Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds.

images-3A survey of thousands of per-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear.

The study described the dissent as a “vanishingly small proportion” of published research.

“Our findings prove that there is a strong scientific agreement about the cause of climate change, despite public perceptions to the contrary,” said John Cook of the University of Queensland, who led the survey.

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October.

“There is a gaping chasm between the actual consensus and the public perception,” Cook said in a statement.

The study blamed strenuous lobbying efforts by industry to undermine the science behind climate change for the gap in perception. The resulting confusion has blocked efforts to act on climate change.

The survey was the most ambitious effort to date to demonstrate the broad agreement on the causes of climate change, covering 20 years of academic publications from 1991-2011.

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes, an historian at the University of California, San Diego,surveyed published literature, releasing her results in the journal Science. She too came up with a similar finding that 97% of climate scientists agreed on the causes of climate change.

She wrote of the new survey in an email: “It is a nice, independent confirmation, using a somewhat different methodology than I used, that comes to the same result. It also refutes the claim, sometimes made by contrarians, that the consensus has broken down, much less ‘shattered’.”

The Cook survey was broader in its scope, deploying volunteers from the SkepticalScience.com website to review scientific abstracts. The volunteers also asked authors to rate their own views on the causes of climate change, in another departure from Oreskes’s methods.

The authors said the findings could help close the gap between scientific opinion and the public on the causes of climate change, or anthropogenic global warming, and so create favourable conditions for political action on climate.

“The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW [anthropogenic, ie man-made, global warming] is a necessary element in public support for climate policy,” the study said.

However, Prof Robert Brulle, a sociologist at Drexel University who studies the forces underlying attitudes towards climate change, disputed the idea that educating the public about the broad scientific agreement on the causes of climate change would have an effect on public opinion – or on the political conditions for climate action.

He said he was doubtful that convincing the public of a scientific consensus on climate change would help advance the prospects for political action. Having elite leaders call for climate action would be far more powerful, he said.

“I don’t think people really want to come around to grips with the fact that climate change is a highly ideological issue and it is not amenable to the information deficit model,” he said.

“The information deficit model, this idea that if you just pile on more information people will get convinced, is just completely inadequate, he said. “It strengthens the people who actually read and pay attention but it is certainly not going to change or shift the opinions of others.”

Jon Krosnick, professor in humanities and social sciences at Stanford university and an expert on public opinion on climate change, said: “I assume that sceptics would say that there is bias in the editorial process so that the papers ultimately published are not an accurate reflection of the opinions of scientists.”

via Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Cameroon, Stop Senseless Killing of Cross River Gorillas – The Petition Site

  • Target: Government of Cameroon
  • Sponsored by: Susan V

758423-1366148618-main

The Cross River Gorilla is among the world‘s most threatened wildlife subspecies. So why did Cameroon’s Chief of Gendarmerie Brigade order the killing of one of these rare and endangered apes?

A wildlife expert with Environment and Rural Development Foundation (ERuDeF) said the adult male, found dead not far from Cameroon’s proposed wildlife sanctuary, was killed “in the name of self-defense,” without proper investigation to determine whether the animal posed any threat of harm to the local people.

According to reports, the gorilla was apparently tortured, beaten with stones and clubbed, in addition to being shot 45 times.

SIGN PETITION HERE

Boom in Mining Rare Earths Poses Mounting Toxic Risks

Courtesy by: Mike Ives. Environment 360

images-2The mining of rare earth metals, used in everything from smart phones to wind turbines, has long been dominated by China. But as mining of these key elements spreads to countries like Malaysia and Brazil, scientists warn of the dangers of the toxic and radioactive waste generated by the mines and processing plants.

In November, the first shipment of raw “rare earth” minerals arrived at an $800 million processing plant on Malaysia’s east coast near the home of Tan Bun Teet. The plant, run by Australia’s Lynas Corporation, has since begun refining the rare earth metals, essential components in wind turbines, hybrid cars, smart phones, cruise missiles, and other high-tech products. Once fully operational, the plant would become the world’s largest processing facility of rare earths, breaking China’s near-monopoly on producing the prized elements.

But Tan and others in the region are concerned that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant, known as LAMP, will be plagued by the severe environmental problems that have been the hallmark of rare earths processing plants in China and, more than two decades ago, in Malaysia itself. The plant lies in an industrial zone atop reclaimed swampland, just 12 miles from Kuantan, a city of 600,000. The chief worry is that the rare earth elements are bound up in mineral deposits with the low-level radioactive element thorium, exposure to which has been linked to an increased risk of developing lung, pancreatic, and other cancers.

“We are not against rare earths processing,” says Tan, a retired schoolteacher who leads a citizens’ group opposed to the plant. “We’re only against the inappropriate choice of site, and the way they’re going to keep the waste.” Tan echoes scientists’ concerns that the plant’s toxic wastewater will leach into groundwater, and that its storage ponds are vulnerable to the monsoons that slam the swampy coastline every autumn.

As global demand has surged in recent years for rare earth elements, fears have grown that China, which accounts for more than 95 percent of rare earths output, will withhold supplies, as it did temporarily two years ago during a dispute with Japan. As a result, across five continents and numerous countries — including the United States, Brazil, Mongolia, and India — rare earth processing projects are being launched or revived. With them comes the potential threats to the environment and human health that have plagued China’s processing sites.

“As the world’s hunger for these elements increases… the waste is going to increase,” says Nicholas Leadbeater, a chemist at the University of Connecticut whose research focuses on developing green technologies. “The more mines there are, the more trouble there’s going to be.” To avoid such problems, Leadbeater says some researchers are now looking into ways of recovering rare earths from existing products, and of manufacturing products capable of running without rare earths. Toyota, for example, is developing an electric motor that does not use rare earths in its battery, as most currently do.

Contrary to their name, the 17 rare earth elements are relatively common — their rarity comes from the labor involved in separating them from surrounding rock. The process requires a cocktail of chemical compounds and produces a “tremendous amount” of solid waste, according to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. China’s rare earths mines have used only a fraction of the world’s total supply, and substantial untapped reserves are found in Australia, the United States, parts of the former Soviet Union, and other countries. Global demand for rare earths dipped last year on the heels of a speculative bubble, but the EPA said in December there is a “high likelihood” that some of the elements will be in short supply by 2014.

In California, Molycorp Minerals recently reopened a rare earths processing operation that it abandoned in 2002 near Death Valley, after retooling its operation to meet environmental concerns over contaminated groundwater. In Brazil, mining giant Vale is considering whether to process rare earths at a copper mine in the Amazon. India recently agreed to export rare earths to Japan, and a Toyota subsidiary is preparing to mine rare earths in Vietnam. In Greenland, several companies are preparing to mine and process that island’s abundant rare earth resources, which will become more accessible as Greenland’s ice sheet continues to melt.

All of these projects, however, must come to grips with the toxic and radioactive legacy of rare earth mining. Scientists say under-regulated rare earths projects can produce wastewater and tailings ponds that leak acids, heavy metals and radioactive elements into groundwater, and they point out that market pressures for cheap and reliable rare earths may lead project managers to skimp on environmental protections.

In Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase in leukemia and other ailments. The legacy of that project has led many Malaysians to be wary of rare earths mines.

Few independent studies chart the industry’s global ecological fallout. But no country has as many rare earths processing plants, and their attendant environmental problems, as China. Last year, China’s State Council reported that the country’s rare earths operations are causing “increasingly significant” environmental problems. A half century of rare earths mining and processing has “severely damaged surface vegetation, caused soil erosion, pollution, and acidification, and reduced or even eliminated food crop output,” the council reported, adding that Chinese rare earths plants typically produce wastewater with a “high concentration” of radioactive residues.

Bayan-Obo, China’s largest rare earths project, has been operating for more than four decades. According to the Germany-based Institute for Applied Ecology, the site now has an 11-square-kilometer waste pond — about three times the size of New York City’s Central Park — with toxic sludge that contains elevated concentrations of thorium.

China’s lax environmental standards have enabled it to produce rare earths at roughly a third the price of its international competitors, according to a 2010 report on the country’s rare earths industry by the Washington-based Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. The report noted that China “has never actually worked out pollutant discharge standards for the rare earth industry.”

Like nuclear power plants, rare earths projects require strict independent auditing in order to prevent environmental damage, according to Peter Karamoskos, a nuclear radiologist and the public’s representative at Australia’s Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. But as the rare earths industry expands to developing countries like Malaysia and Vietnam, such oversight will be unlikely. “A regulator will either be in the pocket of the industry or a government,” he says.

According to Gavin Mudd, an environmental engineer at Australia’s Monash University, rare earths mining provides a wide range of economic and social benefits and can be exploited in a responsible way. However, he says no company — including Mitsubishi and Lynas — has managed to set a good example.

Mudd says Lynas decided to process its rare earths in Malaysia rather than Australia, where they are mined, because it received tax incentives. But he says that Lynas hasn’t meaningfully engaged Malaysian communities to hear their concerns. A key problem with the company’s proposals, he adds, is that it never took a baseline sample of the environment before it began operations, making it difficult to gauge the future environmental impacts. “Their approach to solid waste management has been very haphazard,” says Mudd, who has offered unpaid advice to both the company and the activists who oppose its plans.

Lynas executives, including Executive Chairman Nicholas Curtis, say the plant will operate under high environmental standards and will dilute the thorium-tainted waste by mixing it with lime until it is below accepted international concentrations for the radioactive material. The lime mixture will be turned into solid structures that could be used for sea walls or construction materials, Lynas has said, although it remains unclear where those structures would be exported, and whether the process would use all of the plant’s toxic waste. Curtis has said that there is no comparison between his facility and the old Mitsubishi one, which “never should have been built.”

A recently released study of the plant by the Institute for Applied Ecology sketches a less sanguine portrait of the potential environmental impacts.

The study faults a Lynas plan to dispose of wastewater through an open channel rather than a closed pipeline; a refusal by the company to disclose what the plant’s exact chemical byproducts will be; and a temporary waste storage facility that the institute predicts will cause radioactive leakage “even under normal operating conditions.” A Lynas spokesperson from the company’s Australia headquarters did not respond to a request for comment.

Over the next two decades, the plant is expected to produce about 1.2 million metric tons of “residue,” according to 2011 report prepared by Lynas for Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency. It said the plant’s waste will fall within radioactivity limits set by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and may be safely disposed of in “landfill type facilities with limited regulatory control.”

Our high-tech products increasingly make use of rare metals, and mining those resources can have devastating environmental consequences. But if we block projects like the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska, Oswald J. Schmitz and Thomas E. Graedelwrite, are we simply forcing mining activity to other parts of the world where protections may be far weaker?

The waste, however, will emit low levels of carcinogenic radioactivity for centuries, according to scientists. The International Atomic Energy Association recommended in 2011 that Malaysia’s nuclear regulatory agency grant Lynas an operating license only after it submits a permanent decommissioning plan. Unlike Australia, Malaysia is not a party to the IAEA’s legally binding 2001 convention governing appropriate and safe disposal of radioactive waste.

For most of last year, Lynas was locked in court battles against retired schoolteacher Tan Bun Teet and his grassroots coalition “Save Malaysia, Stop Lynas!,” which challenged the government’s January decision to grant the company a temporary operating license. This fall, Lynas finally won its temporary operating license after clearing legal appeals, and Tan says the first truckload of rare earths from the company’s Australia mine rolled into its new Malaysia refinery on November 30 under police escort. But four Malaysian cabinet ministers warned in December that the company must export the radioactive waste from its new plant or risk losing its license.

Tan Bun Teet and his fellow activists, whose street protests in the Malaysian capital have faced tear gas and water cannons, are keeping up their legal fight by filing new appeals. Tan is especially concerned that the 247-acre Lynas plant sits atop reclaimed wetland that is prone to flooding and lies only about two miles from the South China Sea. The area receives about 10 feet of rainfall per year, and recent monsoon rains left the area drenched.

“We are worried,” he says. “We don’t want our environment to be destroyed as it was in China.”

Bad News: The North Pole Could Be Open to Shipping Very, Very Soon

Courtesy by: Kristina Chew. Care 2

images-3By the middle of this century, the North Pole could be open for routine shipping traffic. It’s yet another sign of how global warming is changing the world.

The melting of the sea ice in the arctic at a faster rate than forecast has meant that people have already been developing routes through Canada’s Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route above the coast of Russia. Such routes would significantly lessen the amount of time and fuel — as much as 18 days and 580 tons of bunker fuel — currently needed to transport goods between Asia and both Europe and North America. Shipowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Emphasizing how much the thickness and extent of late summer has shrunk in just the past seven years, UCLA geographers Laurence C. Smith and Scott R. Stephenson predict (via computer modeling) that, by 2050, ordinary vessels and some that are only moderately ice-strengthened — equipped to break through the ice — should be able to pass over the North Pole and most likely in September, when the sea ice is at its smallest extent.

Last year, 46 ships went through the trans-Arctic passage. To do so, they had to be accompanied by ice-strengthened ships from Russia at a considerable cost. The moderately ice-strengthened ships are known as Polar Class 6 or PC6 vessels. As John Timmer explains on Ars Technica, PC6 vessels are specifically built to “withstand transit through first-year ice (ice that froze during the previous winter).”

Under current climate prediction models, the sea ice will have melted so much that, by mid-century, PC6 vessels can use the Northern Sea Route in any year. Ships will be able to go directly over the pole from Europe to Asia annually, on a route that is shorter from those going through the Suez or Panama canals.

As Wired UK points out, this is a fabulous develop for commercial shipping and for companies wanting to explore and harness the yet-untapped natural resources — oil — of the Arctic.

But there’s no question that all this could spell simple disaster for the unique ecosystems of the Arctic and the rich wildlife, animal and plant, that lives there. Earlier studies have already shown that an increase in arctic shipping poses a risk to marine mammals and would also affect the local communities who rely on these animals for food security and cultural identity.

In addition, Smith and Stephenson note that the opening of the Arctic for shipping could spell geopolitical conflict among Russia, Canada, the U.S. and other countries, reopening disputes about boundaries and territory.

The scientists emphasize that we need to start now to develop “comprehensive international regulations that provide adequate environmental protections, vessel safety standards and search-and-rescue capability.” Rampant development of industries using fossil fuels has already warmed up our planet by degrees never imagined. Knowing how human activity has destroyed and is damaging wildlife and the environment, we need to start now to create responsible regulations to preserve the resources, beauty and life of the Arctic, which is, as Smith says, “a fragile and dangerous place.”

Extremely Loud

Courtesy by: Maureen Nandini Mitra. Earth Island Journal

Unknown-2When I last visited Kolkata, India, after a long period of living in the relatively quiet hills of Berkeley, CA, my ears were assaulted by the cacophony of traffic noise from the street outside my parents’ apartment. The daily discordant orchestra of blaring horns, squealing brakes, shouting vendors, and loudspeakers blasting religious songs would start in the wee hours of the morning and go late into the night. It felt like torture: I couldn’t sleep, I couldn’t concentrate on what I was reading, I couldn’t hold a conversation without raising my voice. The din of my increasingly congested birth city seemed to have risen in volume over the years.

This rising din isn’t just a problem in jam-packed India. Across the world – as our numbers swell, as nations get more urbanized, and societies become more technology-dependent – we humans are getting noisier. “Among environmental factors in Europe, environmental noise leads to a disease burden that is second in magnitude only to that from air pollution,” says a 2011 World Health Organization report. In the United States, noise is now the number one neighborhood complaint, beating out crime and traffic, according to the American Housing Survey conducted by the US Census. There have been incidents of noise conflicts leading to violence and even murder.

So loud and persistent are the sounds we create as we go about the business of living that researchers say there is scarcely any place left on land or water that is free of man-made noise. We have changed what our planet sounds like. Yet there seems to be little understanding of just how seriously noise is threatening our natural world – and us. “It’s like this unrecognized growing tsunami of potential impacts; we are growing louder and louder and no one is noticing,” says Dr. Mike Webster, director of Cornell University’s Macaulay Library, the world’s oldest archive of biodiversity audio and video recordings.

There are reams of research showing that noise – commonly defined as unwanted or unpleasant sound – is not merely an annoyance. Like other forms of pollution, it has wide-ranging adverse health, social, and environmental effects.

In humans, noise pollution damages hearing, disturbs communication, disrupts sleep, affects heart function, intrudes on cognition in children, reduces productivity, provokes unwanted behaviors, and increases accidents. “To say noise simply annoys people is to underestimate the effect it has on our mental and physical well-being,” says Manhattan-based psychologist and noise expert Dr. Arline Bronzaft, whose 1970s research on the effects of noise on children’s learning is considered a landmark in the field. Bronzaft points out that noise pollution has as much to do with persistent low frequency sounds and vibrations – such as those emitted by wind turbines, ventilation systems, or electronic devices – as loud and jarring sounds.

The effect of manmade noise is far more profound on the fragile and complex sound systems of the natural world. Oceans, forests, grasslands, and deserts all have their own internal harmonies. Their unique soundscapes carry important messages for marine and terrestrial animals. When humans interrupt those harmonies, birds and animals can suffer.

“In a natural environment, animal voices are created in such a way that each group of critters can hear each other,” says musician and naturalist Bernie Krause, who has spent four decades recording sounds of the biological world, which he calls “biophony.” Krause found that animals divide up the acoustic spectrum so that “birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals all find their own niches, their own bandwidths to vocalize in” so that when they issue mating calls or cry out warnings, their voices aren’t masked by the sounds being made by other animals. Human noise, which Krause calls “anthrophony,” disrupts this natural symphony. “The critters have to find new bandwidths they can vocalize in,” he says, “and when they do that it becomes very chaotic and has a great impact on them and causes great stress.”

Biologists have found that some birds in urban areas are finding it hard to hear each other and their young, which impairs chicks’ growth, as they are less likely to be fed, leading to a decline in their numbers. In forests and deserts and plains a range of animals from gleaning bats to frogs to the endangered pronghorns in Arizona’s Sonoran desert are abandoning their habitats in order to escape the noise of chainsaws and low-flying jets. The situation might be even worse under water. Ocean noise has been increasing by about three decibels every decade in the past 50 years due to sonar blasts by navies, shots from air guns used in deep-sea oil and gas exploration, and the thrum of cruise and freight ships. The cacophony disorients and sometimes leads to the death of marine animals, especially whales and dolphins, that rely on their acute and highly specialized hearing for communication, navigation, and detecting predators.

As even the most remote forests and the deepest depths of the oceans are invaded by humanity’s rumble, our world’s natural sound rhythms are going mute. Krause says: “A great silence is spreading over the natural world even as the sound of man is becoming deafening.”

Stay tuned for an in-depth audio report on noise pollution by the Journal and Making Contact at www.radioproject.org.

Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next?

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef. Care 2.

UnknownAnimal advocates are celebrating a landmark decision handed down from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) to fast-track the removal of two final tests of cosmetic products on animals from India’s safety standard.

“The directive was issued during an emergency meeting of the Bureau of Indian Standards PCD19 Cosmetic Sectional Committee, to which HSI/India was a special invitee, and marks the beginning of the end of acute oral toxicity (lethal poisoning) and oral mucosal irritation animal testing for cosmetic purposes in India,”according to the Humane Society International.

From now on, companies who want to test their products or ingredients will have to submit a non-animal testing proposal to the DCGI for approval.

“It’s unthinkable that in this day and age, animals are still choking on cosmetic chemicals in decades-old poisoning tests while companies choke on their own inertia in switching to a cruelty-free business model,” said HSI India Be Cruelty-Free Campaign Manager Alokparna Sengupta.

In the absence of non-animal alternatives, validation by the regulator will be done on an individual basis. The regulator is currently examining the European Union’s ban, according to the Hindu Business Line.

After decades of campaigning, the EU is set to finalize its ban this month, and animal advocates are counting down the days. This historic victory for animals means that from March 11 onwards, anyone who wants to sell new cosmetics products and their raw ingredients in the EU may not test either on animals anywhere the world.

Israel also recently enacted a law banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect on December 31.

Both of these moves send a strong message in support of cruelty-free products to the rest of the world and have peaked curiosity and support from a number of countries, including Korea, who will hopefully follow suit.

“Following the European marketing ban we are seeing doors open in all the major exporting countries as industry tackles the job of converting all their safety testing to modern non-animal methods. We are particularly pleased to see the active interest of Korean industry and we will do all we can to encourage progress,” said Cruelty Free International Director of Policy, Dr Nick Palmer.

To find cruelty-free products already available on the international market, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

via Ending Animal Testing for Cosmetics: Will India Be Next? | Care2 Causes.

Hundreds of Baby Seals Saved from Slaughter

Courtesy by: Piper Hoffman. Care 2

Unknown-5A seal slaughter in Canada has been cancelled!

The Huffington Post reports that the annual hunt on Hay Island was called off. The seals of Hay Island were spared last year as well. The Hay Island hunt usually kills a few hundred seals each year, out of the hundreds of thousands bludgeoned to death off the Newfoundland coast.

A spokesman for the hunters said that they had suspended the hunt because of low market demand for seal pelts. The president of the Canadian Seals Association agreed: “Right now we’re in a situation where we don’t have very many markets.” He added, “if there is no market, no buyers, there’s not much point in taking the seals.” It is comforting to learn that the killers weren’t bashing in the heads of helpless baby seals just for fun — it was just for money.

The targeted seals really are babies. “Hunters are permitted to kill seal pups when they start to moult their downy white fur at around 12-15 days. As a result many of the seals are only babies that haven’t even eaten their first solid meal or taken their first swim.” 98% of the seals killed are less than three months old.

Here’s how the hunt works, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog:

“For six to eight weeks each spring, the ice floes of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the eastern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador turn bloody, as some 300,000 harp seal pups, virtually all between 2 and 12 weeks old, are beaten to death—their skulls crushed with a heavy club called a hakapik—or shot. They are then skinned on the ice or in nearby hunting vessels after being dragged to the ships with boat hooks. The skinned carcasses are usually left on the ice or tossed in the ocean.

“Thousands of other wounded pups (estimates range from 15,000 to 150,000 per year) manage to escape the hunters but die later of their injuries or drown after falling off the ice (pups younger than about 5 weeks cannot swim).”

Growing international opposition to these slaughters is drying up demand for seal products. Activism has finally led to governments around the world taking action. Perhaps most important is the Russian Federation’s 2011 decision to prohibit importing seal products from Canada, because it was one of the largest markets for the Canadian hunters’ grisly products according to CTV News. (Harp Seals, however, offers government statistics showing that Norway is by far the biggest importer, and it still actively defends Canadian hunts.)

The Russian Federation’s ban followed the adoption of a similar ban in the European Union in 2009. The United States outlawed trade in seal products way back in 1972. The international bans were a seminal coup for the friends of seals because, unlike appeals to the hunters’ hypothetical basic decency, they hit the hunters where they lived — in their wallets.

A long and active history of protests led up to those bans. Going back to the 1970s, “images of fuzzy white seal pups were everywhere as activists fought to end the seal hunt in Canada.” In the 1980s, activism continued, with the International Fund for Animal Welfare calling for a boycott on Canadian seafood. During that time, Canada banned vessel-based seal hunting, which made a big dent in the number of seals massacred, but the motivation was to give the seal population time to recover after hunting dramatically lowered their numbers. The plan was still to resume the killing in time.

Soon the ban on vessel-based hunting was lifted, apparently because of arguments that seals were devastating the populations of certain species of fish, especially cod. Activists went back to work educating the public about the killing and lobbying public officials.

The hunters’ refusal to stop massacring seals because it is the right thing to do has been stubborn and lasting. They have had the backing of Canada’s government, even though most Canadians opposed funneling their tax dollars to subsidize this bloody industry.

The Hay Island slaughter is a drop in the bucket of seal blood Canadian hunters shed each year, but it is a sign that the tide may be turning against the industry.

Polar Bears Win After Alaska Tries to Delist Them

Courtesy by:  Alicia Graef. Care 2

Unknown-3Despite protests from Alaska, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that polar bears will keep their “threatened” status and continue to receive protection under the Endangered Species Act.

Polar bears were listed under the ESA in 2008 as a result of a petition and legal action taken by the Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace. They were the first species added to the list solely because of the threat of climate change.

There are still an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears left in the wild around the world, with two-thirds of the population in Canada, but they face a number of threats ranging from the loss of sea ice which they rely on for survival, to disease, pollution, shipping and hunting, among other issues.

“This ruling forces Alaska to acknowledge what has been painfully clear to everyone else: polar bears are on a collision course with climate change and deserve protection,” said Rebecca Riley, attorney in NRDC’s land and wildlife program. “Now, we need to get serious about tackling climate change and other threats to the species like hunting and toxic contamination.”

Their status has been controversial in Alaska, where they’re seen as impeding development, particularly when it comes to drilling for oil. The state, along with the international hunting group Safari Club International, argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) should have taken into account the fact that polar bears are doing well elsewhere in the world where steps are being taken to increase their numbers, according to the LA Times.

However, the court found that the USFWS’s decision to list them was scientifically supported, noting the record low in sea ice in 2007, which “further support[s] the concern that current sea ice models may be conservative and underestimate the rate and level of change expected in the future.”

Scientists believe that without protection, more than two-thirds of the planet’s polar bears, including all of the ones in Alaska, will likely be gone by 2050, according to the Center for Biological Diversity.

“Today’s decision is the latest legal confirmation of the indisputable science on climate change and the very real threats that polar bears face,” said Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “If we’re going to save polar bears, the Obama administration needs to move swiftly to cut greenhouse pollution.”

Polar bears may also get even more support as countries gather at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in the coming weeks, where the U.S., with support from the Russian Federation, is proposing a ban on the international trade in polar bear parts by uplisting them from Appendix II to Appendix I, which is currently the highest level of protection a species can get.

The legal trade in parts including paws, teeth and pelts results in the death of hundreds of polar bears annually. Canada, the only country that allows polar bear hunting and commercial trade, argues that populations are healthy and necessary for subsistence hunting, but troubling numbers gathered by the USFWS indicate that while some populations are stable or increasing, more than a dozen are either declining or haven’t been checked in decades.

The U.S. sponsored a proposal at the last meeting of CITES in 2010, but didn’t get enough votes to move forward.

via Polar Bears Win After Alaska Tries to Delist Them | Care2 Causes.

Israel Bans Animal-Tested Cosmetics. Why Can’t We Do the Same? | Care2 Causes

Courtesy by: Alicia Graef.Care 2

UnknownAnimal advocates, and animals in labs, were given yet another reason to celebrate the new year with the enactment of a law in Israel banning animal testing for cosmetics, personal care and household products that went into effect at midnight on December 31.

“Animal testing in the Cosmetics Industry inflicts horrific suffering on these animals. Each product requires between 2,000-3,000 tests, and animals die in agony,” said MK Eitan Cabel, who called the move a “true revolution in animal welfare.”

Animal testing for cosmetics and other products was banned in Israel in 2007, but this new ban is focused on products that are imported from other countries and will also mean an end to marketing products that have been tested on animals, even if the testing was done elsewhere in the world.

“The end of animal testing for cosmetics has come a step closer today,” said Troy Seidle, director of research & toxicology for Humane Society International (HSI). “Whilst we commend Israel for taking this truly historic action, strict enforcement of the law alongside active assistance from cosmetic companies, will now be vital. HSI’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign is working in India, Brazil, South Korea, the United States and beyond to achieve a world where no animal has to suffer and die for the sake of cosmetics. Once the EU enforces its own sales ban in March, the creation of these two cruelty-free markets will be a significant milestone towards achieving our goal.”

The EU adopted legislation to ban animal testing for cosmetics in 1993, which was supposed to go into effect in 1998, but was repeatedly delayed. In 2009, all animal testing for cosmetics was banned in the EU and supported by campaigns from organizations including HSI, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and the European Coalition to End Animal Experiments.

The 2009 ban was also accompanied by a marketing ban for products that were tested outside of the EU. However, the deadline was delayed for three types of tests in an effort to buy time to develop alternatives. As of the March deadline, if it’s not delayed again, no cosmetic products with ingredients that have been tested on animals will be sold in the EU, whether or not there is an alternative test available.

For more information on the EU ban, visit No Cruel Cosmetics. To find truly cruelty-free products, visit gocrueltyfree.org.

 

Storks Stop Migrating in Order to Live on Junk Food

Courtesy by: Kristina Chew. Care 2

ciguenyas vertederaoSince the mid-1980s, the number of storks migrating from Europe to northern Africa has fallen drastically. While thousands of storks once made their way to Africa to spend the winter, the number doing so has dwindled since the 1980s. Scientists suspect the white-winged birds have changed their iconic migratory behavior because of growing mounds of garbage.

That is, scientists think that storks have ceased their centuries-old practice of migrating — the reason of the great birds being said to deliver babies according to folklore — is that they have found an easily acquired food source, discarded food from dumps in Spain and Portugal. Storks are “opportunistic and adaptable” and — does it not sound familiar? — have readily made the switch to eating the “junk food” (containing who knows what chemicals and other substances) in landfill heaps.

Aldina Franco, from the University of East Anglia‘s school of Environmental Sciences, notes that the storks’ migratory patterns have changed “radically” and that many storks are now living year-round in Spain and Portugal. Some 1,180 birds wintered in Portugal in 1995, but those numbers grew to over 10,000 in 2008 and have only been going up.

Franco and other scientists from the University of East Anglia are seeking to find out why storks have, in such a short time, changed their behavior. To that end, they have tagged 15 storks caught in Portugal and will be able to track their movements four times during the day and once at night, to learn more about their roosting and feeding habits and the length of their flights. The researchers will be able to know when the storks are feeding because they put their heads down when foraging for food.

The garbage dumps provide an “abundant and reliable food supply ,” says Franco, though some of the birds seem to be feeding in them more than others. Understanding why so many storks are staying in one place is also key to predicting their long-term future.

Researchers will be looking at how climate change could be playing a role in their changing migratory habits. The birds have been breeding in new parts of northern Portugal, possibly because the climate there has become more suitable. The birds’ locations can be tracked daily via the British Trust for Ornithology.

Another factor that is beyond the storks’ control and could play a role in their future feeding is their continued “easy access” to humans’ discards. As Nathalie Gilbert, a doctoral student who is assisting in the research, says many of the landfill sites in Portugal that have been serving as the storks’ food source are “scheduled to be gradually replaced by new facilities where food waste is handled under cover.” It’s a change that could indeed influence the storks’ “breeding location, chick fledging success and migratory decision.”

In the absence of too readily available “free” food, will the white stocks be able to return to their centuries-old ways?