BBC News | Science/Nature | Full Feed

Atlantis shuttle set to blast off

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:26:36 -0600

The US space shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to blast off from Florida on a mission to deliver spare parts to the International Space Station (ISS).

Lift-off is planned for 1928 GMT (1428 EST) on Monday from the Kennedy Space Center near Cape Canaveral.

There are just five more shuttle launches scheduled before the planned retirement of the fleet in 2010.

The mission is set to include three spacewalks to store hardware on the outside of the orbiting outpost.

"Atlantis is ready to go, in really great shape," said shuttle launch manager Mike Moses at a news conference.

The weather is also looking good for Monday's launch; meteorologist Kathy Winters said there was just a 10% chance of weather prohibiting the launch.

This mission is dedicated to building up the store of replacement parts on the space station, which is nearing the completion of its construction phase.

These spares include pump modules, gas tanks, two control moment gyroscopes and component for the space station's robotic arm.

But the astronauts will also help prepare the way for the next shuttle mission, during which the last US space station module will be delivered: the Tranquility node with its attached cupola.

The cupola is a window module to provide crew members with a direct view of operations outside the space station and an observation point for watching the Earth.

Captained by Charlie Hobaugh, a colonel in the US marines, the all-male crew of Atlantis arrived on Thursday at Kennedy Space Center from Houston, Texas, where they have been training for the mission.

The six astronauts will spend the US Thanksgiving holiday in orbit. They will return to Earth with a seventh crew member, Nicole Stott, who's been living at the space station for nearly three months

The 11-day space outing will be the fifth and last shuttle mission for 2009.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Apec leaders drop climate target

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 09:16:28 -0600

Apec Gala Dinner in Singapore, 14 November" border="0" vspace="4" hspace="4">

US President Barack Obama has joined 20 other world leaders in Singapore for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) forum.

They have been discussing how to steer the global economy towards recovery.

The BBC's south-east Asia correspondent says other issues will now press their way onto the agenda, such as North Korea and climate change.

Our correspondent says the big issue is how to manage a shifting balance of power, with China in the ascendant.

Speaking in Japan on Saturday at the start of a week-long Asian tour, President Obama pledged Washington's "unshakeable" commitment to the security of the region.

He told the gathering in Tokyo that he wanted to pursue a policy of "pragmatic cooperation" with China, Asia's rising power.

Trade disputes

East Asia is recovering faster from the financial crisis than its neighbours on the other side of the Pacific.

1. Friday 13: Arrived in Japan
2. Saturday 14: Joined Apec summit in Singapore
3. Sunday 15: Has talks with Russia's President Medvedev before leaving for China
4. Tuesday 17: Summit in Beijing with Chinese President Hu Jintao
5. Wednesday 18: Ends tour in South Korea

But countries in the region still need American markets to export to, and will be hoping for signs of concrete action from Mr Obama, says the BBC's Rachel Harvey.

World leaders gathered for the weekend summit have already taken aim at signs of US trade protectionism.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon cited Washington's "Buy American" clauses, saying US legislation was "going in the opposite sense of free trade".

Leaders of Apec, a 21-member grouping that accounts for more than half of all global output, "reiterated their commitment to reject all forms of protectionism", a news release after the meeting said.

It said leaders had resolved to exert more political will to jump-start the Doha round of global talks.

At Saturday's gala dinner, Apec leaders followed the tradition of donning shirts from the host country, this time wearing long-sleeved linen shirts reflecting the local Malay-Chinese culture.

Following the Apec summit, President Obama travels to China late on Sunday amid heightened trade tensions between the two countries.

The BBC's Chris Hogg in Shanghai says the face-to-face talks Mr Obama will have with China's President Hu Jintao will offer an opportunity to take the heat out of some of those trade disputes, and to pursue areas of co-operation, such as technology transfer from the US to China to help this country build a so-called green economy.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Simple genetic tweak turns worms into hermaphrodites

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:19:45 -0600

With a surprisingly simple genetic tweak, scientists have transformed nematode worms into hermaphrodites.

They report in the journal Science that lowering the activity of just two genetic pathways produces the change.

Evolution from a species consisting of males and females into one consisting of only males and hermaphrodites happens naturally in many nematodes.

A team of US researchers says their experiment explains how this might take place.

They say it also provides a simple model helping scientists to work out the mechanism of evolutionary change.

The researchers chose to study the evolution of female worms into hermaphrodites because it was a "striking change" that occurred relatively recently.

Ronald Ellis, a biologist from the University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey in the US, who led the research, said that most big evolutionary changes within species happened too long ago to study at the genetic level.

"But this dramatic change happened fairly recently and in a group of animals that we know a lot about... that's why we're studying it to find out how complex traits are created," he told BBC News.

Dr Ellis said it was exciting to discover that, by lowering the activity of just two genetic pathways he and his team were able to "take what should have been a female animal and turn it into a cell fertile hermaphrodite".

The two genes the researchers "tweaked" were one involved in making sperm and another involved in activating them.

"These were small changes to the activity of genetic pathways that already existed," said Dr Ellis.

"So the pieces were already in place, they just had to be altered so they worked in a slightly new way."

He said the finding was surprising because it was such a simple change that produced a trait that was so dramatic.

Genes of change

The scientists use nematode worms as simple models to show how evolution works at a genetic level.

We understand how evolution tweaks simple traits, like a giraffe's neck [getting] longer and longer over time," he said.

"But most of the most important changes - the creation of the eye, the development of feathers in birds, wings in insects - involved the creation of novel traits.

"The better we understand this, the better we can understand the kinds of changes that created humans from our ancestors."

Dr David Lunt, an evolutionary biologist from the University of Hull, UK, who was not involved in this study told BBC News that said this was an "excellent experiment".

"Scientists study the evolution of sexual systems because it allows us to see all the forces of evolution at once," he explained.

"We have very few model systems anywhere near as powerful as this one."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Mutant genes 'key to long life'

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:15:29 -0600

There is a clear link between living to 100 and inheriting a hyperactive version of an enzyme that prevents cells from ageing, researchers say.

Scientists from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the US say centenarian Ashkenazy Jews have this mutant gene.

They found that 86 very old people and their children had higher levels of telomerase which protects the DNA.

They say it may be possible to produce drugs that stimulate the enzyme.

"There may be a downside to the plan of boosting the repair processes of DNA because giving the cells more chances to divide may increase the chances of damaging mutations developing and causing cancer."

Professor Tim Spector, King's College

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team say they studied the Ashkenazy Jewish community because they are closely related so it is easier to identify disease causing genetic differences.

They took blood samples from 86 very old, but generally healthy, people with an average age of 97; 175 of their offspring; and 93 other people who were the offspring of parents who had lived a normal lifespan and could therefore make up a control group, with which the results could be compared.

Role of telomeres

Telomeres are relatively short sections of specialized DNA that sit at the ends of all our chromosomes.

They have been compared to the plastic tips at the ends of shoelaces that prevent the laces from unravelling.

Each time a cell divides, its telomeres shorten and the cell becomes more susceptible to dying.

The importance of telomeres was recognised last month when three scientists received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for determining the structure of telomeres and discovering how they protect chromosomes from degrading.

Telomerase can repair the telomeres, preventing them from shrinking.

'Strongly heritable'

The team at Einstein found that the centenarians and their offspring had higher levels of telomerase and significantly longer telomeres than the unrelated people in the control group and that the trait was strongly heritable.

The scientists had previously shown that individuals in Ashkenazi families with exceptional longevity have generally been spared major age-related diseases, like heart disease and diabetes.

The centenarians in this study had a lower average body mass index than the controls and higher levels of good (HDL) cholesterol.

Yousin Suh, associate professor of medicine and genetics at Einstein and a lead author on the paper, said: "Our findings suggest that telomere length and variants of telomerase genes combine to help people live very long lives, perhaps by protecting them from the diseases of old age.

"We're now trying to understand the mechanism by which these genetic variants of telomerase maintain telomere length in centenarians.

"It may be possible to develop drugs that mimic the telomerase that our centenarians have been blessed with."

'Downside'

Professor Tim Spector, from King's College London, who has been researching telomeres and ageing, said it was an interesting finding but it may not apply to other populations and further research was needed.

He said: "There may be a downside to the plan of boosting the repair processes of DNA because giving the cells more chances to divide may increase the chances of damaging mutations developing and causing cancer.

"Most scientists agree that there is evidence that people with long telomeres have less age-related diseases and this study does suggest that could be one reason why they are living longer."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Brazil and France in climate deal

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:35:23 -0600

Brazil and France have agreed a common position on fighting global warming before next month's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen.

They will pursue the goal of reducing industrialised nations' emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced the move in Paris.

It comes days after Britain said it was highly unlikely that a legally binding climate treaty can be agreed this year.

The climate conference, in the Danish capital from 7 to 18 December, aims to create a successor to the 1997 Kyoto treaty limiting carbon emissions.

But British Climate Secretary Ed Miliband said only a political deal was likely.

Developing countries reacted with frustration and disappointment to his comments.

'Climate bible'

At a news conference in Paris, Mr Sarkozy praised Brazil for being "the first developing country to put its proposals on the table", and urged on other nations to follow its example going into the Copenhagen conference.

President Lula said the document he had signed with Mr Sarkozy was "more than a declaration of intent, it is a climate bible".

It comes after Brazil said it aimed to cut its carbon emissions by at least 36% by the year 2020.

Amid the ongoing deadlock in negotiations preceding the conference, both presidents said they would attend the Copenhagen summit, and urged the United States and China to get behind strong measures.

The two leaders said they would try to drum up wider support for their initiative before the meeting.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Mystery numbers

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:45:56 -0600

Could Obama's Asia trip hold the key to climate summit?

Rosetta makes final home call

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:13:16 -0600

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

Europe's Rosetta spacecraft has made its third and final flyby of Earth, a manoeuvre designed to position the probe to chase down a comet in 2014.

The spacecraft's whip around the planet will have given it the extra speed it needs to take it out to the rendezvous location near Jupiter.

Launched in 2004, Rosetta had already flown by Earth twice and Mars once.

The journey out to Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko will also take the probe past an asteroid in 2010.

Rosetta was expected to be moving at some 13km/s as it swept over the Indian Ocean, just south of the Indonesian island of Java.

At closest approach it reached an altitude of just 2,480km, well inside the orbits of geostationary telecoms satellites.

Journey ahead

Engineers say the gravity-assist will have increased Rosetta's speed by almost 4km/s with respect to the Sun.

Scientists used the flyby to test the health of some of Rosetta's instruments by making observations of the Earth and the Moon.

Osiris, the main scientific camera system, took a series pictures.

Engineers will assess the probe's trajectory to see if any course corrections are required. Any changes will be easier and lighter on fuel if they are made as early as possible.

The mission is expected to make a flyby of Asteroid Lutetia in July 2010, but apart from that one event the long journey into the outer Solar System should be a quiet one.

Indeed, for much of the time, the spacecraft will be put in a hibernation mode.

Long history

Rosetta's meeting with Churyumov-Gerasimenko is set for the May of 2014.

The probe will go into orbit around the 4km-wide ball of ice and dust and place a small lander called Philae on its surface.

As the comet moves into the inner Solar System, radiation from the Sun will cause the comet's ices to sublime - they will turn straight from a solid to a gas. Material will be ejected at supersonic speeds.

Gas and dust will be thrown out around the comet to form a coma, and away from the comet to form tails.

The Rosetta orbiter and lander will watch and record these events as the comet hurtles along at speeds up to 135,000km/h.

Scientists are keen to study comets close up because they are thought to contain materials that have remained largely unchanged since the formation of the Solar System 4.6bn years ago.

Rosetta milestones:

• Launch: 2 March 2004

• First Earth swingby: 4 March 2005

• Mars swingby: 25 February 2007

• Second Earth swingby: 13 November 2007

• Steins flyby: 5 September 2008

• Third Earth swingby: 13 November 2009

• Lutetia flyby: 10 July 2010

• Comet rendezvous manoeuvres: 22 May 2014

• Lander delivery: 10 November 2014

• Escorting the comet around the Sun: November 2014 - December 2015

• End of mission: December 2015

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

'Significant' water found on Moon

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:30:39 -0600

Nasa's experiment last month to find water on the Moon was a major success, agency scientists have announced.

The agency smashed a rocket and probe into a large crater at the lunar south pole, hoping to kick up ice.

Scientists who have studied the data now say instruments trained on the impact plume saw copious quantities of water vapour.

One researcher described this as the equivalent of "a dozen two-gallon buckets" of water.

The 1.6km-high plume of debris was kicked up by the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) last month when it crashed into a crater near the Moon's south pole.

"We're unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbour and, by extension, the Solar System," said Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist at Nasa's headquarters in Washington DC.

"The Moon harbours many secrets, and LCROSS has added a new layer to our understanding."

The identification of water-ice in the impact plume is important for purely scientific reasons, but also because a supply of water on the Moon would be a vital resource for future human exploration.

The impact into Cabeus crater threw up a large plume composed of water vapour and debris, which rose quickly.

An additional curtain of lunar debris was sent out laterally by the impact, and cloud moved more slowly.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

'Language gene' effects explored

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:20:32 -0600

A gene that has long been implicated in the evolution of speech and language has given up more of its secrets.

A study of the effects of two versions of the FOXP2 gene, one from chimpanzees and one from humans, showed marked differences in their effects.

Human FOXP2 triggered changes in genes known to affect the growth of brain areas related to language and also, more generally, to higher thought.

The findings, published in Nature, could aid diagnosis of mental diseases.

The exact genetic basis of language is mysterious. But the FOXP2 gene was first implicated as a contributor when, in 1990, a family with an inherited language disorder was found to have a mutation in the gene.

A structurally very similar "version" of the gene is found in a wide number of species of vertebrates.

And ancient DNA, extracted from Neanderthal remains, shows the same version of the gene found in humans.

But the form in chimpanzees is slightly different. It varies by just two amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that are in turn the building blocks of genes.

"Two doesn't sound like a lot but given how highly conserved the gene is across species and how close we are in evolutionary time to chimps, that was a pretty big change," said Daniel Geschwind of the University of California, Los Angeles, who led this study.

'Critical circuit'

The implication is that our non-vocal cousins, the chimpanzees, might be non-vocal because of the effects of those two amino acids.

The FOXP2 gene produces a protein of the same name. This protein is a transcription factor - it acts as a dimmer switch for a number of other genes, switching them on or off or regulating their activity.

Dr Geschwind and his team put the chimp version and the human version of the gene into human nervous system cells.

They then profiled all of the genes that had been switched on.

What they found was that the human version had effects on some genes that were unaffected by the chimp version.

While earlier studies made it relatively certain that FOXP2 was involved in the development of the fine motor control that is needed for speech, it was not clear whether it had anything to do with parts of the brain that are specifically involved with language.

But among those 116 genes "tied" to the human FOXP2 gene, Dr Geschwind told BBC News, there is at least one "that is involved in the development of brain regions that are part of a critical circuit we know is important for higher cognition".

In other words, the FOXP2 gene may be more than just a "language gene". It could be involved in a number of aspects of higher thought that we attribute to humans.

Road ahead

Further work is needed to pin down all the genes and molecules at work in speech and language.

Dr Geschwind said that the new array of genes specific to the human version of FOXP2 must now be investigated, to assess the role of each one.

Simon Fisher, a molecular neuroscientist at the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics called the results "intriguing", and explained that FOXP2 itself is expressed to varying degrees in different types of neurons in the brain.

"It will be exciting in future to directly examine the in vivo impacts of FOXP2... in each distinct neuronal subpopulation," he told BBC News.

But he said that the initial results needed to be considered carefully.

"A large number of genetic differences distinguish the brains of these two species, not just the substitutions in FOXP2," he said.

"While a few of the genes have been linked to aspects of central nervous system development, we are still some way off from describing how differences in FOXP2 alter the properties and behaviour of neurons in the living brain."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Big profit from nature protection

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:12:38 -0600

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Money invested in protecting nature can bring huge financial returns, according to a major investigation into the costs and benefits of the natural world.

It says money ploughed into protecting wetlands, coral reefs and forests can bring a hundredfold return on capital.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity study (Teeb) is backed by the UN and countries including the UK.

The project's leader says governments should act on its findings at next month's UN climate summit.

Teeb is the first attempt to evaluate the economic value of "ecosystem services" - things that parts of the natural world do for free, such as purifying drinking water or protecting coasts from storms - on a systematic and global basis.

"We can say quite confidently that there is a solid benefit from investing in protected areas"

Pavan Sukhdev

"We have now evaluated 1,100 studies ranging across different countries and different ecosystem services," said study leader Pavan Sukhdev, a Deutsche Bank economist.

"And we find that with protected areas, for example, no matter how you slice the figures up you come up with a ratio of benefits to costs that's between 25-to-one and 100-to-one.

"Now we can say quite confidently that there is a solid benefit from investing in protected areas," he told BBC News.

Watery world

The project's initial tranche of work focussed on forests, finding that the ongoing loss of forest comes with an annual pricetag of US $2-5 trillion, dwarfing the banking crisis.

The new analysis takes the economists to the undersea realms of fisheries and coral reefs.

Conservation groups have repeatedly called for a vast expansion in protection for marine ecosystems, both to conserve biodiversity and as a longer-term boost to fisheries yields.

Mr Sukhdev said there was a powerful economic case for this as well.

"If we were to expand marine protection from less than 1% to 30%, say, what would that cost

"Establishing reserves, policing them and so on, would cost about $40-50bn per year - and the annual benefit would be about $4-5 trillion."

The benefits would come from increasing fish catches and tourism revenue and - in the case of reefs - protecting shorelines from the destructive force of storms.

"The Teeb report is hugely significant in showing that [loss of nature] is inextricably linked with a sustainable worldwide economy, and we warmly welcome the call upon policymakers to accelerate, scale-up and embed investments in the management and restoration of ecosystems," commented Stephen Hopper, director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.

The study says protected areas need to be chosen carefully, as they are on land, and concentrated in areas of ecological and economic importance.

Other examples given in the report include:

a Costa Rican study showing that areas of intact forest increase the yield of coffee farms by 20% because they shelter pollinating insects
a grassland conservation area in New Zealand that supplies the Otago region with free water that would cost $100m per year to bring in from elsewhere
in Vietnam, planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroves cost the government $1.1m but saved annual expenditures on dyke maintenance of $7.3m

Forest call

Although individual economists have made these arguments before, Teeb aims to draw all the evidence together and present it to policymakers, hoping it can persuade governments to invest in nature protection just as the Stern Review made the economic case for tackling climate change.

"We show that the failure of markets to adequately consider the value of ecosystem services is of concern not only to environment, development and climate change ministries but also to finance, economics and business ministries," says the report.

Biodiversity at base of economics

"Evidence presented here shows pro-conservation choices to be a matter of economic common sense in the vast majority of cases."

Some governments are on board already: Germany - which initiated the project in 2007 - Norway, and the UK.

"This report really highlights the need to understand the part nature plays in sustaining our economy as we go into the International Year of Biodiversity," said UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn.

"By showing how we can place an economic value on biodiversity, it will help us to do the right thing nationally and internationally - not just to respond to the growing crisis of biodiversity loss, but also to deal with climate change."

At next month's UN climate summit in Copenhagen, governments are likely to finalise a process for financing forest protection as a cheap way of curbing carbon emissions.

Teeb's conclusions give economic backing to calls from conservation and indigenous peoples' groups for this process - Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) - to encourage ecologically sound forest management, rather than simply aiming to absorb carbon dioxide.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Predatory coral photographed eating a jellyfish

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:07:04 -0600

A coral is recorded eating a jellyfish for the first time, in intriguing photographs taken by scientists.

UK climate targets 'unachievable'

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:36 -0600

By Matt McGrath
Science reporter

UK government plans to make carbon emission cuts of 80% by 2050 are physically impossible to achieve, according to a new analysis.

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers says there is not enough time or capacity to build the wind turbines and extra nuclear power stations required.

Under current plans, the targets will not be met until 2100, it argues.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change accused the institution of having a "can't do, won't do attitude".

The IME also called for a major investment in geo-engineering.

It is calling for a "war" on climate change with a beefed up government department in charge.

It could also mean the introduction of some form of carbon "rationing" for individuals to make people aware of how much energy they are consuming.

The UK's Climate Change Act passed into law in 2008, putting a legal imperative on the government to cut emissions by 80% of their 1990 levels by 2050, with a mid-term target of 34% cuts by 2020.

But the report investigates how practical these targets are to reach and concludes that they cannot be met with the current approaches to cutting carbon.

They would not, in fact, be reached until the year 2100.

Competition for resources

According to the analysis, even if the UK managed to cut the demand for energy by 50%, it would still require an extra 16 nuclear power stations and 27,000 wind turbines by 2030 to be sure of hitting the target.

Dr Tim Fox is head of environment and climate change at the Institution. He says that the problems of building the infrastructure haven't been thought through.

"We'll be competing for the engineering resources to deploy those wind farms in a global market where lots of other nations are trying to de-carbonise at the same time.

"The most current analysis shows that by 2013 we won't have enough of the specialist construction vessels to assist in the construction of the offshore wind farms.

"Not only that, but by 2016 there's not enough turbine manufacturing capacity in the world to be able to deliver the turbines to all the projects that need them at that time.

"We've done an assessment of the level of kit that is needed and it is at a level of building and construction and deployment that is unprecedented in modern times.

"We need the government to adopt an engineering programme management type of approach laying out the best combination of solutions, rather than the current approach which is to almost blindly assume that mitigation can be achieved regardless of whether in practical terms it can be delivered on the ground."

Back to rationing

According to the Institution, this co-ordinated approach would combine cuts in emissions, adapting to inevitable changes and employing geo engineering to absorb carbon from the air. The Institution suggests that the shortfall in emissions cuts could in fact be made up by deploying 100,000 "artificial trees" by 2050.

Artificial trees would capture CO2 from the air, but this is still an untested technology.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said:"The Institute of Mechanical Engineers' can't do, won't do attitude is sending out a defeatist message ahead of the crucial climate change talks in Copenhagen.

"The truth is that if we act now we can not only beat climate change but gain from the green benefits that will flow in terms of jobs and investment from going low carbon. That's what our transition plan is already doing, so it's a shame the Institute is not embracing the vast opportunities available for engineers in the shift to a low carbon economy."

The report calls for a warlike mentality to combat climate change, arguing that it needs much tougher tactics and a new enhanced government department to meet the challenge.

According to Dr Fox: "It's time to go to war on climate change, it is attacking us and we must fight back."

Professor Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Centre on climate change, supports the Institution's approach.

"In wartime we could look over the gate before and see the enemy at the gate, but this is much more difficult now with climate change. We can see it in the southern hemisphere, but that's unlikely to bring about significant action from us, so the enemy is at the gate in many parts of the world now but it is not so immediately obvious for us."

"We are seeing some of the early migratory pressures, the early signs which are not caused by climate change but are exacerbated by it, and that is something we are starting to see.

"I'm not saying that the migration we see today is caused by climate change, I'm saying that the stresses these people are under are being exacerbated so that will see an increased rate, and we are seeing that now."

Professor Anderson also suggests that we may need to see some form of carbon rationing like food rationing in wartime.

"When you have something essential like energy that you can't ration just on price - you have to ration it in a more equitable way.

"So I would suggest for the high reduction rates that we now need, we need something based on equity and whether it's personal carbon trading or whatever, we have to make sure the poorer parts of our communities have access to energy regardless of price.

"So that means for the rest of us, who consume lots of energy we are going to have to make significant reductions to our levels of emissions - there is no way round this."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

'Big drop' in Amazon deforestation

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:38:41 -0600

By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo

The level of deforestation in the Amazon has dropped by 45% and is the lowest on record since monitoring began 21 years ago, Brazil's government says.

According to the latest annual figures, just over 7,000 sq km was destroyed between July 2008 and August 2009.

The drop is welcome news for the government in advance of the Copenhagen summit on climate change.

But Greenpeace says there is still too much deforestation and the government's targets are not ambitious enough.

According to the Brazilian space agency, which monitors deforestation in the Amazon, the annual rate of destruction fell by 45%.

Green credentials

Welcoming the news, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva described the drop in the level of deforestation as "extraordinary".

He said climate change was the most challenging issue the world was facing.

The Brazilian government will undoubtedly view the latest figures as a boost to its green credentials coming just before the Copenhagen summit in December.

At the summit, the Brazilian government seems certain to present its efforts to reduce destruction in the Amazon as a key part of its strategy to combat climate change.

The environment ministry here is said to be proposing that around half of a 40% cut in Brazil's carbon emissions would come from reducing deforestation.

The Brazilian government wants to see an 80% reduction in the deforestation rate by 2020.

The environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, welcomed the latest drop as important, but said that there was still too much destruction in the rainforest.

In a statement, it said the president would be happy if, in 11 years time, the Amazon was being destroyed at a rate of a little less than three cities the size of Sao Paulo a year.

Some environmentalists believe that the fall in deforestation may be connected to the economic downturn, and that when things improve, the Amazon could face renewed pressure.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Greenland ice loss 'accelerating'

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:29:27 -0600

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The Greenland ice sheet is losing its mass faster than in previous years and making an increasing contribution to sea level rise, a study has confirmed.

Published in the journal Science, it has also given scientists a clearer view of why the sheet is shrinking.

The team used weather data, satellite readings and models of ice sheet behaviour to analyse the annual loss of 273 thousand million tonnes of ice.

Melting of the entire sheet would raise sea levels globally by about 7m (20ft).

For the period 2000-2008, melting Greenland ice raised sea levels by an average of about 0.46mm per year.

"If you multiply these numbers up it puts us well beyond the IPCC estimates for 2100"

Professor Roger Barry

Since 2006, that has increased to 0.75mm per year.

"Since 2000, there's clearly been an accelerating loss of mass [from the ice sheet]," said lead researcher Michiel van den Broeke from Utrecht University in the Netherlands.

"But we've had three very warm summers, and that's enhanced the melt considerably.

"If this is going to continue, I cannot tell - but we do of course expect the climate to become warmer in the future."

In total, sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year, principally because seawater is expanding as it warms.

Sea change

Changes to the Greenland sheet and its much larger counterpart in Antarctica are subjects commanding a lot of interest within the scientific community because of the potential they have to raise sea levels to an extent that would flood many of the world's major cities.

The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report projected a sea level rise of 28-43cm during this century.

But it acknowledged this was almost certainly an underestimate because understanding of how ice behaves was not good enough to make reliable projections.

By combining different sources of data in the way it has, and by quantifying the causes of mass loss, the new study has taken a big step forwards, according to Roger Barry, director of the World Data Center for Glaciology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, US.

"I think it's a very significant paper; the results in it are certainly very significant and new," he said.

"It does show that the [ice loss] trend has accelerated, and the reported contribution to sea level rise also shows a significant acceleration - so if you multiply these numbers up it puts us well beyond the IPCC estimates for 2100."

Professor Barry was an editor on the section of the IPCC report dealing with the polar regions.

On reflection

An ice sheet can lose mass because of increased melting on the surface, because glaciers flow more quickly into the ocean, or because there is less precipitation in the winter so less bulk is added inland.

The new research shows that in Greenland, about half the loss comes from faster flow to the oceans, and the other half from changes on the ice sheet itself - principally surface melting.

Another analysis of satellite data, published in September, showed that of 111 fast-moving Greenland glaciers studied, 81 were thinning at twice the rate of the slow-moving ice beside them.

This indicates that the glaciers are accelerating and taking more ice into the surrounding sea.

Melting on the ice sheet's surface acts as a feedback mechanism, Dr van den Broeke explained, because the liquid water absorbs more and reflects less of the incoming solar radiation - resulting in a heating of the ice.

"Over the last 10 years, it's quite simple; warming over Greenland has caused the melting to increase, and that's set off this albedo feedback process," he told BBC News.

"Quite likely the oceans have also warmed, and it's likely that explains the [acceleration of] outlet glaciers because they're warmed from below."

Data provided over just the last few years by the Grace satellite mission - used in this study - is giving researchers a closer view of regional variations across the territory.

Grace's twin satellites map gravity at the Earth's surface in unprecedented detail; and it is now possible to tease out from the data that most of the mass is being lost in the southeast, southwest and northwest at low elevations where the air will generally be warmer than at high altitudes.

Professor Barry cautioned that the Grace mission, which has produced valuable data about Antarctica as well as Greenland, has only a further two years to run, and that no replacement is currently scheduled.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Indian elephants to go from zoos

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:01:30 -0600

The Central Zoo Authority in India has confirmed to the BBC that zoos and circuses in the country will no longer be allowed to keep elephants.

A spokesman for the authority said a binding directive had been issued by the authority for the animals to be sent to national parks and sanctuaries.

It is estimated that there are about 140 elephants in zoos and circuses.

Among the most regularly visited by tourists are three elephants in Delhi zoo, which are to be moved imminently.

The directive sent by by the Central Zoo Authority (CZA) says zoos and circuses are "not the best places for the large animals" which "require a large area to move about freely".

The CZA says circus and zoo elephants can play an important eco-tourism role in national parks and animal sanctuaries, where they can be properly supervised by mahauts - or elephant handlers.

The body has ordered the transfer to take place "as soon as possible".

It says that the animals have "great use" in eco-tourism and patrolling national parks and tiger reserves.

Correspondents say the CZA's move does not affect hundreds of elephants that are kept in temples across the length and breadth of India - neither does it affect those used for working purposes.

African elephants - held in Delhi and Mysore zoos - will be transferred to national parks as well as the native Indian elephants, officials say.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Strong signal?

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:24:51 -0600

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

The Galileo satellite-navigation system is coming.

After all the wrangling, the delays and the furore over cost, Europe's version of GPS is finally starting to take shape.

In an industrial cleanroom in southern England, engineers are reaching key milestones in their preparation of four satellites.

It will be these In-Orbit Validation (IOV) models which will prove the Galileo concept.

Due for launch in pairs in late 2010 and early-2011, the "pathfinders" will form a mini-constellation in the sky.

They will transmit the navigation signals that demonstrate the European system can become a reality.

The rest of the network should then follow soon afterwards. Galileo will eventually comprise some 30 satellites, to inform and guide users the world over.

"Even with just a few Galileo spacecraft in orbit - if you had a GPS and Galileo-compatible receiver, you would begin to see a difference, simply by virtue of having more satellites in the sky," explained Dr Mike Healy from EADS Astrium.

The company's Portsmouth cleanroom is responsible for assembling the IOV payloads.

Its engineers have been sent sat-nav components from across Europe. These equipments are being installed in 1.5m-by-1.5m-by-3m boxes.

On a level

The critical elements of an IOV include its two passive hydrogen-maser atomic clocks, the ultra-precise time-pieces on which Galileo's performance depends.

GALILEO UNDER CONSTRUCTION

A European Commission and European Space Agency project
Up to 32 satellites to be launched in batches in coming years
Will work alongside US GPS and Russian Glonass systems
Promises real-time positioning down to less than a metre
Guaranteed under all but most extreme circumstances
Suitable for safety-critical roles where lives depend on service

Q&A: Europe's Galileo project

"The main thing is maintaining their accuracy," said Peter Hollands, the payload project manager.

"You have to protect them from magnetic fields, from shock and vibration, and from thermal excursions. So the variation in temperature of the clocks on the IOVs is controlled to within about a degree [Celsius] to keep them stable."

The payloads must also carry signal generation units. These complex processing centres take the "ticks" from the clocks and turn them into the all-important navigation signal. That signal then goes through amplifiers before being transmitted to users on the ground via an antenna.

All of these elements have to be integrated and tested.

The first complete payload is due to go out the door in a matter of weeks.

The box will be sent to Thales Alenia Space in Rome, Italy, where it will be attached to the main spacecraft bus, incorporating a propulsion system, avionics and solar panels, etc, before being shipped to Europe's spaceport in French Guiana.

A Russian Soyuz rocket has been entrusted with the deployment in orbit.

Difficult project

Galileo will work alongside GPS. It is expected to improve substantially the availability and accuracy of timing and navigation signals delivered from space.

Users should get quicker, more reliable fixes and be able to locate their positions with an error of one metre compared with the current GPS-only error of several metres.

Of course, Europe's single biggest space services project should have been operational by now.

Political and financial uncertainty have hindered progress; the collapse in 2007 of the private consortium invited to build and run the network came very close to delivering a knock-out punch.

But there have been technical challenges, also. European industry has had to develop some novel equipments for Galileo, and getting them all to interact seamlessly and robustly at a systems level has taken time.

That there had been slippage on such a major endeavour should not have been a surprise, argued Dr Healy.

"When we make telecoms satellites, they are essentially a variation on a theme and we can now do them to a very consistent timescale," he explained.

"But when we have to do significant developments, as in the case of Galileo, these spacecraft are bound to take longer and there will be a degree of uncertainty on timescales.

"Remember, Europe has never done navigation before."

Contract awards

This week sees the deadline for the consortia competing to build the remaining Galileo satellites to submit their final prices to the project's leaders, the European Commission (EC) and the European Space Agency (Esa).

Contracts for up to 22 Full Operational Capability (FOC) spacecraft are expected to be awarded before the year's end.

EADS Astrium and Thales Alenia Space may have built the IOVs but they are not guaranteed to get the next batch. Certainly, not all of them.

There has been wide speculation in Europe that the EC and Esa will hand some of the FOC order to a rival consortium led by OHB of Germany.

Whatever the outcome, payload integration will be undertaken in the UK - if not in Astrium's Portsmouth cleanroom then at Surrey Satellite Technology Limited (SSTL) in Guildford.

SSTL is a key partner in the OHB consortium.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Deep-sea fish captured on camera

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:07:52 -0600

By Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

The deepest living fish ever spotted in the southern hemisphere have been caught on camera.

The bizarre-looking pink creatures were photographed at a depth of 7,560m (24,800ft), swimming in the Kermadec Trench off the coast of New Zealand.

An international team has been studying this area using a submersible, built to withstand immense pressures.

Last year, the same team recorded another fish at 7,700m (25,300ft) - the deepest ever filmed.

These were found in the Japan Trench, which is in the Pacific, north of the equator.

Both expeditions form part of the Hadeep project, which aims to expand our knowledge of life in the oceanic trenches, the deepest parts of the ocean floor.

Quite a catch

The deep-sea fish seen near New Zealand look remarkably similar to last year's find: they are pale pink in colour, with bulbous bodies and long tails. But they are in fact a different species.

The Kermadec Trench fish are a species known as Notoliparis kermadecensis, while the Japan Trench creatures are Pseudoliparis amblystomopsis.

Professor Monty Priede, director of the University of Aberdeen's Oceanlab, which leads the Hadeep project, said: "The intriguing thing is that each of the trenches seems to have been colonised by these fish, despite being in different hemispheres.

"Presumably [they evolved] from some shallower, similar ancestor."

He added: "These species are never found outside the trenches - they are very isolated. You can think of the trenches a bit like islands."

The fish were photographed using a camera-laden, deep-sea submersible, which was connected to a ship and controlled from its surface.

The probe was loaded with rotting fish, designed to lure deep-sea creatures, allowing them to be caught on camera and studied.

But, unlike in 2008, this year the team was unable to capture footage of the fish. The primary submersible carrying the video camera equipment was lost during an earlier descent.

Alan Jamieson from Oceanlab, who is leading this project, said he was devastated at the loss of the £150,000 piece of equipment.

He told the Natural Environment Research Council's (Nerc) Planet Earth website that it was "the sum of nearly six years worth of planning and designing, and two-and-half years of operations" and that is was "now officially lost at sea".

Deep questions

The subject of which fish are the deepest is a contentious one.

In 1960, Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh descended to 10,910m (35,790ft) in the Marianas Trench, which is the deepest place in the oceans.

DEEP SEA DIVISIONS

Bathyal zone: 1,000-3,000m (3,000-10,000ft)
Abyssal: 3,000-6,000m (10,000-20,000ft)
Hadal: 6,000m-11,000m (20,000-36,000ft)

In his book Seven Miles Down, Piccard wrote that he spotted a type of flatfish. However, at a depth of 10,000m (33,000ft), experts say the pressure would have forced the windows to start caving in, making it difficult to see out.

So the official record for the deepest fish is held by Abyssobrotula galatheae, which was dredged from the bottom of the Puerto Rico Trench at a depth of more than 8,370m (27,460ft) in 1970.

However, it was dead by the time it reached the surface.

The Oceanlab team's Japan Trench find holds the record for the deepest living fish.

Professor Priede said he expected that some fish would eventually be spotted at even greater depths.

The Hadeep project is funded by the Nippon Foundation and Nerc.

This research cruise involved Oceanlab, the University of Tokyo's Oceans Research Institute and New Zealand's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Bees fight to death over females

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:08:34 -0600

In a rare example of a species killing each other en masse, male Dawson's bees are filmed in deadly combat in a bid to mate with females.

Sniff test to preserve old books

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:42:05 -0600

The key to preserving the old, degrading paper of treasured, ageing books is contained in the smell of their pages, say scientists.

Researchers report in the journal Analytical Chemistry that a new "sniff test" can measure degradation of old books and historical documents.

The test picks up and identifies the chemicals that the pages release as they degrade.

This could help libraries and museums preserve a range of precious books.

The test is based on detecting the levels of volatile organic compounds.

These are released by paper as it ages and produce the familiar "old book smell".

The research tem, led by Matija Strlic from University College London's Centre for Sustainable Heritage, describes that smell as "a combination of grassy notes with a tang of acids and a hint of vanilla over an underlying mustiness".

"This unmistakable smell is as much part of the book as its contents," they wrote in the journal article.

It is also the basis for the new test, which pinpoints the ingredients contained within the blend of volatile compounds emanating from the paper.

That mixture, the researchers say, "is dependent on the original composition of the... paper substrate, applied media, and binding".

Their new method is called "material degradomics". The scientists are able to use it to find what chemicals books release, without damaging the paper.

It involves an analytical technique called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. This simply "sniffs" the paper and separates out the different compounds.

Chemical fingerprint

The team tested 72 historical papers from the 19th and 20th centuries and identified 15 compounds that were "reliable markers" of degradation.

Measuring the levels of these individual compounds made it possible to produce a "fingerprint" of each document's condition.

Such a thorough chemical understanding of the state of a book will help museums and libraries to identify the books and documents most in need of protection from further degradation.

The information could also be used to fine-tune preservation techniques.

The method, the researchers say, is not exclusively applicable to books, and could be used on other historical artefacts.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Crime rings boost ivory smuggling

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:32:38 -0600

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

The last year has seen a major increase in the illegal ivory trade, with more involvement from organised crime.

Figures compiled by Traffic, the agency charged with monitoring the trade, show a doubling in the volume of illegal ivory seized from 2008 to 2009.

Researchers believe most of it is poached in West and Central Africa, while China is the main destination.

Traffic says there is no evidence that last year's one-off legal sale of ivory in southern Africa boosted smuggling.

The volume of ivory seized is not a complete indication of the size of the illegal trade, because the effectiveness of police and customs authorities can vary from year to year and only a fraction of illegal consignments are discovered.

"More than any other country, China seemingly holds the key for reversing the upward trend in illicit trade in ivory"

Traffic report

Nevertheless, Traffic believes a significant increase lies behind the seizure figures, especially because the final numbers for 2009 could rise even higher.

"Our analysis cuts off in August, and our figures are already showing the increase," said the agency's director Steven Broad.

"So it's a serious concern. And the increase is based on a relatively small number of big seizures, which tend to indicate more organised operations behind the trade," he told BBC News.

A year ago, an operation by Interpol and Kenyan authorities netted a tonne of ivory in a single consignment - the biggest on record - and led to the arrest of 57 people in five African countries.

Reports indicate that prices of $1,000 per kilo can now be commanded.

China question

Traffic believes that poaching and exporting is currently concentrated in West Africa.

Nigeria emerges as a country implicated in many seizures made elsewhere, but whose authorities have not themselves made a single seizure in 18 years.

As sources of ivory, Traffic also picks out Cameroon and the Democratic Republic of Congo as countries of concern, while Thailand stands accused as a major trans-shipment point.

More than half of the consignments involving these countries are large ones, indicating the involvement of organised crime, Traffic says.

Tanzania emerges as a nation effective at controlling poaching in its own elephant herd, but which gangs are increasingly using to export ivory.

Traffic concludes that most of the illegal ivory ends up in China, although Vietnam is developing as a market.

Chinese connection

In recent years, China has stepped up monitoring and enforcement on ivory carvers and sellers, and its efforts were rewarded in July last year when the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) voted to allow Chinese buyers into the legal sale of stockpiled ivory that was about to begin in southern Africa.

The sale permitted Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe to sell more than 100 tonnes of ivory from government stockpiles.

Most of it came from animals that had died naturally, and the money raised was designated for elephant conservation.

Although not opposing the sale, Traffic believes Chinese authorities have further to go.

Slaughter fear over poaching rise

"The [Chinese] approach is to have very tightly controlled outlets selling the legal ivory, and there is a lot of detail - you can even check the legality on a public database when you go to buy something," said Mr Broad.

"But what effort has been put into suppressing the black market trade outside those controlled outlets Based on what we have at the moment, we can't say they're failing; but it's a big question."

The Traffic report also highlights the increasing presence of Chinese citizens in African countries as a factor facilitating trade.

"Chinese nationals have been arrested within or coming from Africa in at least 134 ivory seizure cases, totalling over 16 tonnes of ivory; and another 487 cases representing almost 25 tonnes of ivory originating from Africa was seized en route to China," says the report.

"As ever, more than any other country, China seemingly holds the key for reversing the upward trend in illicit trade in ivory."

Poaching territories

It would be logical to suppose that if the volume of the ivory trade is increasing, that must be fed by a rise in the rate of poaching.

Although Kenya has documented a rise, information from other countries is scanty, and it is not clear whether the smuggling increase is affecting the viability of elephant populations.

On a pan-African basis, elephant numbers are increasing. But behind that overall trend lies a pattern of effective conservation and population increase in southern and eastern Africa, while numbers are low and believed to be falling in the centre and west of the continent.

Last year's legal ivory sale, authorised by CITES in 2007, remains controversial.

The previous one-off sale in 1999 was followed by four years of a decline in smuggling, apparently disproving the assertion made by some animal welfare organisations that a legal trade forms an opening into which black market ivory can pour.

This time, the data is unclear. Traffic is analysing evidence of elephant kills in Central Africa that might provide an answer; and until then, "We really can't tell - the jury is out," said Steven Broad.

Tanzania and Zambia are requesting the right to make a similar sale, again of more than 100 tonnes. The request is due to be decided at the next CITES meeting in March.

Traffic is supported jointly by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and WWF, and is charged by CITES with monitoring the ivory trade through the Elephant Trade Information System (Etis).

Etis contains a 20-year record of 14,364 elephant product seizure records from 85 states.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Lithium clue for planet-hunters

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:23:52 -0600

Astronomers may have found a way to identify those Sun-like stars most likely to harbour orbiting planets.

A survey of stars known to possess planets shows the vast majority to be severely depleted in lithium.

To date, scientists have detected just over 420 worlds circling other stars using a range of techniques.

Garik Israelian and colleagues tell the journal Nature that future planet hunts could be narrowed by going after stars with particular compositions.

Scientists think events early in the star's formation may be responsible for producing the lithium phenomenon.

Theory holds that planets grow from a disc of dusty material that develops around infant stars.

The researchers propose that this disc and its contents alter the young star's spin, mixing its upper layers more effectively into the interior where its contents can be "burnt" in the fusion processes that power it.

"When discs form around stars there is interaction of angular momentum between disc, planets and parent star; and this interaction affects the rotation of the parent star and that will affect the lithium abundance," said Garik Israelian from the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain.

The relative low abundance of lithium in our Sun's upper layers has long been a fascination for scientists.

Researchers who have studied meteorites with compositions unchanged since the beginning of the Solar System say the element's presence in our star ought to be 140 times greater than is observed.

Physicists know the Sun's upper layers as viewed today do not convect deeply enough to take any lithium to a location that is sufficiently hot to burn the element. This suggests mixing conditions must have been different in the past.

The outcome of the research is a tool astronomers can now use to help pinpoint the right type of stars where they are likely to detect planets.

"Suppose you had 50 or 100 candidates for parent-bearing stars," explained Dr Israelian.

"Those which have a very low abundance of lithium will be the best candidates around which you might find planets," he told BBC News.

Astronomers detect exoplanets, as they are called, using a number of methods.

One technique looks for the gravitational "wobble" a massive planet will induce in its parent star.

Another approach is to monitor a star for extended periods in the hope a planet will pass across its face. This transit reveals the planet's presence by making the star's light dim ever so slightly.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Making a change?

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:07:40 -0600

By Sarah Mukherjee
Environment correspondent, BBC News

The Marine Bill is set to become law.

According to the government, it will be the first legislation of its kind in the world, creating a network of protected zones around our coastal waters.

There will also be, for the first time, a continuous path around the coast of England.

I travelled to Studland Bay, in Dorset, to look at one place that could be affected by the legislation.

The sea is tinted silver grey with the first smudges of lilac appearing over the horizon. Seagulls keen overhead.

"We have an amazingly diverse coastal environment - not just seahorses but mussel beds, rocky areas - and they all need protection"

Melissa Moore, Marine Conservation Society

The white cliffs and sandy beaches of Studland attract thousands of visitors every year for relaxation and recreation.

But conservationists say some of the most precious and stunning views are hidden under the sea.

For these coastal waters are some of the few in the country that are home to breeding seahorses. They use the sea grasses for their nurseries.

But there is no guarantee these little creatures will get protection under the new law.

It will be two years before a decision is made on which areas, and how many of them, will form the marine conservation zones. Some campaigners say this could allow the government to do the smallest amount possible to protect England's waters.

So can this legislation make a difference

"It's got to," says Melissa Moore from the Marine Conservation Society.

"We have an amazingly diverse coastal environment - not just seahorses but mussel beds, rocky areas - and they all need protection."

Risk to industry

Other conservationists are concerned at the lack of detail in the bill.

"The government's often taken the path of least resistance on conservation measures," said one.

"Will they really tell the fishermen that there might be 30% of waters they can no longer fish in"

For their part, the fishermen say, the new law could extinguish an industry that's already in decline in many parts of the country.

Alan Lander, from the Swanage Fishermens' Association, is unconvinced about the conservation arguments.

"My family have been fishing here for 200 years", he says.

"If we had not conserved the stocks, we wouldn't have anything left to catch. I wish people would talk to the fishermen more."

Alan himself fished for crab and lobster for 50 years, and his son and grandson have taken over. He says he doesn't miss it; the red tape is now overwhelming.

The coastal access path is not without its controversies. While walkers' groups say it will finally make some of the loveliest views in England accessible, some landowners are worried the law will not protect them adequately.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Six-year limit on DNA of innocent

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:52:48 -0600

The DNA of most innocent people arrested in England and Wales will not be held for more than six years.

The Home Office confirmed the move in a bid to make the DNA database legal.

Police may be allowed to keep indefinitely DNA from those arrested for terrorism, even if they are later released or found not guilty at trial.

Ministers say the package, including special measures for teenagers, balances their duties to protect privacy against needs of the police.

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Poor nutrition 'stunting growth'

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:09:23 -0600

By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News

Poor child nutrition still causes major problems in the developing world - despite some progress, experts say.

A third of deaths in children under five in those countries are linked to poor diet, a report by Unicef suggests.

It also reveals 195m children - one in three - have stunted growth, even though rates have fallen since 1990.

Unicef said the number of underweight children also remained high, with many countries struggling to hit official targets to halve the figures.

An estimated 129m children are underweight.

Rates of stunted growth are higher because while some children may be a normal weight - in fact some can even be overweight - the food they are getting is of such poor quality they they have growth problems.

Experts warn that such a condition is often irreversible and effectively condemns children to a lifetime of poor health.

Dangerous

Unicef chief Ann Veneman said: "Undernutrition steals a child's strength and makes illnesses that the body might otherwise fight off far more dangerous.

"Unless attention is paid to addressing the causes of child and maternal undernutrition today, the costs will be considerably higher tomorrow."

HOW TO TACKLE THE PROBLEM

Poor nutrition has traditionally been a problem for Peru
In 1999, the government, in partnership with Unicef and the US International Development Agency, set up the Good Start in Life programme
The project used health staff to provide ante-natal support to mothers, promote breastfeeding and offer food supplements in five mainly rural regions
By 2004, more than 75,000 children under three were benefiting and rates of stunted growth fell from 54% to 37%
A national programme is now being rolled out

The organisation has pinpointed the first 1,000 days of life as the key period in which to tackle the problem.

It said promoting breastfeeding as the exclusive source of nutrition for the first six months and continued breastfeeding until at least two was essential.

But Unicef said providing access to food supplements was also an important part of the solution.

Many aid programmes are focusing on iodised salt to aid brain development and vitamin A supplements, which help bone growth and the body's ability to fight infection.

Such steps, the report suggested, could reduce deaths by a fifth.

Monitoring schemes

Unicef said that together with its partners, which include governments and international aid agencies, it was making progress to improve nutrition for children in the 150 countries it was working in.

Indeed, since 1990 the proportion of children underweight in the developing world has fallen by a sixth, according to figures compiled from Unicef's own monitoring schemes and data provided by other bodies such as the World Health Organization and World Bank.

And stunted growth rates have dropped by a quarter over the same period.

Nonetheless, just 63 out of 117 countries look like they will meet the Millennium Development Goal of halving the rates of underweight children between 1990 and 2015.

Progress has been particularly poor in Africa. Asia is performing a little better, although India is making little progress, while South America is making some significant strides.

Kitty Arie, a senior policy adviser at the Save the Children charity, also pointed out poor nutrition had long-term consequences, including lower school performance.

"This is an urgent issue that can and must be tackled."

And UK international development minister Mike Foster agreed more could be done.

"We have to work more effectively with our development partners and national governments to make nutrition a priority."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

The deep-sea crab that eats trees

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:31:11 -0600

A crab species survives by eating sunken wood and shipwrecks.

Under the sea

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:55:19 -0600

Vulnerable species found in the UK's coastal waters

Missing link dinosaur discovered

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:11:32 -0600

Researchers have discovered a fossil skeleton that appears to link the earliest dinosaurs with the large plant-eating sauropods.

This could help to bridge an evolutionary gap between the two-legged common ancestors of dinosaurs and the four-legged giants, such as diplodocus.

The remarkably complete skeleton shows that the creature was bipedal but occasionally walked on all four legs.

The team reports its discovery in the Royal Society journal Proceedings B.

"What we have is a big, short-footed, barrel-chested, long-necked, small-headed dinosaur," explained Adam Yates, the scientist from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who led the research.

"The earliest ancestral dinosaur - the great grand-daddy of all dinosaurs - walked on two legs. This [one] is intermediate between those bipedal forms and the true gigantic sauropods."

The skeleton was discovered at a site in the Senekal district of South Africa.

Dr Yates explained that features of its feet and jaw, as well as its size, gave away its significance.

The dinosaur, Aardonyx celestae was a heavy, slow-moving animal.

"It had a lot of features we see on sauropods," explained Dr Yates. "Short, broad feet and a big, broad gut, so it was clearly a plant-eater that was bulk-feeding.

"And the anatomy of the jaw shows it had a wide gape - to stuff more food in."

It also had, he said, "sauropod-like front feet".

"Its toe bones were very robust and solid, so its weight was being born on the inside of the foot. It was still bipedal, but it may have been going down on to all fours to browse."

'Living fossil'

The dinosaur dates from the early Jurassic period - about 200 million years ago.

"Although structurally it's intermediate, it lived too late to be an actual ancestor, because true sauropods already existed [then].

"So, at the time, it was a living fossil - the transition must have happened much earlier."

Dr Yates stressed that the site where the fossil was discovered provided an abundance of valuable knowledge about dinosaur evolution.

"If you want to study how the dinosaurs became giants," he said. "You have to come to South Africa."

Dr Paul Barrett - a palaeontologist from the Natural History Museum in London said that the discovery of Aardonyx helped "fill a marked gap in our knowledge of sauropod evolution".

"[It shows] how a primarily two-legged animal could start to acquire the specific features necessary for a life spent on all fours.

"Evolution of this quadrapedal gait was key in allowing the late sauropods to adopt their enormous body sizes."

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Launch pad

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:14:14 -0600

VIEWPOINT
John Manoochechri

Forty years on from humans reaching the Moon, it is time for another epochal moment in history, says John Manoochechri. In this week's Green Room, he calls for us to recapture the spirit that took us into space and use that energy to save the planet.

"A great idea did not put men on the Moon 40 years ago; a vast, risky, people-driven and hugely uneconomic undertaking did"

In July, the UK government launched its Low Carbon Transition Plan, which it described as the best carbon plan of any developed country.

Unnoticed, it was unveiled 40 years to the day after the launch go-ahead was given for Apollo 11, the mission that put a human on the moon, and ended the space race in improbable, epochal success.

Enthusiasm for sustainability is everywhere. But is enough actually being done

The day following the launch of the low carbon plan, operators managing the switchboards of the three departments responsible for the scheme said the same thing when I asked to speak to someone responsible for "sustainable technologies".

They asked: "Um, what do you mean specifically" They then went on to tell me that there wasn't anyone particular.

Back to the future

In 2010, the future was set to arrive in style, in the form of the Dongtan eco-city, for at least 50,000 people as part of Shanghai World Expo.

They'll need to hurry up, or phone to tell the world's architects who still swoon over the artistic renderings, since not a single brick has been laid, and planning permission has been revoked.

So far, the low carbon vision has been going nowhere fast

Tyre tracks on the low carbon road

Same for Europe's most spectacular eco-homes project, Mata De Sesimbra in Portugal. Five years after it becomes a rallying cry Nothing.

Vision and feel-good are big parts of making change happen. But a great idea did not put men on the Moon 40 years ago; a vast, risky, people-driven and hugely uneconomic undertaking did.

Right now, the sustainability movement is heading for a monumental reality check, within the decade, as governments, businesses and people realise that the contemporary hullaballoo is built on no such undertaking. In fact, sustainability as currently proposed is unsustainable.

Back when the modern environmental movement was making waves for the first time in the 60s and 70s, the driving forces of change were big science, big government and big personalities. The Moon landings was no small part in such confidence at solving big problems.

Nowadays, sustainability is awash with fey compromisers, unburdened by brilliance. And the debate is not about grand governmental stances, or a world led by deep science, still less by ethics.

Rather the technical basis, and the whole worldview, of "planet saving", is essentially economics: if we can sell it (to industry, to a populace, to consumers), or if we can tax it, we'll have a go.

Sure, there's some science here - but it's pretty much limited to counting: enumerating environmental impact - such as the "eco-footprint" - and then trying to work out the "cost".

Specialist environmental experts now extol something calling sustainable development, which supposedly knits together environmental, social and economic development in one grand sandwich of wholesomeness.

Unsound foundations

Nothing is meaningless in this context, everything is possible. Leaders in this domain have perfected the art of saying everything and yet nothing.

But as it turns out, conventional economics and sustainable development are two of the most unsound foundations for grand societal change - the type required for sustainability - that have been devised.

"Cities need to be designed for conviviality and convenience, without so much useless infrastructure - transport, waste, parking - clogging everything up"

Investment, markets, and the consumer economy are possible that don't trash resources and people - in the way that fat, carbohydrate, and sugar don't have to have to make people obese.

Ideologies of social renewal are possible that are modern and inclusive; ie. not very ideological, and rather pragmatic.

Yet to build a sufficient sustainability movement requires much more truly scientific framework of economics, and much more rigourous formulation of sustainable development.

Today's economics is like Ptolemy's model of the solar system: devilishly clever, but oh so wrong.

Sustainable development currently is like a kaleidoscope: all you can do is keep going and enjoy the pretty patterns because there is no conceptual framework, still less a map or timetable that might tell you what it all means.

Both must be redesigned, and both injected with a huge new dose of basic, universal ethics.

It's time to relaunch the movement. The recent report from the Sustainable Development Commission - Prosperity Without Growth - ought to be a bomb under both economics' and sustainable development's easy chairs, with its tough message that growth economics is incompatible this particular planet.

But for the bomb to go off, a new generation of thinkers, agents, designers, and communicators needs to push the current "leaders" aside and set out a new, clear, and build a truly grand project on truly robust foundations.

That would involve, as a start, colossal investment in a material economy that cycles everything, and compels industry (more than consumers) to design and produce things as part of that cycle.

Regions need to manage all their own energy and resources starting yesterday, through efficiency and building integrated production.

Cities need to be designed for conviviality and convenience, without so much useless infrastructure - transport, waste, parking - clogging everything up.

Citizens need to take a break from worrying about recycling and climate change (which they have been unfairly dumped with solving) by taking time away from soulless work for unsatisfying consumption.

These are all the biggest, riskiest, most urgent projects the world has ever known. Rock on: who said history was over

So near, yet so far

Enthusiasts - such as government ministers, hot-flushed with flabby economics and sustainable development rhetoric - will say they are taking steps in the right direction. The Low Carbon Transition Plan guarantees 1.2 million "green jobs" by 2020 - which leaves only 30 million "non-green" jobs.

"Four decades after the West won the space race with crazy bravery, why can't we do something similar for the human race"

Sustainability isn't exactly rocket science, but if this plan is a step towards it, cobbling together a big firework is a step towards building a Moon rocket.

Right now, the euphoria of the summer has died down anyway.

The pre-Copenhagen climate talks in Barcelona have made it clear just how far governments are from really taking climate change seriously, let alone sustainability in any more systematic sense.

By all means, blame environmentalists and "sustainability experts" for their poor formulation of conception of change, but we must blame politicians for their disgraceful clinging to failed and outmoded concepts of perpetual, materialised, economic growth - and thus their inability to put any more substantial framework on the dynamics and direction of change.

The outcome from Barcelona, and raw data from so many sources, shows that things are not getting better at the scale that counts, despite the green enthusiasm buzzing in our ears.

The real deal of sustainability - truly massive reconfigurations of material culture - has sunk in a quicksand of ultimately unscientific economic mythology, and wilfully incoherent sustainable development generalities.

It's time, once again, to evoke an epochal response to an epochal challenge.

Four decades after the West won the space race with crazy bravery, why can't we do something similar for the human race

John Manoochehri is guest researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, and leads the sustainable design project studio, Resource Vision

He also wrote Consumption Opportunities, the policy on sustainable lifestyles for the UN Environment Programme and the philosophical basis of the Green Party's manifesto

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with John Manoochechri Is there too much talk and too little action Are were missing the "can do" attitude of past generations What do we need to do to ensure our long-term survival

Send us your comments using the form below:

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Spaceman

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:37:51 -0600

Tick-tock - the clock runs on Europe's sat-nav system

Saving the trillionth tonne of coal

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:54:15 -0600

VIEWPOINT
Myles Allen

This week sees the final round of preliminary talks on a new UN climate treaty before December's Copenhagen summit, where delegates seem to be focusing on emissions in 2020. Myles Allen argues that they must not lose sight of the much greater challenges that lie beyond 2020 or they risk wasting another decade in the battle against dangerous climate change.

On Thursday, 22 October 2009, a single tonne of anthracite coal was unveiled in the Science Museum in London as part of a new exhibition on climate change.

Not, you might think, anything particularly remarkable about that, except that this is not any old tonne of coal: it will be, as close as we can estimate it, the trillionth tonne of carbon to be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide since industrialisation began in the 18th Century.

The Science Museum, London, and University of Oxford are committed to looking after it for as long as it takes, and solemnly escorting it down to a power station or wherever it can be used most efficiently when total carbon emissions from human activity reach one trillion tonnes.

If, that is, that time ever comes.

The trillionth tonne matters because carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. Once released, it continues to influence the climate more or less indefinitely unless active measures are taken to scrub it out again, which is not something anyone knows how to do on any scale.

"Over the past couple of decades, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have risen by an average of 1.6% per year"

Emissions since 1750 comprise of just over half a trillion tonnes of carbon (you can keep track of the number, and the countdown to the release of the trillionth tonne, on the trillionthtonne.org website).

This is estimated to have caused just under 1C (1.8F) of global warming (other things affect global temperature as well but, as it happens, their effects more-or-less cancel out over this period).

So if we release another 500 billion tonnes, we commit the Earth to a most likely warming of about 2C, which is widely regarded as the threshold for dangerous climate change, and a rubicon that governments of G8 countries and other major economies pledged this year not to cross.

Over the past couple of decades, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have risen by an average of 1.6% per year, even allowing for the occasional blip like the collapse of the Soviet Union and this year's recession.

Emissions from deforestation have continued steadily.

Trend setting

If these trends continue, which is a relatively conservative "business-as-usual" scenario, we will release the trillionth tonne sometime in the 2040s - a date that is steadily advancing, as the underlying trend is for faster growth in recent years.

So, will the Science Museum only have to look after this tonne of coal for less than 40 years

That rather depends on what happens in the next 40 days, at the end of which the climate negotiations will be nearing their climax in Copenhagen.

This week's negotiations in Barcelona will go a long way to determining whether agreement is possible in Copenhagen - and if it is, what sort of agreement.

If governments are seriously committed to limiting global warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, then must preserve the "trillionth tonne", not just until 2020 or 2050, but until the whole issue of climate change is ancient history.

Other emissions resulting from human activity are expected, on balance, to add to the warming effect of carbon dioxide in the future, so if we are to keep the overall warming to less than 2C (or, for that matter, retain any hope of carbon dioxide levels eventually recovering back down to 350 parts per million, or avoid dangerous levels of ocean acidity), we cannot afford to release the trillionth tonne, ever.

"You could reduce your lifetime carbon footprint to zero and save the world from global warming… for less than two seconds"

The longer we put off reducing emissions, the faster they will have to fall to stay within the same total - just as dithering before you leave the house pushes up the speed you need to pedal to make your appointment.

And eventually, if you dither long enough, you simply won't make it.

This is where the trillionth tonne could be useful, even in the next 40 days.

If your government's negotiators in Barcelona and Copenhagen claim they want to keep global warming below 2C, and the chances are that they do, then they should have a plan to prevent cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from exceeding a trillion tonnes of carbon.

If they don't, then they haven't thought it through, no matter what they claim emissions will be in 2020.

This matters, because many of the measures they might take (or, more likely, ask you to take) to reduce the rate of emissions in 2020 would have no effect on, or even increase, cumulative carbon dioxide emissions overall.

Act now or pay later

What can you do

Clearly, reducing your carbon footprint helps. Emitting carbon more slowly buys time, which we will certainly need.

But to solve the problem in the long term, we need to reduce net emissions, in effect, to zero.

You can't do this on your own, no matter how heroic a consumer you are.

You could reduce your lifetime carbon footprint to zero - by making your home zero-carbon, never use a car and grow your own food - and save the world from dangerous climate change for just a mere two seconds.

So the most important thing you can do is make sure your government recognises the importance of cumulative carbon dioxide emissions in climate policy.

At a previous round of negotiations, in Bonn in June, a group of us presented an open letter to the negotiators urging them to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide.

We did not call for a specific cap: just an acknowledgement that the principle would fundamentally alter the focus of future negotiations. The aim would no longer be to ration out emissions; the aim would be to ban them, just as we banned CFCs. We didn't save the ozone layer by rationing deodorant.

As far as we can tell, that request fell on deaf ears: "This was not the focus of the negotiations at present."

Odd, when cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide are the principal determinant of the risk of dangerous long-term human-induced climate change.

And next time you are in London, drop in to the Science Museum to pay your respects to the trillionth tonne.

Take your children. Explain to them that if it is still there for them to show their grandchildren, they will have achieved a lot in the fight against climate change - but not enough.

Only when their grandchildren are showing their grandchildren the trillionth tonne, still safely on display in the Science Museum in the mid-22nd-century, will this whole saga be passing into history.

And wish them luck.

Myles Allen heads the Climate Dynamics Group in the Department of Physics, Oxford University, and is the principal investigator of climateprediction.net

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

Do you agree with Myles Allen Is it necessary for leaders to mandate emissions cuts now - or can the world wait What do you realistically expect from the Copenhagen summit Will the trillionth tonne ever be burnt

President Obama has been president for 1 year, and just recently there has been news reports that he has lost popularity amoungst the American people. During this time, President Obama has been pushing for climatic awareness quite strongly. The reason President Obama has lost popularity is because many people in America are still without work, and they feel that he isn't doing enough about the economy. How can world leaders make the changes necessary to combat global warming, when the common people themselves don't care!! We all still value a strong ecomony more than the climate, it is the people that need to change, in order to allow world leaders the freedom to make the painful but necessary changes required to combat global warming.
Neil Simmons, Bangkok

Doubt at what the science says is often used as a reason not to change our behaviour. Whereas most scientists believe that uncertainty is a strong indicator for proceeding with caution. And that means not continuing 'full steam ahead' as if nothing could go wrong! Does anyone remember the Titanic

The comment that CO2 only stays in the atmosphere for about seven years is a myth spread by the fossil-fuel industry and is based upon out-of date science. That this is untrue shown from the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is plenty of science that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, perhaps millennia.

However studies of natural CO2 sequestration rates indicate that the removal of CO2 takes a phenomenally long time - many tens of thousands of years.

Don't take my word for it! Hansen et al. 2007 suggest that 22% CO2 remains after 500 years 19% after 1000 years (based upon Joos et al., 1996; Shine et al., 2005) Archer 2005 suggests:

'we expect that 17-33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10-15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30-35 kyr.., A better approximation of the lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 for public discussion might be ''300 years, plus 25% that lasts forever.'''

References: J. Hansen et al. 2007: Dangerous human-made interference with climate. www.atmos-chem-phys.net/7/2287/2007/ Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2287-2312, 2007; and Archer, D. (2005), Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time, J. Geophys. Res., 110, C09S05, doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.
Christopher, Walton, UK

Here is a little science lesson: CO2 has a life span of 6 to 8 years and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is man-made (so to speak) is somewhere around the 0.004% mark. Global temperature changes drive atmospheric CO2 levels, atmospheric CO2 levels do not drive global temperature changes - global temperature is driven primarily by the Sun and then by the Ocean (Pacific Decadal Oscillation). The Green Hysteria machine never ceases to amuse me.
Si Robertson, London UK

Oxford University's record on reducing its emissions over last 10 years was disgracefully worse than George Bush's. The writer is right of course to highlight the urgent necessity of not exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet for human-caused CO2 emissions. However, I would disagree with his 2C target, as do most of the developing nations. This would result in appalling biodiversity losses across the planet. We need to get back to 350 ppm. His understanding of how political processes work also needs expanding.

Writing a letter is not going to do it. You need millions of people actually already reducing their carbon footprints so governments can have the courage to take action also.
Donnachadh McCarthy, Peckham

Global Warming is a fact. It has happened in the past and it will happen in the future, as will Ice ages. As for greenhouse Gas, imagine millions of years before we were here. On a twelve hour click face we arrived at 4 minutes to 12, the moon was much closer,so the tides were much greater. The Earth was less dense so there was much less Gravity. This enabled vegetation and Animals to grow to much larger proportions than they could achieve today. Imagine the amount of gas emitted by the Millions of these huge beasts, along with the huge amounts of Volcanic activity produced by a very unstable much thinner crusted Earth. Also consider the effect of the much more active Sun, with its ability to change poles from a Positive to a Negative charge. Perhaps even to the extent of flipping earth upon it's Axix to put the Magnetic Poles where the Equator was. An immediate Ice age. The Electrical energy of the Sun along with the Angle of declination of the Earth will change the Weather patterns of the Earth, remember back in the classroom when the Teacher would rub an Ebonite rod with a Silk cloth too create static electricity, to make water running from the Tap bend toward it.

We are barely worthy of mention in the greater scheme of things, and like the Dinosaurs will most likely be eliminated regardless of what we do. C. Hooper
Colin Hooper, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

co2 is not a pollutant and is an extremely small player as a greenhous gas. co2 makes up 0.0386% of the atmosphere and man contributes only 3% of that. climate change is driven by the sun, not co2. has anyone noticed that global temperatures have dropped lately it's because the sun has gone into a solar minimum which has been predicted to last 20 to thirty years. not one climate model predicted any drop in temperature yet it has happened. clearly some other mechanism is at work besides co2 concentrations.
bill, steamboat springs, co, usa

I fully expect that there will be no discussion at all about deforestation. The destruction of the rainforests releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all forms of fossil-fuelled transport across the entire globe. But will anything be done about it at the summit

Just as eco protesters get their priorities wrong by vandalising the few coal-fired power stations we have in this country, so too will the summit delegates get their priorities wrong by interminable waffle about carbon taxes.
Paul, Devon

Actually CO2 doesn't stay in the atmosphere indefinitely, but only about 7 years, according to the latest research.

And the average increase of 1.6% per year in CO2 emissions hasn't resulted in any increase in world temperatures since 1998. Temperatures have actually fallen in the last three years.

CO2 emissions were increasing dramatically from 1940 - 1972 as well, while world temperatures went through a 30 year period of decreases. There is very little corelation between CO2 changes and temperature changes, other than when temperatures go up, CO2 increases, based on Arctic ice cores going back 700,000 years.

Better keep that coal locked away. People might be fighting to get their hands on it to keep warm in a few years.
Paul Stevens, Hastings, Ontario, Canada

Assuming that one isn't a "skeptic," it doesn't look very good, does it In the US we've gotten rid of the Bush administration stumbling block, only to find another stumbling block in the form of Republican filibuster threats in the Senate.

Moreover, it appears that in the larger picture, there is simply too much disagreement over who should have to be responsible for what. I don't see good prospects for bridging the gap between developing nations which believe they should get the same free hand that the western world enjoyed in the 19th and 20th centuries, and those now-developed western countries (my own in particular) which believe, eg., that China's total emissions require serious cutbacks regardless of how small they are per-capita.

A global treaty to make serious cutbacks in GHG emissions, starting now, is still the best hypothetical solution, but I'm afraid that in practical terms this approach is just unworkable. The theoretical distant-second of "geoengineering" is, it seems more and more likely, the only practical option available. I suspect that our best bet may be forests of "artificial trees" to capture pollution from the air; as insane as this may sound when we have perfectly good rainforests that need saving, the rich world is much more likely to spend its money on machines which it can design and build at home, and precisely meter.
Matthew Kuhns, Lakewood, Ohio, USA

Lord Dudley put Newcommen's first atmospheric 'fire engine' to work pumping his colliery in 1712; so I'm puzzled as to kicking off the calculations from 1750That trillionth tonne may have already gone up the spout . . .But yes; at some point; we have to stop. Not only carbon emissions, but everything else too. Will the science museum host the "trillionth ton of fish landed", or the trillionth square metre of land concreted over; or the trillionth tonne of biodiversity pushed to extinction Is some bright spark out there planning for the "trillionth person on the planet" - to which most "sane rational people" would say; "but a trillion people wouldn't physically fit !"

So how come these same "sane rational people" miss all the other looming indicators and that 6 billion people here now do not fit. We passed the real "tipping point" at . . what; 2 billion people, 3 billion people- somewhere around there, and that was back in the 1970's. No, I'm afraid the "they shall not pass" point was passed way back 30 years ago.

The trouble is; the people who will do something about it, and stop breeding, will be the "nice, quiet, wouldn't say boo to a goose" people . . . The "out for whatever they can get" people; will say "great, more for me . . ." and carry on business as usual; so they are the ones that are going to "fry and die !"- which all kinda works out with the gorgeous irony it deserves !

Well, winter's here; I bet somebody nicks a few bags of that coal before the end of the week.
Steven Walker, Penzance

Science is taking a huge risk at becoming discredited with its CO2 theory. This theory has a 90% confidence rate. But what about the 10% How is the current profile going to be viewed in 10 years time after further global cooling, in spite of higher CO2 concentrations, with the link to climate and solar activity established This could turn humans to even more reckless treatment of the planet in future.
Iwan Jones, Horsham

The article is a bit misleading. While emissions have gone up atmospheric increases would be what mattered. The actual atmospheric increases are below the IPCC's projections so we would still only see about a 2C total anomaly even with business as usual. In fact, given the rate of output v/s the change in atmospheric levels of CO2 it may not even be possible to much more than double CO2 concentrations if we burned every last bit of coal known to exist.

Far more important than CO2 is the absurd notion that the energy, economic and industrial systems can somehow be manipulated to produce the results (and secondary results) many suggest. Pretty much every nation that has ever tried anything similar has been held back technologically, economically and socially (health and human rights) and usually been forced to embrace a free(er) market once again.

The newer types of nuclear plants are the best bet if you want to build power infrastructure NOW. There is enough uranium and thorium fuel to provide 120-250 years at the USA's per capita power usage (40kw/hr per day) for a population of 8 billion people! Long before this runs out we will have viable fusion and/or solar to take its place.

Solar-thermal is great but everyone needs to give up their all-or-nothing, anti-carbon attitude and add oil/gas burners that will allow the plants to operate at night and cloudy days...turning it into a base-load plant producing MOST of its power from solar. Since it provides base-load power this type of plant would actually INCREASE the grid's ability to tolerate other, more unstable renewables.

Solar photovoltaic is not yet ready and should never, I repeat NEVER be used as a significant source of grid-connected power at this time. Their manufacture is expensive, produces toxic waste and the expensive panels are prime targets for theft. In its concentrated form (strips of photovoltaic cells in front of parabolic mirrors) it is a bit more viable, but being DC it loses a significant portion of its energy in conversion to grid-compatible DC. Also unlike solar-thermal you cannot simply add a boiler/burner to convert it into a base-load plant. You would essentially need to have an entirely independent power plant for that, which is wasteful and expensive.

Wind...more resource intensive than you think (200 tons of steel, 1000 cubic meters of concrete per 4mw turbine) and you need about 3-5 times nameplate capacity to semi-reliably produce the nameplate capacity. The conditions within a wind farm provide intolerable living conditions for humans and it would take an array half the size of the UK to reliably produce the UK's power demands.

As I mentioned with solar-thermal, if the green groups would stop proposing unimaginably stupid and ineffective energy policies then they would get some of the progress they want and everyone would be happy to do it. Any viable solution that we are capable of undertaking today would necessarily require nuclear for base load, fossil fuels for backup or some of both.
Lloyd Burt, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

I think those politicians might actually agree on a climate deal. However, it is unrealistic to think that they will agree on all the specifics. They will have a basic plan but most likely continue negotiations on the details into mid/late 2010.
James Hwang, Irvine, US

This is the biggest hoax since Bernie Madoff.

First, the most plentiful green house gas by far is water vapor! Second, where are all the vineyards that were so common in England 1000 years ago Third, why don't we just disallow volcanic eruptions, that spew more carbon than man has since the beginning of time.

Yes, from the same genius' that brought you Y2K, 'Global Warming'. Except the nasty, real, scientific data confirms that we are now entering a global cooling period. As a matter of fact weather models agree that this winter will see temperatures much below normal in most of Europe with many records broken.

AND as a last parting shot, is the U.N. pressure of two years ago on leading climatologists to endose the stance that increased levels of carbon would cause such a massive increase in hurricanes that the southern coast of the U.S. would be a wasteland. There were no takers, as science did not agree with with such a ridiculous theory. This year to date, there have been no hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and hurricane season is almost over.
Tony C, Calgary

Well done Myles. We know both the approaches 'to act immediately' and 'to keep patience'. When somebody submerges in river, people do not see how he reached inside the river or they do not waste time in less important things, their first reaction is to jump and save that person in proper way. On the contrary, when we interact with a nice and honest youth, frustrated with some problem and behaving in angry and violent way, we need appropriate skill and patience to handle him. We require 'infinite patience' to handle some critical situations.

But, when I look at the current trends we are aggressive on most of the places, where we require 'patience' or 'infinite patience' and places where we need to 'act immediately' we are silent with 'infinite patience'. Look at the 'compounding effect' of the existing trends. At one hand population is growing at tremendous pace and on the other hand the natural reserves are rapidly declining. Non judicious life styles are expanding with rapid pace. The definition of 'minimum requirement' has been changed. We can see both 'actual and virtual carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide' in most of our things like electricity, concrete, milk, meat, vegetables and crops grown with fertilizers, transported items, fossil fuel based vehicles etc. We are running on the road where at one point of time, we would face utter crisis of food, water, air etc. with too many people.

Initially things would be difficult. Restricting population, changing life style, changing aggressive existing patterns of the economy would require lot of effort, dedication, skill and planning. Very soon things would become smooth when people would realize that 'the problems of transitions' are less difficult than 'the problems of the existing patterns'.

We do not have to blame anybody. It is the 'ingredients of the system' that needs to be changed. The representatives of the nations are part of the existing system. They represent the country. 'Collective attitude' always dominates the 'personal attitude'. If somebody rebels in the existing system possibility is that he may be thrown out. This is the peculiar nature of the problem. Therefore, need is to design a new system in such a way that it does not come in direct conflict with the existing pattern. Control on population through financial incentives, legislations and other mild means should be the first step in this direction. More we surrender under the existing pattern, more we make our task difficult in the near future. We must design suitable 'small interventions' in the existing pattern so that in the long run we would be able to get 'U turn' in relatively smooth way. The 'great transition' as suggested by Andrew Simms in the previous article must be consisting of many 'small interventions'.
Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India

Ya, I agree with him or her. Though it is not mandatory for them they have a great influence to change the amount of carbon emision and the world should not wait for the leaders, the people should be aware of thier envirnment. I really expect a great solution on the environmental problems atleast to contribut on helping the developing countries to subsidise on changing thier people's awarness to the environmental chalenges. May be the trilions of carbon could burn if the world did not act on it. at last we should fight environmental problems only by teaching people and gowing experts on the field environments.
yukuno yohannes ghebremedhin, Asmara, Eritrea

The Copenhagen Climate Summit will bring together concerned business leaders and governments from around the world to help kick-start the low-carbon revolution. Copenhagen can actually deliver a significant result for the benefit of future generations. It could create millions of new green jobs, unleash huge investments in new, low-carbon markets, and thereby spur economic growth. There will be the strong focus on energy saving and a secure energy supply. To minimize the global warming they must preserve trillionth tonne instead of release until 2050.
Engineer Md Abdus Salam, Kushtia Zilla Parishad, Bangladesh.

Does anybody want to join me in a cunning and devious plan to steal the trillionth tonne If they can't burn it then at least we will be able to stop global heating at 2 degrees! If only I had known, I would have stolen the 500 millionth tonne and stopped them burning that! I bet that tonne wasn't guarded so well!
Simon Mallett, Maidstone, Kent

History will show that the science of Anthropogenic Global Warming is based on Green hysteria and not actual scientific Facts. Computer predictions have absolutely no record of showing trends that match records from all parts of the planet. The idea that 350 ppm CO2 levels are the only way of avoiding a catastrophe is to ignore actual historical data. The psuedo scientific politically steered Carbon Footprint/Offset/Trading scam is just that, a scam with no proof of its veracity. Vast sums of money are being squandered to produce electrical power by any means other than the cheapest. The need for the latest Nuclear Power designs [as usual, no CO2!] and newer coal fired systems [clean coal is a myth at present] will be needed when the various alternative sources of power, wind/solar etc fail to provide anything more than a token and a very expensive token at that, of the needs of a badly power managed country - the UK. BTW Ozone layer was not saved by banning CFCs. The Ozone layer never had a hole and the present alternative to CFCs is proving to be a beg mistake! Yet another example of Green hysteria blinding the true facts. Myles Allen is reading the wrong books/papers.
Brian Johnson, Farnham Surrey UK

The only agreement that's likely to result from the Copenhagen meeting is an increase in the use of carbon trading, including its application to households and individuals. In other words, nothing is going to be done about the continued rise in emissions.
David, Cheshire

The trillionth tonne will surely be burnt; if we don't burn it another nation will be happy to buy it from us and burn it for their own use. Oil and Coal are incredibly versatile and energy-dense and while the world's energy requirements continue to rise, which they will, so too will the production of these fuels.

The problem with CCS. Carbon Capture sounds like the solution to all of our problems, necessitating that a value be placed on carbon stored in geological formations through either a carbon tax or a carbon trading scheme. Estimates of the UK's 'viable capacity' (as reported by the BGS) are in the region of 1.2 Gt of carbon in the best sites (i.e. depleted oil and gas fields). The CO2 stored will, for reasons of project economics and the opportunity of recovering a precious and versatile resource, be used in conjunction with EHR (Enhanced Hydrocarbon Recovery). The oil recovered is estimated to be approx. 2 billion barrels of oil - when one considers that North Sea Oil is primarily light and sweet, its fainal use will most likely involve its combustion releasing CO2 to the atmosphere not amenable to capture.

A back of the envelope calculation which did not include energy used in refining showed that there would be little (if any) net-saving of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

It seems to be that any value given to stored carbon simply makes the deal of recovery of difficult-to-get hydrocarbons a little sweeter. It is not surprising that there such an urgency to get the ball rolling on carbon-taxing since from 2010 the oil wells in the north sea will begin to be plugged and to have infrastructure removed, which could otherwise be adapted to CO2-EOR.

Also, is there sound science to suggest that removing a very small amount of CO2 from the atmosphere (while overall world emissions continue to grow) will produce a result that is predictable or even measurable against the background of natural climate variability (little talked about by the IPCC) I think not.

Besides, if we make drastic carbon cuts and observe surface temperature levelling off we will pat ourselves on the back. If, however, temperatures continue to rise, despite drastic action, we will say that we acted too late!

Being uncertain of the benefits of decarbonisation, are there things we could spend the money on that would have a lot of benefit now (both by improving quality of life and increasing the likelihood of successful adaptation to whatever climate change takes place) Surely so. (And here I refer you to work done by the Copenhagen Concensus)
C J Brent, Southampton

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Casting a net far into the future

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:02:31 -0500

VIEWPOINT
Phil MacMullen

Debates surrounding sustainable fishing are often framed in terms of how initiatives do or do not benefit the seafood industry, or fishermen themselves. In this week's Green Room, Phil MacMullen argues that these distinctions are far less important than the goal of sustaining the ocean ecosystem and the bounties it provides.

"Fishermen have been an easy target for much that is wrong with the marine environment today but that's not fair"

Food security is now recognised as a key global issue and fish should be playing an important part in providing that security.

This challenge has now been acknowledged at all levels, from the UN to consumers.

Global seafood consumption doubled between 1970 and 2000. The global population grew but increasing affluence and awareness of the health benefits of seafood also resulted in an increase in per capita consumption.

Capture fisheries have produced around 85 million tonnes annually since the mid-1980s with the gap between wild supply and overall demand filled by aquaculture.

With farmed fish feed containing less and less fishmeal, we're currently enjoying a period of stability in global seafood markets.

But it's plain that more people mean more pressure on the planet. Our seas and oceans need a better legal framework for managing the marine environment.

This must work for our long-term benefit by balancing the need for conservation against our need for food and other services.

Marine Bills

In the UK, that framework will be provided by Marine Bills currently going through our parliaments.

These will introduce "marine spatial planning" in order to accommodate the demands of a wide variety of commercial activities along with the need to protect special habitats and the wider marine environment.

The UK seafood industry supports this approach because it depends on a healthy marine environment.

But making marine planning work fairly and effectively is going to be very challenging: we all have to agree what we need to achieve through an inclusive process and we must base our decisions on the best possible information.

A broad seafood industry perspective is that fishermen must be recognised as an essential part of building a sustainable future for the marine environment.

Fishing and conservation are natural bedfellows. There's no reason why fishing shouldn't continue indefinitely and play its part in providing food for the future.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a key part of the Marine Bills. Designation will result in management arrangements that should protect the conservation status of each MPA.

But two contrasting approaches to this are apparent; one seems to view MPAs as a panacea to all the problems we face providing that a given proportion of our sea areas is designated for protection.

The other recognises that, whilst the principle is sound, each site must be identified on the basis of good evidence - including its ecological and human characteristics - and managed in order to achieve clear and measurable objectives.

The panacea proponents frequently claim that an MPA will automatically benefit commercial fisheries. A more measured approach will tell us that there may be fisheries benefits but these must be considered a bonus.

This confusion arises because most experience of MPAs comes from tropical or semi-tropical areas, often based on complex, reef-type habitats.

Most commercially exploited species in these habitats tend to be territorial, so restricting fishing will result in an increase in their populations.

In UK waters, however, most commercial finfish species range fairly widely so relatively small-scale MPAs will have little or no impact upon their status. On the other hand, many commercially important populations of shellfish in UK waters, such as lobsters and scallops, could benefit from carefully planned MPAs.

Spatial measures work well in fisheries management but are not the same as the conservation MPA approach.

Industry role

Global studies have demonstrated that successful MPA designation and management require the involvement of fishermen.

They can help to identify seabed features, collect environmental data and monitor sites. Involvement builds trust and can help to ensure appropriate, rather than aspirational, designation.

The industry also innovates in fisheries management. In recent years, the UK fishing industry has become more modern, efficient, forward-looking and environmentally conscious.

Measures to manage fishing effort and protect spawning areas have been introduced voluntarily by fishermen.

The Trevose Box was agreed between Cornish and continental fishermen and closes an area of 3600 square miles off North Cornwall each year to protect spawning flatfish.

In Scotland, the Conservation Credits Scheme allows fishermen to top up their days at sea allowance in return for conservation measures.

In Shetland, local fishermen have an agreement to limit sandeel catches to ensure adequate food for seabirds. These schemes are fully endorsed by groups like WWF and RSPB.

Fishermen have been an easy target for much that is wrong with the marine environment today but that's not fair. The industry has changed and we all need to look further ahead to some much more fundamental problems.

All that we have all been working for will come to nothing if we cannot address the problem of ocean acidification that is resulting from increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Put simply, if we don't resolve this one we will lose most of the services that our oceans provide, including providing us with 50% of our life-giving oxygen.

We must work together to create a sustainable marine environment for future generations, and we must conserve our oceans - one of mankind's greatest natural resources really is under threat.

Phil MacMullen is head of environmental responsibility at Seafish, an industry-funded body that aims to "support the seafood industry for a sustainable, profitable future".

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website.

Do you agree with Phil MacMullen Can sustainable fishing measures be drawn up that are fair to the industry and to the oceans, with seafood on our plates in perpetuity Will the current legislation, in place or in discussion, help to reach those goals

Perky the fish decided to hack onto the internet for a change and caught a glimpse of scientific articles saying fish in the sea might be largely gone in 50yrs due to overfishing, temperature rise and ocean acidification. He learned the Aurel Sea had largely dried up in a few decades when rivers were diverted. The future of coral reefs looked so bleak that serious consideration was given to freezing tissue samples for later reseeding. Upper regions of the atmosphere were thinning and cooling in response to surface warming and it was noted that a planet with a surface temp of over 800 degrees also had a cold outer atmosphere. Dead zones where spreading further out to sea where not much but jellyfish could live. Crop runoff, sonar testing, methane bubbles coming up from sediments, ... Perky couldn't sleep. Perky wasn't perky any more. John the fisherman looked out to sea. Cussing that rules kept him from getting the fish he knew were there just for the taking. No work today... Meanwhile at a store check out counter a customer thought to himself as he whipped out a reusable bag that it seemed odd that robotics were not being used to capture plastic build up far out to sea. Maybe it's time to fish for something else.
Dale Lanan, Longmont, Colorado, USA

I agree this very nice article which are important part of the climate change now in the world. Marine environment are vulnerable in the entire world and it is very essential to build up it sustainable for our future generation. Marine protected areas are now played a vital role in the conservation of marine world. But it is not sufficient for marine world. A lot of measures to be taken in the marine industry jurisdiction if we would like to see our green ocean. Definitely this discussion will create an positive impact in entire marine environment.
Ms Sharmin Akhter, Goshala,Kushtia,Bangladesh

Ocean acidification is only one symptom of the real problem; Human Activity And as we continue hurtling along in our daft expectation that somehow that Human Activity can spiral on upwards unchecked by anything; then eventually that growing pressure will cave in and collapse any and all of these MPA schemes. "The gun will always beat the armor" - unless we actually stop shooting ! None of the these schemes, be they bounded by GPS co-ordinates, or Technical limits on gear or fishing methods; none of these things can "save the oceans" if the people proposing them and policing them have no power to "push back" against that increasing pressure of Human Activity. The real question is whether these rules and their policemen have the mandate to say "you've had your lot, and you have to stop !" So these schemes may have a mandate for looking after the fish. But do they have a mandate to actually "stop" the human race in it's unquestioning expectation of ripping up "more more more" planetLike King Kanute holding his hand up to the tide; If the tide refuses to stop rising; these schemes are not worth a wet kipper ! Net size, or which bit of ocean we can set-aside now; are all irrellevant. These schemes and plans are all very well and dandy if things were to cruise along in steady state. But the problem is; the line on the graph is heading upwards The planet has steadfastly, stubbornly, remained 24,000 miles in diameter all the 50 years I have been here; but during my lifetime the Human race has doubled, and their individual expectations has gone up many fold on top of that. The question is; who's job is it to tell us to stop; when 7billion, 8billion, 9billion, 10billion . . . . more more more people keep on gate-crashing the planet expecting more more more things to eat, whilst the oceans themselves get more more more depletedWho's up for that jobOr is that getting into deep water
Steven Walker, Penzance

"Fishermen have been an easy target for much that is wrong with the marine environment today but that's not fair." I disagree vehemently that fishermen are not to blame. If they have changed at all they have done so in the last minute of the eleventh hour, having taken most fish stocks to under 10% of their natural level and, for many species, to the brink of extinction. For 40 years is has been clear that they have been acting like farmers who cut their trees down to pick the fruit. Mr MacMullen may choose to try to spare their blushes but every marine biologist I know does not feel so kindly towards them & their role in influencing politicians to allow them to over fish. They should be thoroughly ashamed of their recklessness.
Sebmel, London

I have difficulty reconciling the aims of 'Seafish' with the actions of their members. They continue to rape and pillage the sea, casting aside tons of juvenile fish on a daily basis, exterminating stocks, and returning or investing absolutely nothing to the sea. Its akin to farmers roaming the country, bulldozing fields at random, searching through the pile for whatever is saleable, and then moving on to the next field. Where is the sustainability
Steve Mclaughlin, Bathgate

Fisehries management as it is currently practiced and conservation of the marine environment are mutually exclusive. This is because all the effort is concentrated on the commercially important species such as haddock and cod. The health of the marine environment is best measured by its diversity. Species, such as halibut, turbot and all the different species of skates and rays that used to make up an important part of the total catch have all but disappeared and this does not appear to of concern to anyone in the fisheries management arena. If one compared catch diversity now with what it was 50 years ago no-one would doubt that the British sea are was overfished.
David W McKay, Portknockie,Buckie,Moray

The marine environment continues to be another classic environmental paradox. Just like the fallacy of carbon trading with companies offsetting or misrepresenting their accountabilities/ responsibilities, the concept of marine protection areas is totally undermined by a global market where fishing carrying capacities are either exceeded, or given over by poor nations to predatory rich nations. As for conservation regulations, they are ignored all ooften by needy locals seeking income or by techologically advanced marine asset stripping foreign interests. King Kanute and an overwhelming tide springs to mind! I have witnessed Indian communities robbed of their livelihood by governments giving over their rights to Japanese interests; coral reefs stripped of shells, ripped up by boatmen, bleached or polluted; and listened to Australian tourist orientated fishermen talk at bars of how they hate being told what to do by 'neo-nazi environmentalists'. Sorry to be blunt, but national authorities have a huge task to both properly assess marine capacities/markets/values and then re-educate/train both the supply chain and consumers. Part of that investment challenge is either (i) restoring local accountibility / responsibility and market value/viability - rather than the current trend in allowing disempowerment and exploitation of marine assets by foriegn interests; or (ii) Globalisation of asset management - but that would require a unique and robust regulation and enforcement body with sufficient/considerable powers/resources to bring predatory or unsustainable nations to account.
Steve Rees, Maidstone, Kent

The involvement of all fishers and stakeholders in the process of formulating policies and strategies surrounding use of our public fishery resources is sound. However, no sector interest should dominate and here in Europe the complete domination of the process by the commercial catching sector is the key reason for the decades of abject failure of the CFP. Prof. Thomas Okay of the Fisheries Dept., Uni. British Columbia spelt this out almost a decade ago. It is not coincidental that one of the areas globally recognised as having turned the normal story of fishery resource depletion around into one of staggeringly successful fishery resource rebuilding -- North East USA -- has only achieved this position once the previously industry dominated Fisheries Councils became re-jigged so that no one stakeholder interest dominates proceedings. In stark contrast the often celebrated EU Regional Area Councils (RACs) are fundamentally flawed because they are legally dominated with two thirds from the commercial fishing industry. Even at the local level the Sea Fisheries Committees (soon to be re-named Inshore Fisheries Conservation Associations) in the UK are dominated by commercial fishing representation. The real irony is that where sufficiently robust restraint/controls are imposed on the catching sector that allow depleted stocks to become restored, it is the catching sector that benefit in the long term. Currently however, it is the short term considerations that drive policy and that have been shown time and time again to be catastrophic.
Malcolm Gilbert, St Ives, Cornwall, TR26 3JF

It is good article / news not only for the local fishing industry, but also for the rest of the world. I believe that modern fishing practices caused the decimation. We see that over the past 30 years the flounder, and many other species of fish, have virtually disappeared. Scientists blame the disappearance on the destruction of eelgrass, an important underwater plant on which many marine animals depend. We must have to try to restore environments, try to learn about what we're doing to these ecosystems, try to prevent damage, is critically important. We should have to plan to monitor the eelgrass beds for further signs that the health of the ecosystem has been restored. It is very necessary to restore the essential underwater plant. Because,Eelgrass benefits many marine organisms. Our oceans are really international, so nothing can be done in one part of the globe to the oceans that doesn't start to impact the other parts of the ocean in some way.
Engineer Md Abdus Salam, Kushtia, Bangladesh

Over fishing, disposal of waste material in oceans and acidification are really most alarming issues. Economies must look at the impacts of their aggressive activities on the ocean reserves. We are constantly spoiling our buffer zones and cushions. One by one, we are closing all our 'emergency exits'. Millions of tones of plastic waste are floating in the area, North pacific Gyre. Matters are becoming worse as we are struggling to conclude suitable action plans. Still, the economic growth is a 'non negotiable' part. 'Delay and Postponement' is the only alternative. Representative from the nations are advocating their business interests prior to environmental issues. Some times, I get confused between environment minister and commerce & industry minister. High priority must be given to marine related issues through sound legislative provisions and their effective implementations as these are vital to the success of MPAs. The writer is absolutely correct; Involvement of fishermen is an important factor in the development of ocean life.

Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India

I'm writing this from next door to two derelict fish processing factories. A few prawn trawlers and creel boats still work from here; also several wildlife tour boats. Progress The whitefish fishery (cod, haddock) collapsed more than ten years ago, the herring fishery sometime before then (before my time here). We could do so much better. An obvious problem is that a fisherman's income remains entirely dependent on what he can catch and how much he can sell it for. This pits fisherman against fisherman, rewards those who can find ways around regulations, promotes those who can grab it and run faster than their competitors. There is little reward for acting responsibly with the future in mind if a less responsible competitor helps himself to what you don't take. The culture (free market-driven economy) of wild capture fisheries is all wrong for the levels of co-operation and collaboration needed to restore and protect wild fish populations. Fishermen need to have a secure income that is not tied to what they can catch, but rather how sustainably they manage fish stocks and how efficiently they harvest an agreed surplus. This requires ownership of harvesting rights, partnership working, and can probably only be achieved through government intervention. There can be many jobs in the wild fisheries management and harvesting industry, possibly many more jobs than there are now. More 'wild' fish could be nurtured and caught with much less effort (fuel, time, stress) through collaborative management and working. The financial culture of fishing has to change: harvesting technology has moved on; however the way it is applied has changed little from earlier millennia. Is there any rational in permitting the continuation of commercial 'hunting' of wild fish Here in Scotland large areas of forests are managed by the state for timber production, wildlife and amenity. Why can't local / national / regional fisheries commissions be developed to look after our marine resources in the same way
Peter Cunningham, Gairloch, Scotland

Iceland has Cod stocks because it did not have the Stupids of the EU deciding what quotas would be given. Watching UK trawlermen having to throw huge amounts of fish away, because of EU rules seems utter madness.
Brian Johnson, Farnham Surrey UK

Before we can strike a balance between exploiting the oceans and sustainably harvesting them we must realise that, as it stands, very few so-called 'sustainable' fisheries can be sustained at current levels (even MSC certified ones). As we move from one depleted species to another ie. cod to pollock or monkfish to gurnard, the underexploited fish becomes the next overexploited fish. Unlike wild land animals we treat wild marine species as nothing more than a commodity. Shooting seals (who have a right to their food) to protect farmed salmon is a case in point. We shall have to treat wild marine species as an infrequent luxury and pay a much higher price for them if we are ever to strike a safe balance when extracting marine species for food. Even now companies are exploiting krill to fill the fish oil demand left because of overexploited fish stocks. Talk about fishing down the food chain. What will we do when the krill have gone

Blue Planet Society, London

I think we should all just change our HABITS.
Angie Tschopp, Youngsville, NC USA

This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.