceans each year. Some of the plastic is discarded into waterways and then is carried into the ocean, but it’s also lost or discarded at sea by ships, the article notes.

Larger plastic items degrade to form microplastic, but some of the particles also are being put directly into the sea, because bits of cosmetic beads and clothing fibers are small enough to pass through wastewater treatment systems.

Once in the oceans, the particles are transported far and wide in a complex pattern that is difficult to predict. However, scientists have found very high concentrations in the subtropical gyres — that is, areas where currents rotate rapidly — and in basins such as the Mediterranean.

Microplastics are themselves toxic, but they also soak up harmful chemicals that contaminate the ocean, such as DDT and PBDEs, so that they deliver a concentrated dose to the animals who ingest them. Marine scientists also worry that microplastics will end up in seafood-eating humans as well.

Microplastics are just one of the environmental woes afflicting the world’s oceans, and pushing them perilously close to ecological collapse, according to an article published last week in Foreign Policy, a political science journal.

Solving the problem is difficult because 65 percent of the oceans are outside the territorial waters of individual nations, and have become the equivalent of a chaotic, lawless “failed state” such as Somalia on land, the Foreign Policy article argued. [those countries are made to fail just for this purpose.]

— source

BP oil spill did $17.2 billion in damage to natural resources

The 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill did $17.2 billion in damage to the natural resources in the Gulf of Mexico, a team of scientists recently found after a six-year study of the impact of the largest oil spill in U.S. history. This is the first comprehensive appraisal of the financial value of the natural resources damaged by the 134-million-gallon spill.

— source

Ecotourism rise hits whales

Boat trips to watch whales and dolphins may increasingly be putting the survival of marine mammals at risk, conservationists have warned.

Research published this year shows that the jaunts can affect cetacean behaviour and stress levels in addition to causing deaths from collisions. But some animals are affected more than others and the long-term effects remain unclear, scientists at the International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC) in Glasgow, UK, heard last week.

The number of people joining trips has expanded hugely since the 1990s, from 4 million in 31 countries in 1991 to 13 million in 119 countries in 2008, the most recent year for which full data are available. In 2008, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, an animal-protection charity in London, estimated the value of the industry at US$2.1 billion.

Although collisions with boats can hurt the animals, researchers are more concerned about effects such as animals failing to feed or using up energy swimming away from the vessels. These seemingly small events can add up, studies suggest.

Earlier this year, for example, marine biologist David Lusseau of the University of Aberdeen, UK, and his team showed that minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) in Faxaflói Bay in Iceland responded to whale-watching boats as they do to natural predators, upping their speed and respiring more heavily1. But whether this was a direct result of the boats is difficult to pin down: Lusseau, who was not at the meeting, says that soon-to-be-published research by his team shows that behavioural changes are probably not affecting actual numbers of the minke in Faxaflói Bay.

But Lusseau’s group has also shown that the bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops sp.) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand, could be driven to extinction in decades2. The large number of dolphin-watching trips in the sound is driving the animals away from their preferred areas and forcing them to avoid boats instead of feeding. Dolphin numbers declined from 67 in 1997 to 56 in 2005, the team found.

Several delegates at the IMCC also described the effects on the roughly 70 endangered Irrawaddy dolphins (Orcaella brevirostris) living in the Mekong River between Cambodia and Laos, which are hounded by scores of tourist boats.

Determining which populations are most at risk could help to fix the problem, says Lusseau. He suggests plugging short-term observational data into longer-term population models to tease out whether behavioural changes are temporary or serious long-term threats. There are enough data on species types and locations to assess, at least roughly, where whale-watching should and should not be allowed, he says. But funding and political support are hampering the creation of detailed, localized plans. “There is a lot of lip service being paid to understanding the challenges tourism poses on wildlife, but in practice there is very little financial interest in finding this out,” he says.

Short-term fix

Guidelines such as specifying minimum distances between animals and boats, speed limits or no-go areas, can help. But codes vary widely: a 2004 study3 found that just 38% were binding; the rest were voluntary. They are also often inadequate. Even with guidelines in place, boats in the dolphin-watching haven of the Bocas del Toro region of Panama hit and killed at least 10 animals in a population of about 250 in 2012 and 2013, according to research presented to the International Whaling Commission in Cambridge, UK, this year.

Greg Kaufman, executive director of the Pacific Whale Foundation — an organization in Hawaii that runs whale-watching and research trips — holds up the Irrawaddy dolphin as a population desperately in need of protection. “They’re basically killing these animals one at a time,” he says.

But Brian Smith, a zoologist at the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York who has long studied the Irrawaddy group, says that although cetacean tourism is probably stressful for these animals, the main problem is entanglement in fishing nets. And the alternative to fishing for many people in the region is dolphin-watching.

Most of the speakers at the IMCC meeting agreed that more should be done to protect dolphins and whales from tourists. “Although whale-watching is not as bad as whaling,” says New, “it might be that last piece that pushes a species over.”

— source By Daniel Cressey

Relevance of Gandhian environmentalism

In the post-Gandhian era, environmental problems surfaced at a breakneck speed with large-scale and indiscriminate industrialisation leading to environmental hazards and degradations. Mahatma Gandhi’s critique of modernity reveals his concern about the emergence of a social order that exploits nature for short-term gains. He had written widely about the need for human beings to exercise restraint with respect to the use of natural resources. His “counter-thinking” is now increasingly becoming a mainstream thought with greater awareness of the environmental problems.

Troubled by unrestricted industrialism and materialism, Gandhi had foreseen a time when the resources of the earth will not be enough to meet the growing demands of the people. On the 69th death anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, Down To Earth tries to understand the man and what value his vision brings to the contemporary discourse on environment conservation.

Understanding Gandhi

GANDHI’s Vision and Valuesis meant to be a serious exploration into the contemporary meaning of Hind Swaraj and the kind of possibility it indicates for agricultural practices in rural India. Hind Swaraj herein refers to Gandhi’s text and also to India’s last 50 years as an independent country.

In recent times, the significance of Hind Swaraj for an understanding of Gandhi’s thought has come to be widely recognised. Vivek Pinto’s book isperhaps among the first few to attempt a serious and comprehensive examination of the significance of Hind Swaraj for agriculture and life in rural India. For that, it merits serious attention.

The principal concern, in the words of the author, is to see if it would be possible to reconstruct a “harmonious, poverty-free, non-violent and self-reliant society” on the basis of ethical principles marked by Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj and his experiments with the agricultural communities. Pinto’s argument unfolds at three related planes. The first section explores the cognitive significance of Hind Swaraj as a text. Another section seeks to clarify the significance of Gandhi’s own attempts, as also of various individuals, to work out in practice the basic principles marked in Hind Swaraj. The third section is a “Gandhian critique” of the experiment with planned agricultural development in independent India.

If one were to present Pinto’s work as a coherent argument, one could begin by saying that the thirdsection is really the starting point of the argument. It spells out in distressing detail the worsening condition of agriculture in India. Most of the people still depend on agriculture and nearly 40per cent of them live below the poverty line.

After Independence, India chose to adopt the path of planned development. It was seen as a more humane and speedier way of securing a decent living for themillions of poor in thecountry. But, 50 years later, agricultural productivity still remains low.

Most of these grim details about peasant life and agriculture are fairly well-known. What is relevant is to see how the author proceeds to establish a kind of link between Gandhi’s text, his experiments and the present state of agriculture in the country.

Gandhi, while rejecting modern civilisation as a mode of life and work, invoked agriculture, charkha and the village as metaphors for sane human living. Pinto seeks out the implications of Hind Swaraj for agriculture as it could be practised in India. The citations from Gandhi’s writings on swadeshi as an idea of service and sensitivity to the needs of proximate communities is appropriate. The varied range of writings and case studies make interesting reading. However, all that still does not yield a coherent argument, or even a set of propositions.

Pinto’s work suffers from a recurrent confusion regarding the implications of the variety of arguments he seeks to harness. Take for instance the author’s endorsement of the castigation of the prevalent price structure as an expression of dominant class interests. True, Hind Swaraj does not exclude class interests and the exploitation it engenders, but the essential point about agriculture it seeks to make belongs perhaps to a different order of insight and moral judgement.

To Gandhi, the practice of agriculture signified a promise of limitless reach. The act of breaking and tending the soil carriedwithin it an ageless quality. It signified a mode of work and being which, while sustaining life, could nurture an ultimate sense of meaning and worth. At this point, one could perhaps question the Hind Swaraj principles on two accounts:

– What is one to read into the fact that Gandhi, the creator of institutions, never sought to create one devoted specially to the practice and science of agriculture; and

– What about Gandhi’s silence on the practice of shifting cultivation, which at several levels is so close to the fundamental principles of Hind Swaraj?

Gandhian model of development

Mahatma Gandhi never used the words environment protection. However what he said and did makes him an environmentalist. His writings are replete with remarks on the excesses of industrial society. Political psychologist and social theorist Ashis Nandy has written extensively on Gandhi. In a freewheeling chat with Kaushik Das Gupta he spoke on Gandhi’s vision of social change, his critique of industrialisation and the way movements draw inspiration from Gandhi.

We often talk of two visions of development, the Gandhian vision and the Nehruvian vision. What is the fundamental difference between the two?

The Nehruvian concept is the dominant concept of development. Gandhi never used the word development. The word was first used by the US president Harry S Truman in 1949. Yes, people often talk of the Gandhian model of development. But if such a model is genuinely Gandhian then it is not about development. And if it’s about development, then bringing in Gandhi is an exercise in legitimising something alien to Gandhi’s vision.

Social change is possible without development. Society did not stop changing before the idea of development was coined. President Truman was not such a great thinker that the concept he enunciated is indispensable to human societies.

Many activists who are against big developmental projects talk of following the Gandhian way. Your comments

Yes. They draw inspiration from Gandhi to resist aspects of development that does not tally with the Gandhian vision. In one way they are humanising Gandhi. All social change is not development. The fundamental aspects of development—for example unending industrialisation, unending urbanisation, unending consumption—are not justifiable according to the Gandhian way.

Gandhians have tried to take head on some major assumptions of development. When Medha Patkar protests against dams she is following the Gandhian way. Those who challenge key aspects of development are doing us a service. They are resisting the framework in which we are caught.

Many of the solutions to the current environmental problems are actually within the purview of industrialised society. But there are others who talk of a path other than that of industrialisation. Is Gandhi’s vision in sync with such alternatives?

Gandhian vision is now seen as an inspiration, as a source, for many enterprises that offer alternative to industrialisation. These movements began in the 1980s.

None of the greatest Gandhians of today belong to India. In fact, the greatest Gandhians of our times have not read Gandhi that carefully. They perhaps read his works after people started calling them Gandhians. Lech Walesa, the Polish shipyard trade unionist who later headed Poland’s non-Communist government, read Gandhi after people started calling him Gandhian. So did Benito Aquino. Gandhism has become a part of the process that offers alternatives to industrialisation. There are as many varieties of Gandhians as Marxists or liberals. I think that’s a very healthy development. Gandhi is a contemporary hero who is accessible—he was not a religious leader, yet religion has a big part in his politics, he was an ascetic but open to practical ways.

A lot of the de-growth movement, which believes progress is possible without economic growth, takes inspiration from Gandhi. Your comments?

I won’t use the word ‘progress’ because that is a contaminated word. The colonisers used the word progress. But yes, positive social change is possible without economic growth. And Gandhi has been an inspiration for such movements. However, we should also remember that most of the de-growth movement has taken place in societies which are over-consuming, exploiting nature and over-arming themselves—all these are hardly markers of good life.

I don’t think the hedonism associated with globalised capitalism is conducive to human happiness. Many communities have lived in poverty—but not destitution—and they haven’t been unhappy about it.

There are alternative visions but there is little by way of putting them into practice—except the endeavours of a few grassroots organisations. Your comments?

They have not been put into practice because our regimes are technocratic. Our solutions are technocratic. Technocrats go by the development textbooks. They do not keep elbow room for alternatives.

Yes, many with alternative vision keep away from the party-based political system. But they are part of the political process. The movement against dams is part of our political process. I feel that Arvind Kejriwal would have done well to have not become part of the party system. We need a group outside party politics to rate parties, rate individual candidates on yardsticks of honesty. We need an impartial agency to do that. For example, Uttar Pradesh has a system where bureaucrats vote on who the most corrupt bureaucrat is.

A human ecologist

Author(s): John S. Moolakkattu

Is Gandhi a human ecologist? If we go by the ideas generated by the environmental movement in India, which is strongly influenced by Gandhi, the answer is a definite ‘yes’. But Gandhi’s place in the ecological movement is yet to be established on a secure footing internationally. Even the recent Encyclopaedia of Human Ecology edited by Julia R Miller et al. omitted Gandhi as one of its entries in its otherwise impressive list.

— source By Kaushik Das Gupta

El Salvador becomes first country to ban metals mining

Legislators in El Salvador made history Wednesday, passing a bill to ban all metallic mining activities in the country. passing the bill, El Salvador becomes the first country in the world to enact a ban on metallic mining, according to industry watchdog organization MiningWatch. The results of the much-anticipated vote were unanimous: 69 in favor, none against, and no abstentions. Fifteen of the country’s 84 lawmakers did not show up for the vote. With the exception of a transition period for small-scale artisanal gold miners, the law provides for an immediate, definitive, and permanent ban on all metals mining, including exploration activities. No old permits or license applications will be grandfathered in, according to the succinct 11-article bill. It will take effect one week after its publication in the official government gazette.

— source