Uncategorized

Interactive map identifies areas of imminent extinction

Researchers have identified 595 sites for species protection in a new interactive map. Representing more than a dozen major conservation groups, collaborators on the map were able to pinpoint areas where extinction is a question of when, not if.

Each spot on the map represents either the only place an endangered species is found or a spot where 95 percent of the species' population is found. Almost 800 endangered species are listed with the map's danger spots, though they include only birds, mammals, amphibians, conifers, and some reptiles, as others have yet to be studied or identified.

The map appears to be the first major project of the Alliance for Zero Extinction, a global coalition of biodiversity-minded organizations.

Ford kudos

Say what you will about the fuel-efficiency of their vehicle fleet -- it looks like Ford did the right thing this time.

The dynamics of Arctic Refuge drilling in Congress

A subscription-only article in Congressional Quarterly adeptly summarizes the complicated dynamics at work in Congress right now. Arctic Refuge drilling hangs in the balance. A long excerpt below the fold.

Is too few people the new “population problem”?

Alston wants your women. All’s quiet on the Alston front. Photo: www.visitcumbria.com. And not just any old hags, either — residents of this northern English town would prefer strapping young things who aren’t afraid to get dirty. “Quite frankly, old people are not going to give us the vitality that we need,” says Vince Peart, […]

Can China’s government balance an economic boom with environmental degradation and public protest?

By now it should be clear that China is the big story of the 21st century, in geopolitics generally and global environmental health in particular. Last week saw yet more news of grassroots protest in the country, this one "improperly handled" by police, who killed up to 20 villagers.

The general outline of China's story is one of rapid economic growth, rapid growth of environmental degradation, rapid growth of political dissent, and genuine uncertainty about whether the communist government can keep all these balls in the air without a) acceding to democracy, or b) imposing harsh, country-wide political suppression.

It's hard to overstate the degree of complexity and uncertainty involved here, or the stakes. Depending on where you look, you can find signs that economic growth will continue or run up against hard limits, that environmental degradation will accelerate or that the government will leapfrog past the woes of West's industrialization, that political unrest will spread out of control or calm down as prosperity spreads, that the government will lose control or manage the transition smoothly.

Nobody really knows, and as Gristmill readers will recall, the experts' predictions are no more likely to come true than those of a reasonably educated observer.

That said, I commend you to this post from Anne-Marie Slaughter (or rather, a unnamed friend of hers who lives in China and works in the environmental movement there). It's a great rundown of the role environmental issues are playing in China's political dynamic.

A long excerpt is below the fold, but you should, as bloggers are so fond of saying, read the whole thing.

Is buying up hunting rights a smart conservation move?

From the wilderness of British Columbia comes an innovative conservation tactic about which I am strongly ... ambivalent. Raincoast Conservation Foundation is acquiring the guide-outfitting hunting rights to five areas along the central BC coast, a remote area of vast wilderness home to the rare "spirit bear," among other species. The angle here is probably obvious: Raincoast bought the rights in order to put a stop to hunting.

Raincoast and other conservation groups have a strong interest -- one I share -- in protecting biodiversity and relatively pristine wild places. So what's my beef? It's a two-parter.

First, I'm not sure that hunting is bad for the species being hunted. Second, I'm not sure the price -- Can $1.35 million plus annual licensing fees -- is the best conservation use of the money.

This legislator brought to you by …

Ever wondered why there's so little effort at the federal level to pressure automakers to improve auto efficiency? Ever suspected that the auto industry might be calling the shots?

Well just to set your mind at ease, check out this story of a freshman House member whose "Dear Colleagues" letter to fellow legislators contains talking points from an auto-industry memo -- verbatim, in the same font.

One wonders whether we even need the middle men. Just get an industry rep up in there!

(via The Plank)

Chemicals and cancer

There's a piece in the NYT about the connection -- or lack of connection -- between trace chemicals in the environment and cancer. The conclusion, broadly speaking, is that science doesn't yet know enough to make a firm link, but conventional wisdom has nonetheless settled on a rather unwarranted degree of paranoia.

One Brit doctor claims cancer rates -- if tobacco-related cancers are screened out -- have actually been falling for 50 years, and goes so far as to say firmly: "Pollution is not a major determinant of U.S. cancer rates."

A couple of folks have blogged about this. For my part, I'm a little leery to take it at face value, given the reporter's history. (See this old Nation piece on Gina Kolata's excessive deference to the big corporations she covers.)

Still, nothing is quite so screwed up and off-base as Americans' sense of the risks they face (car crashes, people. car crashes.), so anything that can take the edge off the latest overblown fear is a good thing in my book.

Gas fees: The good, the bad, and the curious

I'm not sure, exactly, whether this news is promising or disappointing: The San Jose Mercury News reported last week that environmental advisers to Governor Schwarzenegger are calling for a new fee on gasoline. Money raised by the measure would fund incentives for reducing climate-warming emissions.

The good news here is that they're considering fees on gasoline in the first place.

The bad news is that the proposed fees are tiny -- just 2.5 cents per gallon, which isn't enough to affect consumption more than a nominal amount.

The good news is that the fees will go to a good cause: There are a lot of inexpensive ways to reduce emissions, so the fees, as small as they are, could do a lot of good -- especially considering that California uses about 15 billion gallons of gasoline per year, so a 2.5 cent per gallon fee would raise $375 million annually.

The bad news is that opponents are already up in arms, blasting the idea as an unnecessary new tax on gas.

Great minds, etc.

Yesterday I wrote about America's shame in Montreal. Today, the New York Times, which clearly knows a good idea when it sees one, is running an editorial called "America's Shame in Montreal."