Tuesday, March 31, 2009

What the global warming pigeons actually say to the cheshire cat

global-warming.jpgIf you are still scratching your head after yesterday's post about Freeman Dyson and the pitfalls of the global warming debate, it might help to actually find out more about what the global warming "cassandras" are, and have been, shouting about. Are they really as far off as Prof. Dyson seems to think? Are the models and projections so completely unreliable as to be useless for setting even broad policies to contain our impacts on our environment? After all, the models do come with error estimates. And even Prof. Dyson agrees that the current observed warming is largely anthropogenic (a crucial point, for those on the right who might seize upon Dyson as another skeptic in their ilk) - he just disagrees about the consequences, and thinks we can invent our way out of the problem with biotechnology (e.g., carbon-eating trees - never mind actual plant physiology!). If the cause is agreed upon, why shouldn't we start addressing that in the first place, especially if we are unsure about outcomes? Whatever happened to the precautionary principle, Prof. Dyson?  


As it happens, the National Academy of Sciences is hosting, right now (Mar 30-31), a summit on America's Climate Choices! What's more, as you'll see if you click on that link, they are also webcasting (and archiving) the entire summit for everyone in the world to see. How about that for transparency in science and policy discussions? Here's the complete agenda, so you can pick and choose which session to watch - but it should all be worthwhile for any citizen interested in what policy options are available and how choices may be made.


I've also found a small number of useful publications articulating the global warming argument (i.e., the argument for doing something to arrest/reverse it) made available freely as PDFs in recent months. These documents (all well-considered, sobering pieces, rather different in tone from Al Gore's lecture/documentary) should at least help the naysayers understand where the IPCC/Hansen et al are coming from. These should get you started, if you are unfamiliar with or still skeptical about the case for worrying about global warming:



These may not be enough to convince the cognitively dissonant genius of Freeman Dyson, but they should do to get the rest of us ordinary folks thinking about what we should, collectively, do about it. If you've got other freely available resources to add to this list, let me know.



Read more...

Monday, March 30, 2009

I guess I must be a misguidedthrope...

... and welcome to my club!


Here's your welcome cartoon, if you are still confused about where I stand after reading seemingly contradictory things about various environmental conservation debates on this blog!


misguidedthrope.gif

Read more...

An intellectual heavy-weight cat among the global warming pigeons

How did Freeman Dyson, the world-renowned physicist and public intellectual, wind up opposing those who care most about global warming? The New York Times has the fascinating story, in an excellent article published last week (which I only just found today - thanks @lelap!). Its a long article, and I haven't digested it fully yet, but it should be read by everyone concerned about global warming and environmentalism - on every side of the issue.


Dyson brings an interesting mix of a proper theoretician's skeptical perspective on models (i.e., they are just models, and therefore must be taken with large grains of salt) and a limitless (almost Panglossian) optimism about the future and about human possibilities. It really is a curious, fascinating mix: on the one hand he is skeptical (and rightly so) about our ability to understand and forecast future climate change because our models are incomplete - so doomsayers like Jim Hansen and Al Gore should take the chill pill and calm down a bit (agreed); on the other hand, he also believes we are capable of inventing "carbon-eating" trees that will clean up any excess carbon and improve our lives (say what?)! Where else can one find strong skepticism about one area of science combined with equally strong (but uncritical?) optimism about other areas of science & technology? What an absolutely brilliant concoction of cognitive dissonance!! And what a way to think about our species' hubris - whether we think we understand enough to predict what will happen on the one hand, or that we can find a technological fix to ride over any problem confronting us, including ones of our own making! This is just the sort of thing I like to subject my students to in Reconciliation Ecology. And it also puts me in mind (once again) of that professional puncturer of human hubris - George Carlin, whose famous rant about Earth Day I just referred to in my previous post about Earth Hour.


read more | digg story



Read more...

Saturday, March 28, 2009

At Earth Hour tonight, switch off the lights, and your cynicism too!

Earth Hour LogoWhat's wrong with turning our lights off for an hour? Especially if a billion or more of our species do it worldwide today? And not just turn out the lights, but as many other power-consuming devices as possible? And then hang out with friends / family for some conversations in the dark / by candlelight / firelight? Moreover, what's wrong with getting some of our institutions to turn off the lights, for instance at normally brightly lit monuments or buildings? So why are some of my friends and colleagues, conservationists otherwise, turning cynical about this movement which seems to have caught much of the world's imagination?


Of course, I'm talking about Earth Hour, the annual global cascading power down which started just two years ago in Sydney, Australia, to get people thinking about global warming, and has now spread so much that even the Chinese govt. agencies turned the lights out in some famous places today (pictures here). Here's a video promoting the event, in case you haven't seen it yet:











With the celebrity endorsements, TV ads, and news coverage even from Fox (yeah!), today's Earth Hour is turning out to be bigger even than last year's. I don't know if it'll reach the goal of 1 billion people "voting earth" as the campaign puts it, but that doesn't really matter, does it? The main goal, surely, is to get everyone talking about it, and about global warming, and what we, even as individuals, can do about it. And that part has been really successful, with the message ubiquitous, including (or course) on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Of course, many global warming "skeptics" and others on the right scoff at such "empty gestures" and "feel goodism" (to steal a phrase from someone responding to the Fresno Bee last year). But why is this reaction shared by some on our side of the global warming fight? On Facebook, one friend remarks:



The amount of electricity used to inform everyone (via email, TV, etc.) about "Earth Hour" on March 28, 2009 was nearly twelve times as much as the expected savings.



... and several others jump in nodding vigorously in agreement, even claiming that this whole campaign is just more FUD! As if those communication channels (email, TV, etc.) were switched on explicitly for the purpose of promoting Earth Hour, and would have otherwise been off saving electricity! Really? On another thread, a friend's joining the cause brings more abuse, with an offer to throw a "fuck the earth" party instead!! And others argue this is all just fantasyland, and has nothing to do with the real world! Even biting sarcasm doesn't go unpunished!


Huh?!


Is turning the lights off and hanging out in the darkness for an hour really all that bad? Perhaps you should also switch off your cynicism for that hour? Go ahead, try it - join others in the dark for an hour, and embrace some optimism that it is possible to get a bunch of people to come together to talk about the environment, even if fleetingly, for an hour. Not too much, just an hour of this fellowship. It won't hurt you! Even if, in the long run, we human beings are fucked anyway, being but Earth's way to make itself some plastic! An hour's rest ought to, at least, renew your spirit of cynicism as you get back to dealing with the real world. Even your cynicism needs some rest now and then, surely?


Meanwhile, enjoy these pictures:



Now I better go look for some candles and matches... for I've got a pile of exams to grade, and such a perfect opportunity to recreate that famous opening scene from Satyajit Ray's movie "Jana Aranya" (The Middleman) - the one where the examiner fails our "hero" because he cannot read his writing by candlelight during Kolkata's famous load-shedding!


Happy darkness!


Read more...

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Shy flowers on a cold spring morning in the Sierra foothills (Friday Photo)

Even as California continues to experience a drought, and the region is facing water shortages, this winter-spring has brought just enough precipitation to allow the wildflowers to blanket the Sierra Nevada foothills in a riot of colors the like of which I haven't seen in the five years I've lived in this area. My colleagues and students have noticed an increasing grumpiness in me these past couple of weeks, and part of the reason is that I really want to be out there in them thar hills traipsing through the wildflowers, not cooped up in the concrete of the Science building (where, to be fair, I have had quite a few glimpses of snowclad hills this spring - but that only makes being in the office worse!)! Why do we have spring break in April in this goshdarned valley, when actual spring has long since passed us by? I know, I know, it probably has to do with a certain religious holiday in early April - but that's a subject of a rant I'll save for another day. For now, this Friday, let me share some of my attempts to capture the fleeting beauty of spring in the Sierra foothills onto a few digital images. I've managed finally to create a Flickr album to collect these images, including this one of a dewy Baby Blue Eyes and some Goldfields (I think) apparently feeling too shy and/or sleepy to face the morning sun (on tuesday Mar 24) after the equinox weekend's cold snap:


blue and yellow, turning away


Click on the picture to access the entire gallery, which I hope will provide you some relief even at your computer desk. Especially if you've been tearing your hair out this week while watching the circus of the Texas State Board of Education watering down their standards of how science is taught in that state! (And please do let me know if I've made any errors of identification - floral taxonomy is not my forte!).


Happy Spring, wherever you are! And I also wish you total blissful darkness - or romantic candlelight - this saturday when we celebrate Earth Hour!



Read more...

Friday, March 20, 2009

I'm an Atheist (and I'm Okay) - out 'n about on this Freethinking Friday!

Yes, it is Freethinking Friday, or Atheist Pride Day today. Shine that Scarlet A, sing this version of the lumberjack song, and join the celebration!



Read more...

Thursday, March 19, 2009

More on the state of American birds

Via Ellen Paul on Ornith-L comes news of the release of a new report (downloadable as pdf) and website on the State of the Birds in the US. And this comes right on the heels of the USFWS report on the Birds of Conservation Concern released a couple of days ago - two such reports in one week! Much to read... but where do I manufacture the time? Perhaps you have some more than me - if so, read the press release below the fold, visit the website for the full report, and tell me what you think, won't you? Start with this video overview (with a somewhat hokey voiceover) from the good folks at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology:











Secretary Salazar Releases Study Showing Widespread Declines in Bird Populations, Highlights Role of Partnerships in Conservation


Washington, D.C. – Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today released the first ever comprehensive report on bird populations in the United States, showing that nearly a third of the nation’s 800 bird species are endangered, threatened or in significant decline due to habitat loss, invasive species, and other threats.


The report is available at http://www.stateofthebirds.org (embargoed until 2:30 pm EDT)


At the same time, the report highlights examples, including many species of waterfowl, where habitat restoration and conservation have reversed previous declines, offering hope that it is not too late to take action to save declining populations.


“Just as they were when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring nearly 50 years ago, birds today are a bellwether of the health of land, water and ecosystems,” Salazar said. “From shorebirds in New England to warblers in Michigan to songbirds in Hawaii, we are seeing disturbing downward population trends that should set off environmental alarm bells. We must work together now to ensure we never hear the deafening silence in our forests, fields and backyards that Rachel Carson warned us about.”


The report, The U.S. State of the Birds, synthesizes data from three long-running bird censuses conducted by thousands of citizen scientists and professional biologists.


In particular, it calls attention to the crisis in Hawaii, where more birds are in danger of extinction than anywhere else in the United States. In addition, the report indicates a 40 percent decline in grassland birds over the past 40 years, a 30 percent decline in birds of aridlands, and high concern for many coastal shorebirds. Furthermore, 39 percent of species dependent on U.S. oceans have declined.


“Habitats such as those in Hawaii are on the verge of losing entire suites of unique bird species,” said Dr. David Pashley, American Bird Conservancy’s Vice President for Conservation Programs. “In addition to habitat loss, birds also face many other man-made threats such as pesticides, predation by cats, and collisions with windows, towers and buildings. By solving these challenges we can preserve a growing economic engine – the popular pastime of birdwatching that involves millions of Americans – and improve our quality of life.”


However, the report also reveals convincing evidence that birds can respond quickly and positively to conservation action. The data show dramatic increases in many wetland birds such as pelicans, herons, egrets, osprey, and ducks, a testament to numerous cooperative conservation partnerships that have resulted in protection, enhancement and management of more than 30 million wetland acres.


“These results emphasize that investment in wetlands conservation has paid huge dividends,” said Kenneth Rosenberg, director of Conservation Science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. “Now we need to invest similarly in other neglected habitats where birds are undergoing the steepest declines.”


“While some bird species are holding their own, many once common species are declining sharply in population. Habitat availability and quality is the key to healthy, thriving bird populations,” said Dave Mehlman of The Nature Conservancy.


Surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological Survey, including the annual Breeding Bird Survey, combined with data gathered through volunteer citizen science program such as the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, show once abundant birds such as the northern bobwhite and marbled murrelet are declining significantly. The possibility of extinction also remains a cold reality for many endangered birds.


“Citizen science plays a critical role in monitoring and understanding the threats to these birds and their habitats, and only citizen involvement can help address them,” said National Audubon Society’s Bird Conservation Director, Greg Butcher. “Conservation action can only make a real difference when concerned people support the kind of vital habitat restoration and protection measures this report explores.”


Birds are beautiful, as well as economically important and a priceless part of America's natural heritage. Birds are also highly sensitive to environmental pollution and climate change, making them critical indicators of the health of the environment on which we all depend.


The United States is home to a tremendous diversity of native birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting terrestrial, coastal, and ocean habitats, including Hawaii. Among these species, 67 are Federally-listed as endangered or threatened. In addition, more than 184 species are designated as species of conservation concern due to a small distribution, high-level of threats, or declining populations.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service coordinated creation of the new report as part of the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative, which includes partners from American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Klamath Bird Observatory, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Geological Survey.


The report is available at http://www.stateofthebirds.org (embargoed until 2:30 pm EDT).


Contacts:

Hugh Vickery (DOI), (202) 501-4633

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Alicia King, 703-358-2522/571-214-3117, Alicia_F_King@fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Vanessa Kauffman, 703-358-2138, Vanessa_kauffman@fws.gov

American Bird Conservancy: Steve Holmer, 202-234-7181, sholmer@abcbirds.org

Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Pat Leonard, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 607-254-2137, pel27@cornell.edu

National Audubon Society: Nancy Severance, 212-979-3124, nseverance@audubon.org

The Nature Conservancy: Blythe Thomas, 703-841-8782, bthomas@tnc.org

Klamath Bird Observatory: Ashley Dayer, 541-324-0281, aad@klamathbird.org


______________________________________________________________________________________


Statement by Darin Schroeder, Vice President for Conservation Advocacy, American Bird Conservancy, at the U.S. State of the Birds Release


National Press Club, 2:30 pm EDT, March 19, 2009


American Bird Conservancy appreciates Secretary Salazar’s leadership in addressing the nation about the important findings of the U.S. State of the Birds report, and the hard work of the Fish and Wildlife Service and all of the partners groups involved in making this report possible.


America is blessed with a spectacular abundance and diversity of birds, with more than 800 species inhabiting the mainland, Hawaii, and surrounding oceans. Birdwatching is one of the nation’s most popular pastimes, engaging millions of Americans; and it is big business, estimated to generate $45 billion dollars in economic activity each year. Birds are also a critical element of our farming industry as pollinators of crops and controllers of pests, as well as being key indicators of the health of the environment on which we all depend.


Unfortunately, State of the Birds tells us that hundreds of bird species are in decline, and some are threatened with extinction. America has a serious challenge to reverse this situation, but it is possible. If this report tells us anything, it is that when we apply ourselves by investing in conservation, we can save imperiled wildlife, protect habitats, and solve the multiple threats at the root of this problem.


State of the Birds documents that the birds of Hawai’i, the birthplace of President Obama, are in the greatest peril. Many Hawaiian bird species are on the brink of extinction, and ten species have not been seen in years. Action is urgently needed to conserve and restore habitat, and to address the multiple threats causing these declines, including the spread of diseases that have decimated many forest bird populations.


The Akekee is a rapidly declining Hawaiian forest bird proposed for listing as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Photo by Jim Denny. High resolution photos available.


Many bird habitats in Hawai’i have been permanently lost to development, and others degraded by the impacts of invasive plants and animals. What habitat remains must be protected, and we need to invest in jobs to remove and fence out invasive animals from conservation areas. There is also a need to invest in more science to study bird species we know too little about, and to develop new and innovative solutions to stem population declines.


Also in great peril are many species of oceanic birds. Overfishing is eliminating food sources; oil spills and other pollutants, as well as millions of tons of trash dumped in the ocean each year, are continuing to harm birds – much work remains to be done. Progress is being made to reduce the direct mortality caused when birds are hooked on fishing gear in American waters, and we congratulate all those who have acted to bring this change about, but globally seabird bycatch remains a serious problem. The United States can help resolve this issue by becoming a signatory to the international Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and we believe this should be a high priority for U.S. lawmakers and the President this year.


Across America, birds face a gauntlet of threats to their survival including pesticides, collisions, domestic cats, and habitat loss.


While many of the most harmful pesticides to birds have been banned or restricted in the United States, a few remain on the market, and these must be better regulated or cancelled. Many pesticides that are banned here are still used in other countries, poisoning our migrant birds where they winter. The United States contributes to that continued poisoning by permitting banned pesticide residues on the produce that we import. These import tolerances for banned pesticides need to be revoked.


Hundreds of millions of birds die each year by colliding with towers and buildings. Better lighting systems, changes in how new buildings are designed, and new technologies that allow birds to see windows are urgently needed to halt this needless carnage.


Hundreds of millions of birds are killed by free-roaming and feral cats each year. Education is urgently needed to make the public more aware of the heavy toll on wildlife by domestic cats that are not kept indoors and by feral cat colonies where they are allowed to persist.


Unsustainable land use, such as the continued logging of old-growth forests needs to be quickly brought to an end, and new jobs created restoring forests, wetlands, and grasslands.


U.S. State of the Birds calls attention to the problems and the solutions. Now we need to act before it is too late, to ensure that future generations of Americans will enjoy a better quality of life, and the same magnificent diversity of birds that we enjoy today. Thank you.


--


Ellen Paul

Executive Director

The Ornithological Council

ellen.paul@verizon.net

"Providing Scientific Information about Birds"

www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET





Read more...

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Urban forestry through the lens of "socio-ecological systems"

Contributed by Seth Reid, following a vigorous class discussion with guest presentation by Genevra Ornelas.


ResearchBlogging.orgOur March 4th class discussion revolved around urban forestry and how it pertained to an article written by John M. Anderis, Marcos A. Jannsen, and Elinor Ostrom. This article provided, “A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecologcial Sytems from an Institutional Perspective.” The discussion was lead by a former graduate student, Genevra Ornelas, who is a certified arborist that worked with Canopy in Palo Alto and Tree Fresno. Both organizations are comprised of urban foresters who plant trees around their cities in order to enhance the social welfare of the inhabitants of their respective urban forests.


So what is a Social-ecological system (SES) and how does an urban forest fit within the system? A SES is an ecological system that is intricately linked with and affected by one or more social system (Anderis et. al 2004). Fresno’s SES is the city, its buildings and roadways, its trees and vegetation, its municipalities, and its people. All these variables interact with each other and affect Fresno’s hydrology, its temperature, its pollutants, and its infrastructure. A healthy urban forest can mitigate many of the negative effects of urbanization.



Trees improve hydrology by increasing water infiltration and reducing runoff. They reduce temperature by providing shade, decreasing albedo at the surface level, and decreasing the urban island effect. They decrease air pollution by removing particles from the air. They can even improve infrastructure by protecting asphalt, wood, and plastics from UV rays and heat damage. A tree can save the community time, money, and valuable resources in the long run.


Urban forestry organizations are the voice that advocate for trees. They are the liaison between public knowledge and institutional knowledge. Probably the most important role they have is to educate the public on the importance of trees and how trees integrate with local institutions and municipalities. An educated public can make informed decisions on where to plant trees, and which trees to plant. Organizations such as Canopy and Tree Fresno also help facilitate this by providing trees, hosting celebrations, and presenting awards to citizen tree stewards.


Simply planting trees in our cities is not the answer to all our problems. Dave Craig, an economics professor from the University of Wellington in New Zealand used to challenge our class with a quote, “To Every Complex Question, there is a simple answer, and it’s wrong.” Many trees emit volatile organic compounds, drop limbs, possess extensive canopies and root systems that can damage infrastructure. They do not respect property boundaries, and may do mischievous things like tap into a neighbor’s septic system or uproot city sidewalks. The right tree in the right place can help minimize the risks involved, but risks will still be present. Planting a tree that will bring more benefits then risks is quintessential.


A key component to urban forestry is the concept of the right tree in the right place. As we discussed in class, this is just another example of how humans assert their dominance and control nature. We control what trees grow where and genetically modify them to fit our needs. We select against smelly trees such as female ginkos, or messy trees like female Chinese pistache trees. We breed them to grow larger flowers such as saucer magnolias, or to produce no offspring like fruitless mulberries. We want the benefits of the trees, but we want to avoid many of the drawbacks that come with them. Often we prefer the living dead over “natural” trees. We want our trees to fulfill our needs, but we do not want to reciprocate. We want to control nature.


“The right tree in the right place” is a mantra that has been ingrained into my head over the last three years. In the interim between my undergraduate studies and graduate school I accepted the first job that was available; I became a utility forester with a company called ACRT Inc. My company is a PG&E contractor that is responsible for inspecting trees around the high voltage power lines. As a utility forester I am responsible for maintaining the power line right-of-way by assessing health and grow rates of trees. If a tree is in danger of encroaching upon the right-of-way and disrupting power then I list it for trim or for removal.


As a utility forester I also assume the role of liaison between PG&E, PG&E tree-trimmer, and property owner. This is challenging because all entities involved have conflicting goals. PG&E wants power reliability and fire safety, the tree trimmers want lots of units to trim, and property owners want to maintain the aesthetics of their landscape. When everyone is an agreement my job is easy, but in many cases I have to follow best management practices that leave one or more of the parties upset. Educating the public is the most effective way to accomplish these conflicting goals because most people are unaware of the laws regarding tree and power lines, and most people know very little about tree growth. Just like non-affiliated urban forestry organizations, education is the most powerful tool I have to rectify disagreements between interested parties.


PG&E is a major social component that affects the ecological system of Fresno and my company is just another urban forest organization that is a liaison between the public and a municipality. In order for Fresno to improve its urban forest and maximize the benefits it can provide to humankind, all parties need to compromise and cooperate with one another. But one question still lingers in my mind, where is the Lorax who speaks for the trees?


Reference:



Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2004). A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social-ecological Systems from an Institutional Perspective Ecology and Society, 9(1): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/

Read more...

Ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, and how to pay for them

Brad Schleder shares this summary of class discussion of two very interesting papers that Brett Moore brought to the table.


ResearchBlogging.orgModeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales


Erik Nelson, Guillermo Mendoza, James Regetz, Stephen Polasky, Heather Tallis, D. Richard Cameron, Kai MA Chan, Gretchen C. Daily, Joshua Goldstein, Peter M. Kareiva, Eric Lonsdorf, Robin Naidoo, Taylor H. Ricketts, and M. Rebecca Shaw.


The discussion began with a brief overview of the relationship of economic and ecological models. With that in mind the class explored the first paper, which examined three future development scenarios of the Willamette Valley in Oregon. The intent of the paper is to quantify the range of goods and services ecosystems generate with the goal of using this information to improve land-use and management decisions. The three models are plan trend (current policies), development plan (a loosening of current development policies), and conservation (emphasis on slow development and restoration). The modeling tool used was the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST). Being more familiar with papers that discussed their data analysis in more detail the class was unclear on how this tool worked. However, after some searching, a 49 page appendix detailing the mathematics used in the model was found, which is based on a mechanistic spatial model using ecological production functions and economic valuation methods. Models were run on water pollution, storm peak mitigation, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and commodity production value.



The conservation scenario produced the largest gains, or smallest losses, in ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation with the plan trend and development plan outperforming in regards to the aggregate market value of commodities produced on the landscape. An interesting outcome of this analysis was that there was little difference between the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation. This was attributed to the conservative use of the model based on Oregon’s history of resource protection, social behaviors and land-ownership practices.


The class wrestled with a few methodologies of this model. First, the use of phosphorous as the sole indicator for water pollution was questioned. Second, using 24 vertebrate species as the only biodiversity measurement might not have been adequate. However, it was agreed that the attempt to quantify different types of development scenarios and the use of an economic framework to assess costs and benefits of ecological resources is a useful model for studying the dynamics of future development.


ResearchBlogging.orgPaying for environmental services from agricultural lands: an example from the northern Everglades


Patrick J. Bohlen, Sarah Lynch, Leonard Shabman, Mark Clark, Sanjay Shukla, and Hillary Swain


The second paper, in keeping with the economic theme, explores one implementation of a market-like program that would pay farmers and ranchers for producing environmental services. The government does provide programs such as subsidies for implementing best management practices, which are designed to increase provision of environmental services from agricultural lands. However, one disadvantage of these policies is the inability of determining their effectiveness. One proposed alternative is to create a market-like program that will encourage producers and sellers to develop innovative programs with environmental results that can be economically valued.


In the northern Everglades lands were drained for the development of both agriculture and human settlement. These land-use changes are having adverse effects on the Lake Okeechobe watershed. In addition to fragmenting wildlife habitat it has accelerated the rate of the flow of water and nutrients into regional bodies of water. This increase in nutrients has drastically affected water quality. These environmental problems prompted the Florida state legislature to create programs to decrease the water flow and increase water retention on public and private lands. In lieu of a large scale construction of above and below ground reservoirs the State began a pilot program, which is working with cattle ranchers in the affected watershed to provide water recharge and storage on their ranches. In addition to the government agencies, the program also involved the National Audubon Society, The World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy. Instead of paying for massive building projects for water storage the State would pay cattle ranchers for creating water retention areas on their properties. This project involved many agencies, much red tape and considerable negotiations from all parties. One of the most difficult parts was in determining a value for the ranchers’ environmental service. Designing this program was as much of a socioeconomic challenge as it was a technical or scientific one. The pilot program appears to be promising and there are plans to increase its size. Imperative to its continued success is the sustained involvement and good will of the parties involved.


I wondered if there was more information on other environmental services that were paid for and found several examples. On a global scale, one project investigates the potential for compensating farmers of the Peruvian Amazon to provide carbon sequestering by maintaining or increasing forest habitat on their lands. Their compensation would be obtained from carbon emitters in developed countries. In Costa Rica, private landowners are being compensated for providing water resources for their communities.


After more thought on this subject I feel that placing an economic value on the environment and the resources it provides is not only a step in the right direction, but perhaps the most effective strategy for conservation. Without placing a value on the many services that the environment provides invites the exploitation of lands for the benefit of a few and the cost to many. In essence, this is the “Tragedy of the Commons” Garrett Hardin wrote of in 1968; a parable describing the destruction of one resource shared by many, but owned by none. For example, placing a value on the hydrology of the northern Everglades takes this system out of the “commons” framework and provides incentive for its conservation for the benefit of the stakeholders affected by the harmful outcomes of individuals’ land-use decisions. This type of policy, while challenging to implement and manage, has the potential to substantially benefit both humans and the environment.


References:


Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K., Daily, G., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T., & Shaw, M. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7 (1), 4-11 DOI: 10.1890/080023


Bohlen, P., Lynch, S., Shabman, L., Clark, M., Shukla, S., & Swain, H. (2009). Paying for environmental services from agricultural lands: an example from the northern Everglades Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7 (1), 46-55 DOI: 10.1890/080107


Read more...

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Birds of Conservation Concern

The Division of Migratory Bird Management, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has just released a new report - Birds of Conservation Concern 2008:


This publication identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and nonmigratory birds in need of additional conservation actions. We hope to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive conservation actions among Federal, State, tribal, and private partners. The species that appear in Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 are deemed to be the highest priority for conservation actions. We anticipate that the document will be consulted by Federal agencies and their partners prior to undertaking cooperative research, monitoring, and management actions that might directly or indirectly affect migratory birds. The Notice of Availability."


Read more...

The comedian and the financial expert

Jon Stewart, at his best, took down yet another bastion of tele-punditry on the Daily Show last week - not just Jim Cramer, but the entire CNBC financial TV network! What does it say about our society when a comedian gets the workings of the financial markets, and tells it like it is, while a whole network of financial "experts" marches happily right off the cliff? Here's the entire brilliant interview, in 3 parts, and its really worth watching (even for ecologists) for the insight it provides into the workings of some of the institutional pillars of the US economy. Would that the rest of the mainstream media did their job as well as this comedy show does in 22 min 4 days/week...







Read more...

Monday, March 16, 2009

Ah... sustainability!

phd031309s1.gif

Read more...

Coupled Human And Natural Systems - a class discussion

Heather Hanlin wrote the following summary of our class discussion on Feb 17th:


ResearchBlogging.orgWe discussed two different papers: “Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” by Jianguo Liu et al (2007), and “The Effects of Human Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity” by Ann Kinzig et al (2005). The “Coupled Human and Natural Systems,” are referred to as CHANS. CHANS are ways to incorporate humans and the natural environment interactions, so that social-ecological and human interactions and their effects can be better understood and used to predict future effects. These results can be applied to such topics as government and environmental policy. The paper was very information intensive and had a lot of jargon, which made it a bit difficult to grasp the paper in it’s entirety, but the topic is of great importance and much can be gained from integrating all the areas covered including: the organizational, spatial, and temporal couplings of CHANS; their direct and indirect interactions, from local to global scales, and from simple to complex patterns and processes.



Historically they have been viewed at a more local scale, but now trying to integrate more of all the levels, from local, regional, continental, to global. There are three types of CHAN couplings: organizational, spatial, and temporal. Within the organizational couplings there are reciprocal effects, for example a power plant does not always just deplete the surrounding environment but there can be a lush preserve right alongside it, and feedbacks. There are indirect effects within organizational couplings, for example in making plastics the energy required to produce them and dispose of them, as their production requires petroleum. The emergent properties of organizational couplings are the results from the interactions, and not the products of pure nature or pure social aspects. The vulnerability of the organizational couplings, are its ability to deal with changes. The threshold of organizational couplings are how much change they can handle until they can no longer return to their original state, and their resilience is how well they can recover from the damage caused by the change (back to point A).


There are three levels of spatial couplings. The first looks across spatial scales, for example world trade. The second looks beyond boundaries, which includes what is shipped out of the area from which the products originated. For example, most American companies claim to recycle and properly dispose of electronics such as computers, but on many occasions we ship these products to other countries for them to sort out. In a sort of out of sight, out of mind mentality. These companies use other countries lax environmental laws to get around our more rigid, slightly more environmentally friendly ones and to save money. This is still polluting the planet, but we pay less attention when it is in out own back yard. The third looks at heterogeneity.


Temporal couplings have several aspects, which include: 1) a massive increase in the human impacts on the natural systems, 2) rising natural impacts on humans, 3) legacy effects, for example our stopping of naturally burning forest fires, 4) time lags, for example the CFC’s used in aerosol cans, 5) increasing scale and pace, meaning the exponential increase of the number of people in the world and the advancement of transportation technology has allowed people to go across the globe in a matter of hours, and 6) escalating indirect effects, for example invasive species brought around the globe by people.


All of the implications from the conducted studies point toward a need for change in policy. They stated that a change in view from “humans conquer nature” to “humans co-evolve with nature” is required. Our own class could not agree on where we fall within this wide spectrum. Not a whole lot of policy in the government reflects a view of “humans co-evolving with nature.” The general public needs a paradigm shift in order to change their views. We need to view the economy as a steady state, instead of needing constant growth. Our current economic system expects to see growth every year, and if we viewed it as a fluctuating system we may actually view our limited resources as what they are, limited resources. We are headed in the right direction but we need to change our view of scale and look at not only the local but integrate the localàstateà countryàglobal interactions as well.


The localization of policy design is important to CHANS, and they need to be looked at in a very context specific manner. We need to address the details of the system, and not just the overall system. We need to think in terms of an abstract local area, and not just a geographically local area. Management systems need to be dynamic, and appropriately adapted to the details of the system. We need to understand the system in order to be able to push the system in a particular direction, and shape its future. If we looked at the infrastructure as fluctuating and not static, the interactions within the system, and how will small scale decisions affect the larger scales we would realize how much there is to be aware and conscience of.


Some of the necessary approaches discussed were: 1) maintaining margins of safety for uncertainty, for example people that live on the coast, 2) factoring in insurance as a hedge against disaster, and 3) ensuring adaptive mechanisms. The challenges and opportunities included linking coupled human and natural systems across scales, utilizing more integrated tools, comparative studies and portfolios are needed, collaborations among all fields of relevant coupled natural systems, for example more interdisciplinary studies in academic institutions, and getting beyond the “Ivory Tower,” so that whatever the outcome the applications must be practical. CHANS are rapidly changing, and you need to know more on the multiple scales.


The second paper: “The Effects of Human and Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity,” discussed how species richness in urban areas is also affected by socioeconomic and cultural factors, and additional incorporation of these factors could improve current urban species richness predictors. Humans are increasingly altering the landscape, and cities are one example of how we modify the surface of the earth. Most people living in urban areas will only experience the natural world by what is in their city environment. Cities can host quite a wide variety of species, and we need to better understand the interactions that involve our socioeconomic and cultural influences on these interactions. The traditional paradigm uses a “gradient approach,” which searches for regular patterns of biodiversity relative to gradients of land use, distance form the urban center, or human population density. They looked at urban patterns of diversity across a gradient. The scale is important, for species, location, etc. since the definition of urban vs. rural varies. They tested this theory in Phoenix, Arizona by using avian and plant diversity within neighborhood parks and residential areas. They did find that by including the socioeconomic and cultural variables does add information for determining species richness in an urban setting. Of course not all patterns of urban biodiversity are affected equally, and they spilt these up into bottom-up and top-down influences. They separated the patterns into four categories: 1) perennial plant diversity in parks is affected by top-down processes, 2) perennial plant diversity in neighborhoods is affected by bottom-down processes, 3) bird diversity in parks is affected by more top-down than bottom-up processes, and 4) bird diversity in neighborhoods is affected by more bottom-up than top-down processes (since birds are mobile avian diversity is more complex). They predicted that the more bottom-up influences would be affected by the socioeconomic and cultural influences, and as predicted they found plant diversity in neighborhoods were most affected, plant diversity in parks was least affected, and avian diversity in neighborhoods and parks was intermediately affected. They did find that by including the socioeconomic status the sensitivity of determining biodiversity increased, and that integrating this information into the traditional methods only improves their predictive ability.


Income captures a lot of socioeconomic variables, which is why the median income was used. This has strong inference for environmental justice issues, since top-down government choices for city planning in parks may be biased by the socioeconomic status of the surrounding community. There may be more plant diversity in higher socioeconomic communities, as indicated by a study conducted in Brazil. If most people living in cities experience nature by what is in their urban setting, and there is less diversity in a lower socioeconomic neighborhood that implies that they are experiencing an environmental injustice. People in these areas may be less concerned about environmental issues regarding topics they themselves are not experiencing. If they are experiencing a very limited view of the world, an attitude change will be much harder since it is outside their area of influence and they aren’t being exposed to the natural environment. Birds can also be indicators for environmental health status as well. There is definitely a need for more studies of urban ecological relationships, especially since the global population is increasing the most in urban areas.


Citations:<


Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C., Schneider, S., Ostrom, E., Pell, A., Lubchenco, J., Taylor, W., Ouyang, Z., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., & Provencher, W. (2007). Coupled Human and Natural Systems AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36 (8), 639-649 DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2


Kinzig, A.P., Warren, P., Martin, C., Hope, D. and Katti, M. (2005). The Effects of Human Socioeconomic Status and Cultural Characteristics on Urban Patterns of Biodiversity Ecology and Society, 10 (1)23. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art23/




Read more...

A student's take on Reconciliation Ecology

I am catching up with student writings in my various classes, and thought I should start sharing pertinent material here, from the Reconciliation Ecology graduate class. Chris Miles shared the following thoughts a few weeks ago, after one of the first class discussions:


The following response to the class discussion presents my ideas on reconciliation ecology and how we might undertake these types of projects. Please feel free to make comments.


It appears that all the species of the earth could be placed into great jeopardy if “one” of those species cannot change the status quo. That “one” species is referring to the most dominant species on the planet, humans. If humans never existed, the earth today would look very different. Humans have had a tremendous impact on this planet, some believe more so than others. However, clearly human activity is responsible for the extinction of many species. Much of the “destruction” can be attributed to the lifestyle of man. Unfortunately, this lifestyle will be hard to change, and I believe we should not have to give up our modern conveniences. There is no doubt that man can augment their lifestyle in a way that is beneficial to both themselves and the world around them.



So far, humans have took it upon themselves to ease their conscience and attempt to save as many organisms they can by setting aside special land (reservations) for them to live. Humans have also taken existing land and reformatted it (restoration) into a state that is considered more “natural” for the desired organisms to live. While this has seemed to appease nature for now, these practices alone will not be able to sustain the diverse life forms of the earth. Eventually the earth will loose this diversity, and the environment will be forever altered.


Looking towards the horizon, a new way of thinking has surfaced in the scientific community. Instead of trying to fence off the world’s diversity of life into little islands, humans may be better off if they learn how to better live with that diversity. If man and nature (all organisms) can learn to coexist with each other then we might be able to save nature (reconciliation). Man has taken a lot of land for itself to use as they saw fit. I believe it is clear we should not try to take that land away from man. This is part of the idea that man should not have to sacrifice their entire way of life. Instead, a more responsible approach would be to allow nature to also benefit from the same land. If this can be done in away that does not effect man’s usage of that land, then more people will be willing to try it.


Until man gives up the need to acquire wealth, money and the cost of things is still very important. If man decides to augment his land in a way that both sides get their use out of it, it must be cost effective. Man needs incentives or a clear view of profit before they decide to tackle something. Most people watch out for themselves first before worrying about some thinning species of a bird. If augmenting land for shared use can be done without causing a large financial burden, people will be willing to get on board.


These kinds of projects would be best managed locally. If local communities would come together and help promote threatened species in their area, I believe a lot of good could be done. Now, this requires the participation of all the local communities in the country. In other words, these projects will be additive. If every community is responsible for just the threatened species around them, collectively all those species would have been addressed. Looking forward, every country could do this. Unfortunately, due to the governments and the economics of many foreign counties, a task like this would be impossible. Man cannot take care of nature if they have not figured out how to take care of themselves. Never the less, several foreign countries (especially the countries of Europe) could implement similar plans. I stress adapting local environments to better accommodate local species because it would not be worth while if some community in California thought it would be a good idea to save the African Elephant. That last example is overboard, and no one would really do that, but I wanted to stress that communities should take on reasonable projects.


One example I want to reference concerns the loggerhead shrikes. I like this example because it nicely shows the cost aspect to these reconciliation projects. Installing fence posts enabled the birds to have a place to perch as they hunted for food. As this perching aspect was stumbled upon, these people found a very cost effective way to attract more shrikes to their property, and increase species numbers. The cost to the rancher is very small, as cheap wood can be found. The labor aspect can be minimized because these post don’t have to be buried too deep (they on;y have to support a bird). Also, if the rancher can use scrap wood he happens to have, the cost can be reduced further.


Looking more at the cost of reconciliation projects, if land owners can find solutions that are not only cost effective, but can actually make them money, more people will take on these projects. Its very hard to persuade a business owner to do anything that will cost them money that wont provide a return. Unfortunately, there is going to have to be some cost if we want to undertake these projects. The important thing is, how can land owners recover from that cost. Reducing costs can come in other forms to, however. If a farmer wants to find a way to attract a bird species into his fields, some cost will be spent. That farmer can make up that cost if the birds he attracts eats a local insect pest. The savings, will be in that the farmer will not have to spend money on chemicals. Some things the farmer will consider include; would it be cheaper just to use chemicals; and when the birds are brought in, do they introduce any negative consequences (like destroying the crop). If the organism brought in to eat the pest becomes a pest themselves, defeats the whole process.


Undertaking these kinds of reconciliation projects will take a lot of planning and trial and error. I believe that some of our best solutions will arise from experimentation and chance occurrences. One important concept to understand is, how do we make our land enough like the target organism’s but still retain its usefulness to man. I would like to end on saying that we need to stop looking backwards. Trying to restore the planet to a state how it existed in the past will ultimately be self defeating. I just cannot see anyone forcing people to make unreasonable concessions. I don’t want to tell someone what car they should drive. Instead, man needs to look forward, and decide the best ways it can coexist with its neighbors in nature.



Read more...

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Restoring the San Joaquin Delta shouldn't be Fish V. People

via Fresno Audubon comes notice of this lecture at the Fresno downtown library next month, about the crisis in the San Joaquin Delta, which (like so many other environmental dilemmas) is falsely perceived as being about Fish vs. People:


Fish V. People: The False Dichotomy-Free EventThe False Dichotomy-Free Event:


"Thursday, April 23 - 7 p.m.

Fresno Downtown Library - 2420 Mariposa St

Sarah McCardle Room


A talk about the collapse of the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, the Campaign Director for Restore the Delta will discuss the consequences, causes, and proposed solutions of Delta collapse. Barbara is one of the leading advocates for a fishable, farmable, swimmable, and drinkable Delta.


About Restore the Delta: Based in Stockton, California, Restore the Delta works in the areas of public education and outreach so that all Californians recognize this region as part of California’s natural heritage, deserving of restoration. Restore the Delta advocates on behalf of local Delta stakeholders with government water agencies to ensure that water management decisions will protect and benefit local Delta communities. We encourage local Delta residents to undertake actions to ensure the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta’s sustainability.


For more information contact Brandon Hill at 559.978.2369/ bhill968@gmail.com


Hope to see you there!"


I may miss it because I have to give a talk in UC Riverside that day - but you should go, especially if you live anywhere in the Delta catchment!

Read more...

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Why is the senate holding up important science appointments?

Even as the Obama administration continues to roll back many of the Bush era restrictions on science, and rebuilds the firewall insulating science from ideology, there remain political roadblocks. Paul Ehrlich, in a letter circulated on Ecolog-L today, raises concern over procedural holds placed in the senate on the confirmation hearings for Jane Lubchenco ((Past President of ESA) as NOAA Administrator, and John Holdren (AAAS past president) as White House Science Advisor. Here's Ehrlich's letter:


Dear Friends,


Sad to say, internal Senate politics is delaying confirmation of the most important science appointees -- and it may not be Menendez who many of us contacted last week. See http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/science_advisor_and_noaa_admin.php. I called Harry Reid's office. He had been very helpful with the CCB's Nevada Biodiversity Initiative and I mentioned that when I talked to a staffer about Reid breaking the logjam. The staffer said she would pass the message on (I'm not holding my breath).


At this point in history we badly need good scientists doing what they can to avert catastrophe. Holdren can advise Obama but cannot run the OSTP until confirmed, Lubchenco is in limbo. I hope you will all, scientists or not, will contact Reid (info at url above) and ask that he end this sad delay.


PLEASE FORWARD THIS LETTER TO ANYONE YOU THINK MIGHT HELP.


Thanks.


Best.


Paul


Paul R. Ehrlich

Bing Professor of Population Studies

President, Center for Conservation Biology

Department of Biology, 371 Serra Mall

Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020


So any US citizens reading this and interested in rebuilding science in your country, please contact your senators and urge them to stop dithering and confirm these appointments already! Mike Dunford, who is following developments closely, has more:


Initial reports indicated that holds had been placed by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), in an attempt to gain leverage for an unrelated issue. Later in the week, new reports suggested that there were multiple holds on the nominations. On Friday, both Talking Points Memo and Climate Progress reported - apparently independently - that Senator Menendez did not, as of that point in time, have any hold on any science nominee. They report, however, that the nomination is still being held up.


As I've already said - possibly to the point of inducing tedium - the scientific community needs to keep pressure on the Senate. There are so many other things going on in Washington right now that this issue is not going to get much more attention from the traditional media than it already has.


With no known culprit for the holds, the single best place to focus attention is going to be Majority Leader Harry Reid's office. Holds or no holds, he can schedule a vote on these nominees. Contact information can be found below the fold. Please take a minute or two to contact him and ask him to schedule a vote so that we can get these nominees on the job.


Here's the contact information, including the email form and the Nevada address of one of his Nevada offices:


Email (web form)

DC Phone Number: 202-224-3542

Nevada address and phone:

600 East William St, #302

Carson City, NV 89701

Phone: 775-882-REID (7343)

Fax: 775-883-1980

Read more...

Monday, March 9, 2009

Dawkins on those who would expel him from Oklahoma

In these hard and worsening economic times, one would think that politicians and state legislatures have their hands full with a huge number of serious issues to deal with. Instead, one congressman in Oklahoma is upset about a mild-mannered English (as in from England, not of) professor visiting a state campus to deliver a lecture! Who might that professor be? Why Richard Dawkins, of course, who got State Representative Thomsen upset enough to propose a formal resolution to condemn Dawkins' visit to University of Oklahoma last friday! Really?! So what did the good professor have to say when he did arrive in the good state? Watch:










Meanwhile, as Dawkins' US tour continues, even into the heart of the bible belt as in this case - we here at Fresno State have something else to look forward (backward?) to: Ben Stein is coming to campus next week! Yes!! That's who is the featured guest this month in the University Lecture Series! Weep, my fellow Darwin's Bulldogs... and if you do go to his talk, please ask him who is being "Expelled" from academia, exactly?


Hat-tip: OneGoodMove

Read more...

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Mysteries in the Kingdom of the Blue Whale

KingdomOfTheBlueWhale.jpgMy daughter and I just previewed (as did Kevin Zelnio of Deep Sea News) National Geographic's new documentary "Kingdom of the Blue Whale" premiering tonight at 8:00 PM on the NatGeo channel here in the US. The girls (3 and almost 9) were skeptical at first, especially because it had interrupted something else they were watching while waiting for brunch, but really got into it as the story unfolded. The younger one - no surprise - loved it whenever they actually showed the creatures underwater, culminating, of course, in the amazing first-time-ever footage of an infant Blue Whale. That comes at the end, of course, but the story leading up to it is quite fascinating too, told as it is in two intertwining threads which gradually pulled in 9-year old Sanzari:


One strand follows biologists tagging and tracking the whales from the California coast all the way into the warm tropical "nursery" of the Costa Rica dome (watch the show to find out what a "dome" might mean in the ocean), trying to solve the puzzles of their life-cycle, which is surprisingly poorly understood for the largest creatures on the planet! Sanzari, who spent a year in the field with her mom studying another charismatic yet elusive (and much smaller!) mammal, the Slender Loris, in the forests of southern India, could relate to the challenges of tagging the whales, but couldn't quite imagine tracking them across half an ocean! Tough to scale up from tracking the tiny lorises, hard enough to track in their several hectare sized home-ranges, to creatures occupying half of the world's biggest ocean!! She therefore enjoyed it when the biologists got their payoff after months on the ocean, including sad episodes when they found whales dead from being hit by ships!


Intertwined with this is a second thread which follows researchers investigating the whale meat market in Japan, using undercover operatives and portable genetics labs set up in hotel rooms! Exciting stuff, especially when they teamed up with a local female biologist who posed as a regular shopper to obtain samples from the whale meat market; and when they hung up the "do not disturb" sign on their hotel door to set up the portable genetics lab to extract DNA from the samples. What Nancy Drew fan wouldn't want to do such investigative work? Although we did wonder why the biologists weren't simply collaborating with Japanese scientists to analyze the samples in a proper lab?! What's the story there?


The whale-meat trade itself provoked some anger in the girls (carnivorous though they both are), with the sushi-loving Sanzari fuming all the way through about the Japanese and the Icelanders who wouldn't stop hunting whales! The genetic findings from one sample were even more intriguing to me... but I better not give that away before the show airs, eh? If you can't wait, or don't get the channel, check out this clip on the show's website.


What I can't resist giving away, however, is this money-shot at the end, when the first team finally caught up with a mother and infant:




I am simply amazed that we share our planet with such magnificent creatures - and also that we know so little about even some of the largest living animals! And I hope we can find ways to ensure that my girls' generation, and future ones too, get the opportunity to see the Blue Whales thrive once again.

Read more...

Friday, March 6, 2009

The back channel on Kashmir

Last night (while doing the dishes as usual) I caught a fascinating interview on the Fresh Air podcast with Steve Coll of the New Yorker, talking about the back channel negotiations apparently engaged in by the Indian and Pakistani govt. several years ago that almost led to a settlement to the dispute. As someone who spent a wonderful summer doing field research in the Kashmir valley, I fervently hope for a lasting settlement of the hot-n-cold war festering over that beautiful territory between our countries. But I have to wonder how close India and Pakistan actually were to a settlement in 2007 - especially given what has transpired in the recent path. Were we really as close to resolving it as Coll says? And if we got close then, what'll it take to bring the parties back to that point and indeed all the way to a lasting deal? Seems pretty unlikely right now. no? Yet, one positive development is that the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, now acknowledged even by Pakistani officials to have originated in that country, did not provoke a knee-jerk military escalatory reaction from India. Hope lies, perhaps, in that Indian govt/'s restraint, and in the much more tenuous hold on power that its recently elected counterpart has in Pakistan.


In the interview, Coll also offered some good insights into the fraught history of the region, and the bind Pakistani politicians find themselves in if they try to unravel the complex ties that bind their military / intelligence services to the jihadi groups that they have helped spawn (often with US help) for decades, and now appear to have lost control over. Perhaps someone reading this has a better, more closer-to-ground perspective on this, for I've been far removed from Kashmir for two decades now - but I found myself agreeing with most of what Coll said. Except, of course, he (or Terry Gross perhaps) skirted right around the topic of Americans' own culpability; perhaps his article addresses it better.


You can listen to the interview on NPR's Fresh Air site, or download the podcast via iTunes. Coll's New Yorker article, published this week, prompting the interview, is available only to subscribers, so I'll have to find it in the library or bum a copy off a colleague - but they do offer an abstract (below the fold). Meanwhile, I'm getting nostalgic just thinking about the lovely Dachigam valley, just outside of Srinagar (capital of Kashmir), where I spent a whole summer chasing birds - but my nostalgia is also tinged by images of army convoys driving into the valley, past the bus that was carrying me and my fellow researchers out after a successful field season. How I would love to be able to visit there again!



A Reporter at Large: The Back Channel


ABSTRACT: A REPORTER AT LARGE about back-channel negotiations between India and Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir. Two years ago Pervez Musharraf, who was then Pakistan’s President and Army chief, summoned his most senior generals and two Foreign Ministry officials to review the progress of a secret, sensitive negotiation with India, known to its participants as ‘the back channel.’ For several years, special envoys from Pakistan and India had been holding talks in hotel rooms in Bangkok, Dubai, and London. Musharraf and Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India, had encouraged the negotiators to seek what some involved called a ‘paradigm shift’ in relations between the two nations. The agenda included a search for an end to the long fight over Kashmir. The two principal envoys, Tariq Aziz and Satinder Lambah were developing what diplomats refer to as a ‘non-paper’ on Kashmir which could serve as a deniable but detailed basis for a deal. By early 2007, the back-channel talks on Kashmir had become ‘so advanced that we’d come to semicolons,’ recalled Khurshid Kasuri, who was then Pakistan’s foreign minister. Details for a visit to Pakistan by Singh were being discussed. Neither government, however, had done much to prepare its public for a breakthrough. Tells how domestic unrest in Pakistan contributed to the postponement of the summit. Musharraf slipped into a political death spiral and resigned in August of 2008. Mentions the periodic funding by India and Pakistan of guerilla or terrorist violence on each other’s soil. Describes the Mumbai attacks of last November 26, which were apparently coordinated by the Islamist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba and the concession by Pakistani officials that the attackers appear to have come from their country. India reacted to the attack with relative restraint, though many Indian politicians continue to call for military action. Writer visits the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and interviews Atta Muhammad Khan, who tends to the graves of about two hundred unknown young men in a village there. Gives a brief history of the dispute over the region and the shifting approaches taken by India and Pakistan to the dispute through the years. Writer interviews N. N. Vohra, the governor of Jammu and Kashmir, and then travels across the border to meet with Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. Tells about the events preceding the back-channel talks and the potentially catastrophic results of an escalation in hostilities between the two nuclear powers. Discusses in more detail the process of the back-channel negotiations. Writer visits the regional headquarters of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the educational and charitable organization that, depending on how you see it, is either the parent of or a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba. He is given a tour of the grounds by Mohammad Abbas, also known as Abu Ehsaan. Considers America’s role in Indo-Pakistani relations and how relations between the two countries bear on the war in Afghanistan. Writer attends a reception in Washington, D.C., for Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf says that he always believed in peace between India and Pakistan and that an agreement ‘would have benefited both.’"



Read more...

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

God, Darwin, and the Culture Wars - Ethics Center Lecture

Today, at noon, the Ethics Center Lecture series @ CSU-Fresno will plunge into the culture wars with the following lecture:


March 4: Leonard Olson, God, Darwin, and the Culture Wars


12-12:50 PM in the Alice Peters Auditorium (in the University Business Center)


Most observers would agree that there is something like a cultural war taking place in America today, especially over the question of the origins of life on Earth. Is the choice as simple as one between evolution or creation? Extremists on both sides frame the issue poorly. As a result, a reasonable middle position is ignored. This talk will examine the middle and criticize the extremes.


Leonard Olson is a Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at CSU-Fresno, where he has been teaching ethics courses since 1986. A native of the Central Valley, he was educated at San Francisco State and U. C. Davis.

Read more...

About this blog

A blog about studying and applying evolutionary ecology in human-dominated landscapes from the Reconciliation Ecology Lab at California State University, Fresno

Copyright

<Creative Commons License Except where noted otherwise, all original work here is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

Blog Archive

Live visitor map

How many readers?

web tracker


Unique visitors

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP