Curmudgeonly Yours,
'Mean Joe Green'

More: Bring city kids to nature, and since media/technology ain't going away let's push for some better programming!

Joe's cartoon archive, twitter ramblings and StumbleUpon page...

 

This article titled "Why the UK will fail to block an EU ban on bee-harming pesticides" was written by Damian Carrington, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 4th April 2013 07.30 UTC

The UK ministers attempting to block a Europe-wide suspension of the neonicotinoid insecticides increasingly linked to serious harm in bees are heading for a crashing defeat. That is the only conclusion I can draw having been given an insight into the arguments they are deploying by Prof Ian Boyd, the chief scientific adviser to environment secretary Owen Paterson.

"It is very finely balanced – there is no doubt about this at all," Boyd said. He gamely argued that the "balance of scientific evidence suggests [a ban] is not proportionate" and that a financial cost-benefit analysis indicated a ban would cause significant economic damage. Yet in almost the same breath he acknowledged that a definitive test of neonicotinoids has yet to done, over two decades after their first use, and that the data does not exist to do a proper cost-benefit analysis.

No wonder the UK finds itself, with Germany, isolated among the EU's major nations. France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands – all major farming nations – all back the Commission's proposed suspension of neonicotinoids on flowering crops like oil seed rape.

This tale is complex and involves science, economics and politics, so let's take them in turn. Boyd assessed the balance of scientific evidence by comparing three semi-field studies showing harm (there are more) with five field studies, suggesting no harm (refs 1-8 here). He raised questions about the doses used in the former studies, but you should note that all three were published in the world's most prestigious peer-reviewed journals, Science and Nature.

Of the five opposing studies, one was the government's own catastrophic research where the supposed control hives suffered serious neonic contamination. That's not surprising, given that neonics are the most widely used insecticides in the world but I will be surprised if the work ever passes peer review.

"It is extremely difficult to have a control in a landscape where neonicotinoids are widely used," said Boyd, highlighting the very problem a suspension would solve.

Another of the five studies Boyd cites was done by a contract research organisation and also remains unpublished in a journal or even online. The three remaining studies do appear in second or third rank journals, but even then one was funded by the German agrochemical industry.

To me, the balance of quality research points clearly to unacceptable harm, the same conclusion reached by the independent experts at the European Food Safety Agency. Boyd did criticise the chemical companies making the neonics for not publishing their own data: "I believe all those data should be open access, everyone should be able to see them. There are issues of intellectual property and commercial confidentiality but I don't think they are insurmountable."

He also criticised the lack testing for bee harm over the last 20 years of neonic use: "I don't think it is acceptable. We should have been testing for these kinds of effects right from the beginning." However, when asked whether there were any upcoming studies that could tilt the fine balance one way or the other, he said: "I don't know of one in the pipeline that is going to address the question we need addressed." That makes a mockery of Paterson's repeated plea to wait for more research before taking any action.

Boyd was also revealing on how the cost-benefit analysis appears to be at the heart of the UK government's opposition to a ban. I'll quote him at length: "If neonics are having an effect on bees, it may be a relatively small effect, [but] the question in my mind is: is that effect on pollination balanced off by the costs it would incur if we banned neonicotinoids?" That's a reasonable question - if short-term economic impact is the measure you value over long term environmental health.

But even this argument crumbled in Boyd's very next sentence: "The cost-benefit analysis is a very difficult analysis to do, in fact we really don't have full data to be able to do analysis like that. But it does suggest the cost-benefit trade off at the moment is weighted towards retaining neonicotinoids, because if you just cast this in purely financial terms then you move in the direction of having a significant financial cost associated with taking neonicotinoids out of the system." Particularly striking in terms of the lacking data was Boyd's admission that there is "no information at all" on the changing state of overall insect pollination. So how that is dealt with in the cost-benefit analysis?

Despite not having the full data to do the cost-benefit analysis, the UK government has concluded that the financial cost of a neonic ban are likely to be too great. Again, I am not surprised at this given that Paterson's over-riding instruction from prime minister David Cameron is to grow the economy. Why take even a theoretical risk?

Given the uncertainties, and the fact that as Boyd put it "there are many definitions of the precautionary principle", the outcome of the proposal to suspend neonics will in the end come down to the politics.

"The science goes so far and then the policy and political people pick that up and they assimilate a whole range of different views, some of which are evidence based and some of which are not so evidence based, and they will come to their own conclusions that suit their own particular circumstances," said Boyd. "It is very finely balanced. You can very easily get some people or countries sitting one side of the line, and some sitting the other side of the line and some sitting right on the line."

Given that the same science is available to all EU countries, that all the big countries that dominate EU voting have significant farming sectors and that public pressure for a neonic ban is high in all countries, what are the other factors that have put the UK and Germany on the other side of the line from France, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands?

I genuinely have no idea. But I am finding it harder and harder to ignore the coincidence that the dominant manufacturers of neonicotinoids are Bayer, based in Germany, and Syngenta, which has a major UK presence.

Note: In the first version of this blog I said Syngenta was based in the UK. It is in fact a Swiss company, but has a major UK presence having been formed by the merger of Swiss and UK companies.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

More on GMO's and Monsanto

From PlanetSave: 5 Appalling Facts About The Monsanto Protection Act Obama Signed Into Law (GMO Heaven)
From Salon: How the Monsanto Protection Act snuck into law
From Grist: Even the Tea Party is pissed about the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’

Joe's cartoon archive and twitter ramblings 

by Justin Elliott, ProPublica

When President Obama nominated Ernest Moniz to be energy secretary earlier this month, he hailed the nuclear physicist as a "brilliant scientist" who, among his many talents, had effectively brought together "prominent thinkers and energy companies" in the continuing effort to figure out a safe and economically sound energy future for the country.

Indeed, Moniz's collaborative work 2013 best captured in the industry-backed research program he oversaw at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2013 is well known. So, too, is his support for Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy 2013 one that embraces, fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewable energy sources.

But beyond his job in academia, Moniz has also spent the last decade serving on a range of boards and advisory councils for energy industry heavyweights, including some that do business with the Department of Energy. That includes a six-year paid stint on BP's Technology Advisory Council as well as similar positions at a uranium enrichment company and a pair of energy investment firms.

Such industry ties aren't uncommon for cabinet nominees, and Obama specifically praised Moniz for understanding both environmental and economic issues.

Still, Moniz's work for energy companies since he served in President Clinton's Energy Department has irked some environmentalists.

"His connections to the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries threaten to undermine the focus we need to see on renewables and energy efficiency," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Slocum pointed out that Moniz, if confirmed, will set research and investment priorities, including at the department's network of national laboratories.

The Energy Department hands out billions of dollars in contracts and loan guarantees as it pushes energy research and development and administers the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and cleanup efforts. (On fracking, probably the highest-profile energy issue of the moment, the Environmental Protection Agency has jurisdiction.)

Reaction to Moniz's nomination has been mixed among environmental groups, ranging from support (Natural Resources Defense Council) to concerned acceptance (Sierra Club) to outright opposition (Food and Water Watch).

What criticism there has been has focused on his support for nuclear power and for natural gas extracted through fracking as a "bridge fuel" to transition away from coal.

Here's what we know about Moniz's recent involvement with the energy industry:

• He was on BP's Technology Advisory Council between 2005 and 2011, a position for which he received a stipend, according to BP. Spokesman Matt Hartwig said the company does not disclose details of such payments. (A 2012 BP financial report disclosed that one council member received about $6,200.) The council "provides feedback and advice to BP's executive management as to the company's approach to research and technology," according to the company. BP has also provided $50 million in funding to Moniz's MIT Energy Initiative. Moniz talked about that relationship while delivering a warm introduction before a 2009 speech at MIT by BP's then-CEO Tony Hayward.
• From 2002 to 2004, Moniz sat on the strategic advisory council of USEC, a public company that provides enriched uranium to nuclear power plants. A company spokesman said Moniz was paid for his role on the nine-member council, but declined to say how much. USEC, which has been seeking a $2 billion loan guarantee from the Energy Department for a centrifuge plant in Ohio, has applauded Moniz's nomination.
• He's on the board of ICF International, a Fairfax, Virginia-based company which does energy and environmental consulting. It has received Energy Department contracts as part of what one executive called a "longstanding relationship with the Department of Energy." As a board member, Moniz got $158,000 in cash and stock in 2011, according to the company's most recent annual report.
• He is on the strategic advisory council of NGP Energy Technology Partners, a private equity firm that invests in both alternative energy and fossil fuel companies. The Washington, D.C.-based firm declined to comment.
• He is on the board of advisers of another private equity firm, the Angeleno Group,which says it provides "growth capital for next generation clean energy and natural resources companies." The Los Angeles-based firm didn't respond to requests for comment.
• He is a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC), a Saudi Aramco-backed nonprofit organization. The organization did not respond to requests for comment.
• He was on the board of directors of the Electric Power Research Institute from 2007 to 2011, following a stint on the group's advisory council that began in 2002. A nonprofit utility consortium, the organization does research for the industry with an annual budget of over $300 million. The group paid Moniz $8,000 between 2009 and 2011, according to its most recent tax returns.
• Since 2006, Moniz has been on the board of General Electric's "ecomagination" advisory board which advises the company on "critical environmental and business issues." The company did not respond to inquiries about compensation.

A spokesperson for the MIT Energy Initiative said Moniz is not giving interviews, and the White House didn't respond to requests for comment.

Moniz's nomination has not encountered resistance from the Senate, where the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Moniz April 9.

As part of the nomination process, Moniz has to fill out a financial disclosure that will become public, along with an ethics agreement on how he will avoid any conflicts of interest.

If confirmed Moniz won't be the first energy secretary who has been close to industry.

Steven Chu, the outgoing energy secretary, received scrutiny over his ties to BP. The company had chosen the lab Chu headed at the University of California, Berkeley, to lead a $500 million energy research project. BP's chief scientist at the time of the grant, Steven Koonin, became Chu's undersecretary for science.

When the Energy Department became involved in the government's response to the 2010 Gulf oil spill, Koonin recused himself.  Critics who thought the administration was too soft on the company pointed to Chu's ties to BP. But no evidence emerged that Chu had played any role going to bat for BP within the administration.

 Photo:  Some rights reserved by jeanbaptisteparis via flickr

This article titled "UK's CO2 emissions up 4.5% in 2012" was written by Damian Carrington and Severin Carrell, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 28th March 2013 16.48 UTC

The UK's emissions of climate-warming gases surged in 2012 as cheap coal replaced gas in power stations, official data revealed on Thursday.

However, 2012 was a record year for renewable energy in Scotland, which produced enough electricity to power all of its homes. Fergus Ewing, the Scottish energy minister, said his government was now on track to meet its target of generating the equivalent of 50% of Scotland's own electricity needs by 2015 and 100% by 2020.

The UK's carbon dioxide emissions rose by 4.5% from 2011-12, with coal use in power stations jumping by 31%. Coal prices have dropped significantly as the US has exported the coal it no longer needs at home due to the shale gas boom. Another factor is that many of the UK's coal-fired power stations must close soon, due to European pollution regulations, meaning they have been using up their allotted hours. The gas used in power stations dropped by 31%.

But there was a jump in the gas used to heat homes due to a cold last quarter of 2012, which the department for energy and climate change said had been 2.3C colder than Q4 2011. The cold weather in the UK in recent weeks led to gas reserve levels falling to just two days worth, with the price spiking as a result.

Emissions rose in the business sector, despite the UK's flatlining economy. But pollution from transport – a quarter of all emissions – fell by 1.2%. Overall, the UK's emissions remain about 20% lower than in 1990, largely due to gas replacing coal and some industry moving manufacturing abroad. The statistics also showed that UK imports of energy were higher in 2012 than for several decades.

"Emissions are now 26% lower than 1990, meaning we're on track to meet our legally binding targets," said energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey. "But the line on the graph is unlikely to be totally straight, as factors such as the weather and fluctuations in the precise energy mix vary the picture from one year to the next. The UK's continued shift to low carbon will be accelerated by the green deal to help householders overhaul their properties, and by our energy bill's reforms to the electricity market to bring on investment in renewables, new nuclear and CCS."

Nick Molho, head of energy policy at WWF-UK, said: "The government's role on energy is threefold: ensuring energy security, keeping bills down and decarbonising our energy system. These statistics are worrying, because they show that the UK is going the wrong way in all these areas. Increased reliance on fossil fuel imports is the main problem we face and the sad thing is that it's government policies, notably driven by the Treasury, that are causing this."

Kathy Cumming at Greenpeace said: "These figures show the 'greenest government ever' is failing in its bid to shift the UK to a low-carbon economy. The two best things it could do in order to redeem itself are support Tim Yeo's energy bill amendment, which would remove carbon from the electricity sector by 2030, and put an end to coal burning."

The statistics came out on the day that energy minister John Hayes – an outspoken opponent of onshore wind farms – was moved out of the department. His replacement, Michael Fallon, will also retain his post at the department of business, which some stakeholders hope will mean the coalition doing more to boost investor confidence in the energy sector, which needs £110bn by 2020.

In Scotland, renewable energy output has continued to grow markedly, hitting a new record of 14,600Gwh in 2012, up by 7% on the previous year. Windfarm output was four times greater than in 2006.

Scottish wind and hydro schemes generated 35% of the UK's total renewables output in 2012, and that – averaged out across the year – provided enough green electricity for every home in Scotland.

"It was another record year for renewables in Scotland," Ewing said. "Scotland also contributed more than a third of the entire UK's renewables output, demonstrating just how important a role our renewable resource is playing in terms of helping the UK meet its binding EU renewable energy targets."

The industry body Scottish Renewables said £1.5bn had been invested in renewables in Scotland last year – more than double the spending in 2011 – but there are doubts within the industry and among investors about whether the 100% target can be achieved. Hitting that target will rely heavily on expensive and technically challenging large offshore windpower schemes; there is much less capacity for larger onshore schemes.

The Scottish government is under intensifying pressure from environment and climate campaigners to improve its CO2 emissions reduction and climate strategies, after admitting it had failed to meet its 2010 reduction target.

The UK's official committee on climate change said the very cold winter in 2010 was largely to blame for the missed target, but Stop Climate Chaos Scotland said the government would miss its targets for several years to come because its climate strategies were too weak.

The Scottish government's targets are highly dependent on the EU increasing its CO2 reduction targets from 20% to 30%, but that is not expected before 2016. While anxious to champion energy investment, Scottish ministers are very reluctant to target motorists or cut road building, and are accused of under-investing in home insulation and low-carbon motoring.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled "Drought that ravaged US crops likely to worsen in 2013, forecast warns" was written by Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 21st March 2013 18.12 UTC

The historic drought that laid waste to America's grain and corn belt is unlikely to ease before the middle of this year, a government forecast warned on Thursday.

The annual spring outlook from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicted hotter, drier conditions across much of the US, including parts of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, where farmers have been fighting to hang on to crops of winter wheat.

The three-month forecast noted an additional hazard, however, for the midwest: with heavy, late snows setting up conditions for flooding along the Red and Souris rivers in North Dakota.

"It's a mixed bag of flooding, drought and warm weather," Laura Furgione, the deputy director of NOAA's weather service told a conference call with reporters.

Last year produced the hottest year since record keeping began more than a century ago, with several weeks in a row of 100+degree days. It also brought drought to close to 65% of the country by summer's end.

The cost of the drought is estimated at above bn, greater than the economic damage caused by hurricane Sandy

The drought area has now fallen back somewhat to 51% of the country. But even the heavy snowfalls some parts of the country have seen were not enough to recharge the soil, the NOAA scientists said.

The agency was forecasting above-normal temperatures in the south-west and other parts of the country, with only the Pacific north-west expected to experience below-normal temperatures.

It said drought conditions were likely to remain in the central and western parts of the country, and could expand in California, the south-west, the southern Rockies and Texas. The Florida panhandle should also anticipate drought conditions, according to the forecast.

Scientists warned of an increased risk of wildfires, because of the dry conditions, for parts of Minnesota and northern Iowa.

Other areas of the country however were in line for floods, with the most significant along the Red and Souris Rivers in North Dakota. NOAA said it was also expecting some 20,000 acres of farm land to be flooded in the Devil's Lake area of North Dakota.

Some flooding was also expected along the upper Mississippi into southern Wisconsin, northern Missouri and parts of South Dakota and Iowa.

Meanwhile, a poor snowpack suggests the drought will persist in the Rocky Mountain states and California.

"The drought that we accumulated over the last five or six years in the middle part of the country and also the south-west is going to take a long time to remove," said Furgione. "The deficits in the soil and very unlarged, and it is very unlikely the seasonal mean precipitation will ameliorate that."

Farmers had been anticipating a poor start to the growing season, especially in the south-west and areas such as Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, where the drought has not relaxed its grip.

Farmers in some areas did not even bother to plant winter wheat this year.

The prospect of another dry year caused concern along the Mississippi where low levels held up barge traffic last year. A coalition of mayors from towns along the river visited Washington this week to press for funds to keep the waterway open.

"If the river is shut out, that's 0m a day that is affected by that in economic losses because you can not shift the traffic up and down the river," said Hyram Copeland, mayor of Vidalia, Louisiana.

Communities across the wheat and corn-growing areas, that took the brunt of last year's drought, had been looking for heavy snows and rains this winter to prime the land for the next planting season.

"The bottom line is we need a big spring because we do not have the buffer or carryover we did coming into 2012," Mark Svoboda, a climatologist at the National Drought Mitigation Center, told a forum on Wednesday.

However, the forecast suggests that big spring will not materialise.

The scientists also note a growing demand for water – for cities, for agriculture – is leaving the country even more exposed to hotter, drier years like 2012.

"We have seen changes to our vulnerability to drought," Svoboda said. "More straws in the drink is putting more demand on a finite water resource."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

More on Renewable Energy (and Peace)

From PlanetSave: Wind & Solar Are Shining Examples of US Economic Success, Potential, & Jobs (but Under Threat)
From Greenpeace: The Energy [R]evolution 2012
From Democracy Now: Global Warming & War: New Study Finds Link Between Climate Change and Conflict

Joe's cartoon archive and twitter ramblings