Environment

Agreement still to be reached to ensure affordable cover for at least 200,000 affected properties beyond July

Flood-hit householders will continue to be able to buy insurance for a month after an agreement between insurers and the government ends in June, but it is still unclear when a deal will be reached to ensure cover remains affordable for at least 200,000 affected properties.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said its members would voluntarily continue to offer flood insurance to homeowners until 31 July, beyond the end of an existing arrangement with the government.

That agreement, known as the "statement of principles", obliges insurers to offer flood insurance as part of standard household policies at reasonable rates, providing the government invests in flood defences.

It applies to existing customers, and allows them to renew policies with their current insurer. It does not, however, cap charges or cover anyone who moves to a new home in a flood-hit area.

So far ministers and the industry have been unable to decide what happens next.

The insurance industry wants to introduce a levy on insurance for all policy holders of about £8 in order to create a £150m-a-year fund to cover those at high risk of flooding. But the government is understood to be reluctant to provide any additional funding that could be required on top of this in the case of extreme flooding.

Without a deal in place, customers would return to a free market, meaning insurers could decide whether or not to offer cover and, if they did, could charge what they like. The ABI said this could leave 200,000 households struggling to afford policies.

In a letter to the environment secretary, the director general of the ABI, Otto Thoresen, said there were "still important issues to resolve".

However, the letter goes on to suggest that the extension will give adequate time to address the remaining issues.

The environment secretary, Owen Paterson, said negotiations were "at an advanced stage".

"It's good that the ABI is standing by the statement of principles and we hope to resolve the remaining issues soon," he said.

"Both the government and the industry are working hard on an agreement to secure affordable insurance for people at risk of flooding."

The looming deadline has led to concern among householders who have previously been affected by flooding. The National Flood Forum (NFF) charity recently said the number of calls to its helpline had trebled in the past year, and that some callers had reported premiums doubling to £2,000 a year.

Mary Creagh, Labour's shadow environment secretary, called for ministers to agree a deal soon: "Flood-hit communities are being hit now with higher insurance premiums and excesses because weak and incompetent ministers have failed to get a new deal.

"The government needs to get a grip on flood insurance, get a deal and ensure that people in the 200,000 high-risk properties are able to insure their homes."

Paul Cobbing, head of the NFF, said it was disappointing that a deal had still to be reached and that the extension was "the first signal that we have had since last July that the government and ABI are in detailed discussion".

Any solution other than opening insurance to the free market would require legislation – something that is increasingly unlikely to go through before parliament's summer recess. Cobbing said that even if a deal was reached before July, he would expect either a further extension over the summer, or transitional arrangements to be put in place.The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned that if a deal was not reached soon, some homes could become unsellable.

Its associate director for the built environment, Alan Cripps, said the implications of the statement of principles ending were "simply staggering".

He added: "This has much wider ramifications for all property owners. Surveyors are responsible for the valuations that underpin insurance agreements; without that insurance it will be nigh on impossible to get a mortgage; without a mortgage many people will be unable to purchase property; and if properties are not insurable or mortgageable there will be a dramatic impact on their value.

"This has the potential to rule out existing residential stock at a time when we're desperately trying to close a housing deficit."

• Insurance
• Insurance industry
• Flooding
• Natural disasters and extreme weather

Hilary OsborneLisa Bachelor
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Thousands join second demonstration in a month against planned refinery making suspected carcinogen paraxylene

Thousands of protesters have gathered in the southern Chinese city of Kunming for the second time this month to voice concerns over the environmental impact of a planned chemical plant, underscoring the increasing willingness of China's emerging middle class to challenge government decisions by taking to the streets.

Around 2,000 protesters gathered in front of the Yunnan provincial government headquarters in a demonstration which drew a large police presence and began with one arrest, but remained largely non-violent.

Kunming's first environmental protest this month was held, without arrests, on 4 May, after China National Petroleum Corporation announced plans to build the chemical plant in Anning, a county seat 18 miles south-west of the city centre. Every year, the refinery would produce 500,000 tonnes of the chemical paraxylene (PX), a suspected carcinogen used in production of polyester, according to the state-run China Daily newspaper. Kunming's municipal government has denied the claim, but residents fear the city's air and water will be polluted.

"We don't need speedy development. What we need is a healthy and peaceful country," a Kunming resident, Liu Yuncheng, told the Associated Press. "I still haven't given birth to a baby. I want to be pregnant and I want a healthy baby."

China's nimby demonstrations have proliferated in recent years, as its affluent, educated, and tech-savvy rising middle class grows exasperated with the government's "growth-first" development model and shadowy decision-making process.

The risks are high – the Chinese government strictly forbids most public protests, and crackdowns on similar demonstrations have been severe. Another "anti-PX" protest earlier this month in Chengdu, the capital of adjacent Sichuan province, was pre-empted by the arrival of hundreds of anti-riot and paramilitary police.

Yet experts say that if protesters refrain from challenging the Communist party's grip on power – and if the potential costs of cracking down outstrip those of ceding to public demand – authorities may tread with caution.

Chinese people have a "much higher sense of environmental rights" than they have in the past, said Ma Jun, the CEO of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs in Beijing.

Ma added that Sichuan authorities may have clamped down because the PX plant near Chengdu was already nearing completion. "To my knowledge [the Kunming project] is in an earlier phase, and I think there are still opportunities there for reconsideration," he said. Furthermore, the province is still reeling from a devastating earthquake last month, raising the risk that a mass demonstration could spin out of control.

Thursday's demonstrators donned face masks displaying "anti-PX" messages, shouted: "Roll out, protest!" and sang the national anthem in unison, according to firsthand reports on Twitter. Photos posted online show a thick line of police pressed tightly against rows of protesters, many of them documenting the standoff with smartphones and digital cameras.

"We cherish blue skies and white clouds, as well as good air. If you want to build a refinery with 10m tonnes of capacity here in the place where we live, we resolutely oppose it," said a Kunming resident who identified herself only by her surname, Liu. "We want a good life. We women want to be beautiful," she told the Associated Press.

At about 4pm, Kunming's mayor, Li Wenrong, addressed the crowd in a seemingly impromptu press conference. Li promised "equal dialogue", public hearings about the refinery's future, and increased investment in pollution control, the Hong-Kong-based South China Morning Post newspaper reported, adding that some onlookers dismissed his vows as lip service.

Li parried censorship-related queries by saying: "All levels of government have good intentions … but their methods may not always be right," the newspaper reported.

"Protest activities only happen on the precondition that the government doesn't offer opportunities for information transparency, dialogue and negotiation," said an influential Kunming-based blogger who uses the name Bianmin, or "frontier person", in an email interview. "If the government clings to its position, the public's resistance will only increase."

Concessions to such protests by local governments and state-owned companies are not without precedent. A Shanghai battery manufacturer announced on Wednesday that it would cancel plans for a new plant after hundreds of locals staged three successive protests about its potential environmental impact.

In August 2011, a massive protest in the north-eastern city of Dalian led local authorities to announce that they would relocate a polluting PX plant. Last autumn, authorities in Ningbo City, in coastal Zhejiang province, scrapped plans to expand a similar state-owned plant after a week-long demonstration by thousands of aggrieved residents.

Li Bo, head of the Beijing-based NGO Friends of Nature, said the recurrence of "anti-PX" demonstrations showed that China's environmental authorities had been slow to learn from past mistakes.

"There were various attempts to find out more about this project by citizens in Kunming, but they have had a lot of difficulty getting satisfactory information," Li said. "A lot of worries and doubts have accumulated, which is more or less what happened with the previous PX projects in Dalian and Ningbo."

• China
• Pollution
• Protest
• Asia Pacific

Jonathan Kaiman
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

A new book features, for the first time ever, illustrations of every single primate species

Arctic archipelago seeks person to stand guard while researchers carry out fieldwork. Firearms skills, or loud voice, may come in handy

Fancy working in the great outdoors? Good with animals? Ready to run for your life? Then Norway has just the job for you.

Odd Olsen Ingerø, the governor of Svalbard, is on the hunt for a polar bear spotter to stand guard while researchers carry out work on the islands.

An untouched, Arctic wilderness, the remote archipelago between Norway and the north pole is one of the few places in the world where the polar bear population is actually growing. And with 3,000 bears and just 2,400 human inhabitants, the odds aren't great for anyone venturing outside the designated settlements.

The government's official travel guide instructs visitors (pdf) to take precautions: "For protection from polar bears, a rifle calibre .308 Win [Winchester] or higher, is recommended – for even brief trips." Any tourists still brave enough to book a break to the region are cheered on with the upbeat slogan: "BOW TO THE FORCES OF NATURE IN SVALBARD … We wish you an enjoyable and safe stay."

It's little wonder that researchers conducting fieldwork in the region are keen for someone to watch their backs and the governor's office has advertised for a bear spotter to on a three-week posting, starting on 8 July.

Although firearms skills are desirable, the governor's office insists that the polar bear spotter should not need to use a gun "as long as they have a loud voice" to frighten off any bears. "Flare guns can also be very effective, as well as banging together pots and pans to make a lot of sound," Guri Tveito, Svalbard's head of department for environment protection, told the Guardian.

The successful applicant can look forward to a summer of semi-permanent fog, temperatures ranging from below zero to a balmy 6C and limited communication with the outside world. Mobile phone reception is only available in the settlements of Longyearbyen, Sveagruva and Barentsburg at present – just another reason why a loud voice will come in handy.

Only those with strong lungs need apply.

• Norway
• Arctic
• Polar regions
• Animals
• Wildlife
• Europe

Helen Russell
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Scientist whose discovery of the depletion of the ozone layer sparked global action to phase out dangerous chemicals

Joe Farman, who has died aged 82, was the leader of a small group of scientists who made one of the most important discoveries in recent history. In 1985, they published a landmark paper on the ozone layer, the protective skin that filters the sun's ultraviolet rays and without which the rays can cause cancers and eye damage. Their research showed that the ozone layer was being rapidly depleted over the Antarctic.

Just two years later, world governments signed the Montreal protocol, a treaty phasing out the use of CFCs, the chemicals used in aerosols and other applications that were reacting with the ozone. This swift action bore witness to the scale of the threat, and the protocol still stands as the most successful environmental treaty ever. Disaster was averted, and the dangerous chemicals were replaced by – somewhat – safer alternatives. Full repair of the ozone layer will still take decades – the holes in the atmosphere should close by 2080, at current rates – but without the work of Farman the effects could have been catastrophic.

The story of the ozone layer is one of the most important lessons in modern science. Millions of tonnes of dangerous chemical compounds had been poured into the air from industrial activities over decades. Unknown to the people below, these chemicals were causing drastic changes to the atmosphere that were imperilling life on earth in ways barely understood. For years the damage went unnoticed.

Although work by the chemists Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and others in the 1970s had shown that CFCs could react with ozone, there was no empirical evidence that such destruction was actually happening. Satellites from the US space agency Nasa had found nothing. It appeared, in the early 1980s, that fears for the ozone layer were unfounded.

When Farman ran his first readings from a primitive Dobson spectrometer, wrapped in a quilt in the Antarctic in the early 1980s, he thought the instrument must be wrong. The readings suggested a drastic drop in the levels of ozone above the south pole. He got a new machine, but it gave the same results. Convinced, after nearly five years of careful research, he, Brian Gardiner and Jonathan Shanklin published their findings in the peer-review journal Nature on 16 May 1985. The results, showing a 40% drop in ozone, were explosive. It transpired that Nasa had failed to find the drastic drop because, although its satellites and instruments had detected the absence, its software was set to ignore such unusual readings.

In the teeth of strong opposition from the chemicals industries – which protested that the cost of replacing CFCs was too much to bear – the Montreal protocol forced a massive change. Ironically, one of the key groups of replacement chemicals was that of hydrofluorocarbons, later found to be greenhouse gases thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet.

Crucially, Farman had the support of Margaret Thatcher, who was a former chemist and who championed his work and the Montreal protocol. Her support started before his key discoveries: Farman worked for the British Antarctic Survey, which had been threatened with savage reductions and possible closure under the Tories' cuts, and Thatcher saved the research establishment, ringfencing its budget, though not only for scientific reasons; the strategic value of a research outpost in the Antarctic was not lost on the victor of the Falklands war.

Farman was born in Norwich, the son of a builder and a primary school teacher, and with a sister eight years his senior. As a boy he spent his leisure time cycling the length and breadth of Norfolk, and as a member of the Scouts. A pupil of Norwich school, he won a scholarship to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where he studied natural sciences. After taking his degree, Farman joined De Havilland, then a major aircraft manufacturer.

In 1956, he saw an advertisement for people to practise physics in the Antarctic. It appealed to his sense of adventure – he answered the ad and got the job. There followed many years of research near the south pole, in what was at first called the Falkland Islands Dependency Survey and was later renamed the British Antarctic Survey.

In 1959 he met Paula Bowyer, an Oxford history graduate and teacher, and they married in 1971. They moved to Cambridge, to the British Antarctic Survey's laboratory headquarters, in 1976. He was elected a fellow of Corpus Christi College in 1989.

Farman continued to conduct research in Antarctica in later years, though he disparaged the comparative luxury that modern scientists enjoy. Once, in 1990, having set out on foot to retrieve some instruments, he was surprised to see a helicopter from another research centre land near him and offer him a lift. His reply is unrecorded.

Crutzen, Molina and F Sherwood Rowland were awarded the Nobel prize in 1995 for their work on CFCs. Farman and the team that found the data proving their hypothesis, and the danger to the planet, were not similarly honoured. But Farman won the Polar medal, the Society of Chemical Industry environment medal, the Chree medal and prize, and membership of the United Nations Global 500 roll of honour. He was appointed OBE in 1988 and CBE in 2000.

Always an active man, and a keen hockey and rugby player in his youth, Farman was to be seen every morning, until the day before he suffered a stroke in February, cycling to Cambridge University's chemistry department, which he joined after he retired from the civil service (to which the British Antarctic Survey belongs) at the age of 60. When not there, he was likely to be on his allotment, where he grew vegetables and experimented with methods to create compost.

He is survived by Paula.

• Joseph Charles Farman, geophysicist, born 7 August 1930; died 11 May 2013

• Ozone layer
• Physics

Fiona Harvey
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Stephen Harper's administration has increased spend from $9m to $16.5m in the last year

The Canadian government has nearly doubled its advertising spending to promote the Alberta tar sands in an aggressive new lobbying push ahead of Thursday's visit to New York by the prime minister, Stephen Harper.

The Harper government has increased its advertising spending on the Alberta tar sands to $16.5m from $9m a year ago.

The Canadian Press news agency, which first reported on the increase in advertising spending by the Department of Natural Resources, said the television advertising was just one part of a broad promotion for tar sands.

It said the Canadian government was planning another big advertising buy in America aimed at winning White House approval for the Keystone XL pipeline project and promoting exports of crude oil from the Alberta tar sands.

Those high-profile ad buys included sponsoring Politico's Playbook, an influential site that is well-read by administration officials. The Canadian government has also been despatching a series of officials to US and European cities.

On Thursday, it will be the prime minister's turn. Harper was due to start his day with a question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations before heading off to meetings with American business leaders.

The announcement on the prime minister's website put the tar sands pipeline project squarely on Harper's agenda.

"I look forward to engaging with council members on pressing issues including the global economy, trade liberalisation, energy and security, as well as issues of importance to Canada and the US such as the Keystone XL pipeline," a statement said.

Canadian embassy officials in Washington, when asked for details of the visit, provided the link to the same six-day-old press release.

Barack Obama is due to make a decision on the pipeline later this year.

With the fate of the project in the balance, Canadian officials increasingly are going on the offensive to try to beat back opposition to the project and push ahead with development of the tar sands.

"Canada will keep developing its natural resources for export to the United States in a way that ensures the environment is protected," the natural resources minister, Joe Oliver said. "It is important to present these key facts on our strong environment record and long-standing energy relationship to American decision makers and opinion leaders."

In addition to winning approval for the pipeline across the American heartland, Canadian officials are fighting off moves in the European Union to set a separate category for tar sands crude because of its higher greenhouse gas emissions. Oliver has said such moves are unfair.

"It's discriminatory, it's not based on science and it would potentially hurt Canada's ability to access markets for its resources," Oliver told CBC radio.

The project will pump up to 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, opening up an important outlet for the tar sands.

The decision has been cast by both sides as a defining moment for his presidency. The Canadian government, industry and some trades union argue the pipeline will create jobs and help restore the economy.

Climate scientists, environmental campaigners – and some of Obama's biggest supporters among Democratic fundraisers – say the pipeline will unlock a vast store of buried carbon and put the world on course of catastrophic climate change.

• Oil sands
• Keystone XL pipeline
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Oil
• Oil
• Oil and gas companies
• Energy industry
• Stephen Harper
• Canada
• Americas
• United States

Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Wildlife experts will debate the importance of emotion in conservation science for the annual Earthwatch lecture on Thursday. Here, they lay out their arguments

Dr. Wallace J Nichols, research associate, California Academy of Sciences

Most humans through most of time have made their living not by a series of carefully calculated rational decisions based on complete knowledge, but through a diverse and highly evolved mix of emotions in response to extremely limited snapshots of the world around them.

In the past few decades our understanding of the science behind these emotions has increased exponentially. As a result, professionals ranging from economists to politicians, marketers to film makers, magicians to musicians have joined with cognitive scientists to hone their skills and become better at what they do. Even the Dalai Lama has explored his brain waves.

So too must conservationists, environmentalists, and fixers of what's broken nature. If the makers of Super Bowl ads and presidential candidates can use social neuroscience to influence behaviour, so can conservation biologists. An appreciation of the vast cognitive benefits and services provided by healthy ecosystems may help advance more sustainable policies and practices. New research suggest that time spent with nature, in particular near water, significantly reduces stress, accelerates healing, boosts feelings of well-being, enhances creativity, improves cognitive function, increases attention and focus, and may help build new neurons – 'nature neurons'.

We are evolved to be at our best outside, in motion, solving problems. Smart application of these findings might increase support for environmental initiatives as a means to reducing health care costs and stimulating productivity and innovation.

Is there a more important or urgent application of brain science than the restoration and safeguarding of nature? Is there a surge of feelings quite as divine as those that come from standing on a cliff just above the waves crashing upon the Cornwall coast?

Dr Anastasia Steffen, Earthwatch scientist, and adjunct assistant professor, University of New Mexico & Valles Caldera Trust

I am struck by the universality of people's love of beautiful landscapes. In that moment, the sensations may be expressed in spiritual terms, or as curiosity, or humbleness, or with terms of ownership.

We know from our own experience that these vistas give us a chance to ponder our role within something larger, and somehow come away feeling better about ourselves. In these moments, as individuals project themselves out into the natural world and receive an affirming response, they discover a bond they had not previously known or feel a bolstered devotion to place. These moments are powerful openings for education and interpretation.

I come at this topic as a public servant in US land stewardship and these moments are the reason I love my job. I have learned that leaders in land management can recognise these moments as opportunities to listen and to mobilise support and partnerships for preservation of resources.

The reverse sensations can be equally powerful. In the western United States, we are facing increasing drought, megafires, smoke-filled summers, and sometimes even loss of homes and lives. Potential responses are fear, dread, grief and loss.

If we can be prepared to redirect this energy toward the available solutions—recovery, restoration, renewal—then we will make progress not only toward improving the resilience of our forest, but also toward becoming communities facing potential changing patterns of climate, and finding our role within something larger.

Paul Rose, explorer, TV presenter, Earthwatch ambassador

There are now over 7 billion of us and for the first time in history we have become a true force of nature. And yet this out of control growth means that most of us live in urban areas. We've never been so far removed from nature whilst at the same time needing it so essentially. It's impossible for us to consider sustainability and global issues such as overpopulation, climate change, water and food security, overfishing and shark finning to name a handy few, unless we have an emotional connection with nature. It's just too big of a leap.

I see it all the time. Otherwise smart people, disconnected from nature, who are unable to usefully contribute to a global issue debate because their opinions are solely formed from television, online and the press. But have the same discussions with someone fresh from the wild places and their insightful, meaningful opinions formed alongside nature raise the standards delightfully. It's a breath of fresh air that carries with it the authenticity of a personal and transformative experience in nature.

We talk about impact investing, sustainable adaptations to climate change such as Trans-Arctic shipping, the high stakes race that scientists have entered into whereby the planet is changing faster than they can learn about it, and of course the absolutely essential responsibility we have to set the highest possible example to the upcoming generation.

There is no time to waste: throw the doors and windows open, grab the barest minimum of equipment and make a run for it. The finest ideas, leadership and solutions are developed when we are in the wild places. Our debate at the Royal Geographical Society on Thursday has to be inside, but I guarantee that there will be no shortage of fresh air and wilderness fuelled opinions. It's going to be emotional!

• Conservation
• Wildlife

Environment editor
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The surprise U-turn by the MCS comes after it told fish-eaters in January that the species should be consumed rarely

Mackerel has been put back on the "fish to eat" list in a surprise U-turn by conservationists.

The Marine Conservation Society (MCS) on Thursday upgraded its rating for British and European mackerel caught from the most sustainable fisheries to "yellow", meaning people can eat it occasionally without endangering the species.

The reversal comes after it told fish-eaters in January that mackerel should only be consumed rarely, like monkfish and plaice, due to overfishing in the north-east Atlantic.

The MCS said the best choice now is Cornish mackerel caught by "hand-line", with British, European or Norwegian mackerel that is "pelagic-caught" – caught in shoals – as the best alternative. Consumers are urged to avoid Icelandic and Faroese pelagic-caught mackerel, rated "red" on the charity's scale.

Some retailers were privately surprised by the move and appeared to be caught on the hop. But the MCS said the politics around overfishing was playing havoc with stocks.

It said its revised ratings "better reflect the damaging effect the political stand-off is having on mackerel stocks and the wider marine environment. The political impasse is playing a dangerous game with fish stocks, resulting in the twin perils of poor fisheries management and increasing levels of bycatch."

The MCS said in January that because Iceland and the Faroe Islands had dramatically increased their quotas in recent years mackerel was no longer a sustainable choice.

But in its new statement issued on Thursday it said consumers had the power "to help break the deadlock [in international disagreements over mackerel quotas] by only buying mackerel from the most sustainable fisheries available."

Mackerel, an oily fish packed with Omega 3, has been championed by food writers such as Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, who in his Channel 4 Fish Fight programme persuaded sceptical consumers to eat his mackerel baps.

The MCS advised consumers: "The best choice for mackerel remains fish caught locally using traditional hand lining methods. This method is without doubt the most sustainable method of fishing for mackerel and other species. It is labour intensive and produces quality fish which should attract a premium price. Any market flooded with poor quality fish that drives down both prices and sustainability is bad news for everyone".

A Morrisons spokesperson said: "We welcome the announcement from the Marine Conservation Society and believe it's good news for customers who want to enjoy mackerel. We now hope for a quick resolution to the ongoing issues with sourcing mackerel from the north-east Atlantic."

The Scottish Pelagic Processors Association (SPPA) welcomed the move. The SPPA, which represents all major Scottish mackerel processors, has been campaigning for recognition of the sustainable fishing practices employed by European and Norwegian fleets since mackerel was downgraded in January.

Francis Clark, board member of the SPPA, said: "As an industry body we also want to safeguard the livelihood of the mackerel fishing and processing industry in the UK. The species is worth £324m to the economy and supports over 2,200 jobs."

• Fishing
• Food
• Fish
• Seafood
• Food & drink
• Marine life
• Wildlife

Rebecca Smithers
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Li Bingbing and Yao Ming are among the celebrities campaigning to save elephants – now African politicians must do the same

The world can no longer ignore the reality that elephants may be gone within decades, unless something drastic happens to stop the slaughter. Crushing the criminal cartels in Africa is only half of the challenge, demand in consumer countries must also be choked. The demand for ivory in the Far East is unprecedented and China alone consumes over 50% of the illegal ivory coming out of Africa.

Stepping up to the challenge, Chinese actress and UNEP Goodwill Ambassador, Li Bingbing has added her voice to the campaign to raise awareness about how the demand in China is fueling the killing of elephants in Africa. In an emotional press conference at UNEP headquarters in Nairobi recently, Li admitted that she had once purchased a beautiful ivory bracelet because she had no idea that it had come from a killed elephant.

Like many people in China, Li asserts that ignorance in consumer countries is the enemy of elephants. On her first tour in Africa, Li had moving encounters with baby elephants orphaned by poachers at the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust's orphanage in Nairobi, and witnessed a downed matriarch in northern Kenya with Save the Elephants.

She said:

Many consumers in Asia do not realize that by buying ivory, they are playing a role in the illegal wildlife trade and its serious consequences. As global citizens, we need to take responsibility by learning more about the potential impacts of our lifestyle choices.

Among the most recognized faces in China, her message will reach tens of millions of Chinese ivory consumers. Li's presence in Kenya is significant. Kenya and China were both listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as members of a "Gang of eight" countries found to be complicit in the slaughter of elephants. China and Kenya will both face sanctions if they fail to adopt action plans to address the situation.

She is the second Chinese celebrity to demonstrate leadership on the elephant crisis; Basketball phenomenon Yao Ming is also lending his name to a massive Asian campaign by WildAid to influence consumers.

But the slaughter of elephants is happening on African soil, and what Africa needs now is an African champion to save the species.

It will take extraordinary leadership

In 1989, at the height of international criticism of his leadership, Kenya's President Daniel Arap Moi differentiated himself by setting alight Kenya's entire ivory stockpile in what is undisputedly the most powerful conservation symbol the world has ever seen. Governments responded by banning the international trade in ivory and for the next 20 years elephant populations around the continent began to recover. Despite all his misdeeds, Moi is still seen as a saviour of elephants.

The crisis facing elephants today is many times more serious than in 1989, there are far fewer elephants and the demand for ivory is many times more vast. The price of ivory has reached record heights. This month's conservation headlines emphasizes how bad it is across the continent; For example, 26 elephants slaughtered in the Central African Republic's Dzanga Bai National Park by armed militias and rebel forces in just one week; 292 rhinos killed in South Africa in first 5 months of 2013; over 120,000 elephants slaughtered in Sudan over the last 20 years; Elephants may go extinct in 7 years after more than 30,000 elephants killed in Tanzania.

First we must face the truth

Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP in a report titled Elephants in the Dust warns:

"The African Elephant is facing the greatest crisis in decades. Reports of mass elephant killings in the media vividly illustrate the situation across many African range states... In some areas the elephant may soon disappear unless urgent action is taken."

Once again, the world is watching Kenya and judging her behavior. It doesn't look good. Since 2009, Kenya has rapidly ascended to become one of the most prominent countries connecting African ivory with Asian demand. In 2009, Kenya was merely an "emerging force" due to two large shipments of Central African ivory passing through Kenya's Indian Ocean port town of Mombasa. Since then Kenya has become a primary conduit for large shipments of ivory flowing to Asia accounting for over 21.6 tonnes of ivory between 2009 and 2012.

Kenya's prominent role in ivory trafficking is a major shift in African trade routes and the scale of these consignments suggest the handiwork of organized criminal syndicates, and few believe that they could operate without some degree of political protection.

We need a new vision for the continent

Despite the ugly record, and the challenge of having a president who is best known for charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the 2007 post election violence, Kenyan conservationists believe that Kenya's new president Mr. Uhuru Kenyatta is exactly what Africa needs right now.

Kenyatta at his inauguration said:

"My fellow Kenyans, poaching and the destruction of our environment has no future in this country. The responsibility to protect our environment belongs not just to the Government, but to each and every one of us".

Kenya has traditionally been a leading voice on the world stage in the conservation arena, through tourism, collaboration with international agreements, branding, partnerships with the NGO and scientific communities, and documentaries which have shown the world "Magical Kenya". In their inauguration speeches Mr Kenyatta and his Deputy President Mr William Ruto both promised to end the poaching crisis. Kenyatta's commitment echoed those of his father the first president of Kenya who issued a decree to protect Kenya's largest elephant, a magnificent bull named Ahmed who lived on Marsabit Mountain.

Kenya is well positioned geopolitically and technically – the national wildlife enforcement agency, the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), is one of the most respected in the world in wildlife enforcement. Anti-poaching forces from across Africa train at the KWS police training Academy. And, on the non government front, Kenya is home to the world's longest running research on elephants, and is headquarters for most of the greatest experts on this species including, David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, The Amboseli Trust for Elephants, WildlifeDirect, Save the Elephants, IFAW, IUCN African Elephant Specialist Group, Space for Giants, WWF, Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE)/UNEP, amongst others.

It is not surprising that Kenyans and Africans expect Mr Kenyatta to make the difference for elephants but first he must restore Kenya's reputation by doing three things.

First he must amend the legislation which treats wildlife crime as a petty offence that attracts a maximum penalty less than a speeding ticket. He must recognize wildlife crimes as a felony, and increase penalties long jail terms of 7 - 15 years with no option of a fine.

Secondly he must crack down on impunity and corruption in the existing government agencies. The volume of ivory transiting Kenya could only be happening if government officials were involved. This includes wildlife police, customs, revenue and ports authorities.

Finally, he must unite African leaders around the crisis and persuade them to mobilize resources to take on the criminal cartels. No single country can solve the crisis alone, it will take an international coordinated approach. By putting African money into the war chest against poachers, Africa will have earned the moral authority to stand beside China and other countries of the Far East and unapologetically demand the closure of domestic ivory markets.

Only after the criminal cartels are crushed and the demand for ivory is extinguished, will elephants once again be safe.

• Wildlife
• Conservation
• Africa
• Kenya
• China
• Illegal wildlife trade

Paula Kahumbu
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

The black and white ruffed lemur, the Mexican axolotl and the Sunda pangolin are among the species on a pioneering map of the world's most unique and threatened mammals and amphibians

Jessica AldredChristine OliverEric Hilaire

Scientists have discovered water that was sealed in Canadian bedrock for nearly half of Earth's history. It may contain the descendants of ancient microbes. The discovery could give scientists new insights into early life on Earth and inform the search for life on other planets.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

Social media shows hundreds gathering in southern city of Kunming as officials deny refinery will produce carcinogen PX

Thousands of protesters have gathered in the southern Chinese city of Kunming for the second time this month to voice concerns over the environmental impact of a planned chemical plant, according to uncorroborated posts on Twitter and Chinese social networking sites.

The protesters gathered in front of the provincial government headquarters at the intersection of Zhengyi Road and Renmin Road at about 10am, according to the posts. The demonstration has drawn a large police presence and began with one arrest, but has remained largely peaceful.

Kunming's first environmental protest this month was held, without arrests, on 4 May after China National Petroleum Corporation announced plans to build the chemical plant in Anning, 17 miles (28km) south-west of the city centre.

Every year the refinery would produce 500,000 tons of paraxylene (PX), a carcinogenic chemical used in production of polyester, according to the state-run China Daily newspaper.

Thursday's demonstrators donned face masks displaying anti-PX messages, shouted "roll out, protest!" and sang the national anthem in unison, according to Twitter reports.

Photos posted online show a thick line of police pressed tightly against rows of protesters, many of them documenting the standoff with smartphones and digital cameras.

"Protest activities only happen on the precondition that the government doesn't offer opportunities for information transparency, dialogue and negotiation," said an influential Kunming-based blogger who uses the name Bianmin, or "frontier person", in an email interview before Thursday's protest.

"If the government clings to its position, the public's resistance will only increase."

According to pictures posted on the popular Chinese microblogging website Sina Weibo, protesters held banners reading: "Save Kunming! Help us! We love Kunming, oppose pollution" and in English, "Save the water for the life!" The pictures have since been deleted, and searches for Kunming PX have been blocked.

Many university students in Kunming have been blocked from leaving their campuses, according to reports online. On Saturday the municipal government sent text messages to Kunming residents claiming that the project "will not produce PX".

Many Kunming residents appear unconvinced. "If the refinery is [as] clean and safe they claim it to be, why does the government not dare to publish the environmental review report," a demonstrator told the South China Morning Post.

A similar protest earlier this month in Chengdu, the capital of adjacent Sichuan province, was suppressed by police.

Environmental protests have become more common in recent years, as many Chinese people become increasingly exasperated by the government's growth-first development strategy and lack of transparency.

A Shanghai battery manufacturer announced on Wednesday that it would cancel plans for a new plant after hundreds of people staged three protests to voice concerns about its possible environmental impact.

In August 2011 a protest in the north-eastern city Dalian led local authorities to announce that they were would relocate a polluting PX plant. The following summer, the coastal city Qidong scrapped a pipeline plan after about a thousand protesters stormed government offices and overturned cars.

• China
• Asia Pacific
• Pollution
• Oil and gas companies
• Energy industry

Jonathan Kaiman
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Climate-induced forced migration requires a governance framework that can respond faster and more dynamically

It is now two decades since the community of Newtok, a village of around 350 people on the west coast of Alaska, first documented the need to relocate. But despite the concerted efforts of at least 25 tribal, governmental and non-governmental organisations, including the herculean efforts of the Newtok Traditional Council, progress has been painfully slow.

Significant statutory limitations prevent the government from responding effectively and dynamically to the climate-induced environmental changes that are forcing communities like Newtok to relocate in Alaska. In the United States, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), whose activities are defined by the 1988 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, is the federal agency responsible for hazard mitigation and disaster relief in the US.

The act requires a presidential disaster declaration to access federal funding for post-disaster recovery as well as most hazard-mitigation activities. Under the Stafford Act, the president is authorised to declare a disaster for natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and tornados. Drought is the only gradual environmental process listed in the statute as a potential catalyst for a presidential disaster declaration.

Erosion, the principal reason Newtok must relocate, is not included in the list of major disasters in the Stafford Act. As a consequence, the Newtok Traditional Council is not now eligible for disaster relief funding despite the fact that erosion is causing an ongoing disaster and a humanitarian crisis in the community.

This post-disaster recovery and hazard mitigation statutory framework encourages rigid responses to specifically defined random extreme weather events and is primarily aimed at rebuilding and repairing infrastructure in place and protecting them from future hazards through erosion and flood protection. However, the standard, defensive adaptation strategies to protect coastal communities, such as rock walls and sandbags, have been largely unsuccessful in Alaska despite government spending millions of dollars.

This fact is best illustrated by the experience of Kivalina, an Inupiat Eskimo community located north of Newtok and the Arctic circle. In September 2006, after finalising the construction of a multimillion dollar seawall, federal government leaders arrived to celebrate its completion. But before the celebrations could begin, a storm damaged the seawall and caused the officials to cancel the celebration. One year later, in September 2007, a storm, with a forecasted 12 to 14-foot surge for the 10-foot elevation village, threatened the community. Residents feared that the seawall would not protect them, and 250 Kivalina residents evacuated their community in search of safety. The inability of technology to protect people who reside in vulnerable risk-prone coastal and riverine communities is an issue that could affect millions of people all over the world.

Disaster-relief and hazard-mitigation measures are important when protection in place is possible. However, this approach may be futile when climate-induced environmental changes repeatedly alter ecosystems, damage or destroy public infrastructure, and endanger human lives, in which case community relocation involving permanent population displacement may be the only viable adaptation.

The need to relocate entire communities as a result of climate-induced environmental change is an extreme form of adaptation. If climate-induced environmental change renders entire communities uninhabitable, it is critical to understand the governance tools and human rights protections that can foster community resilience. Newtok's relocation provides an example of a model governance structure where the Newtok Traditional Council is leading the community's relocation effort and federal, state and tribal governmental and non-governmental organisations are providing the community with the technical assistance needed to build the infrastructure at the relocation site. However, despite this model working group, the institutional barriers to the relocation process have been enormous.

For these reasons, climate-induced forced migration requires a governance framework that is based in human rights doctrine and that can respond quickly to communities at risk. Adaptive governance, in this context, means that institutions need a range of options, including post-disaster recovery, protection in place (seawall/shoreline protection), hazard mitigation, and relocation, to respond to the humanitarian needs of communities. Human rights protections must be embedded in this governance framework because the failure to fully consider the welfare of the population and empower people of a community to make decisions about issues such as site selection and community lay-out, are the principal reasons that relocations have been unsuccessful.

Amendment of US federal policies such as the Stafford Act to include gradual and recurring climate-induced environmental processes and creation of a relocation institutional framework are critical first steps to facilitating the relocation of communities threatened by climate-induced environmental change and unable to be protected in place. The creation of this institutional framework in the US could be a model for other countries needing to design and implement a response for climate-induced relocations.

• Climate change
• Sea ice
• Sea level
• Polar regions
• Arctic
• Alaska
• United States

Robin Bronen
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it

Our team of citizen science volunteers at Skeptical Science has published a new survey in the journal Environmental Research Letters of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, as the Guardian reports today. This is the most comprehensive survey of its kind, and the inspiration of this blog's name: Climate Consensus – the 97%.

The survey

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of 928 peer-reviewed climate papers published between 1993 and 2003, finding none that rejected the human cause of global warming. We decided that it was time to expand upon Oreskes' work by performing a keyword search of peer-reviewed scientific journal publications for the terms 'global warming' and 'global climate change' between the years 1991 and 2011.

Our team agreed upon definitions of categories to put the papers in: explicit or implicit endorsement of human-caused global warming, no opinion, and implicit or explicit rejection or minimization of the human influence, and began the long process of rating over 12,000 abstracts.

We decided from the start to take a conservative approach in our ratings. For example, a study which takes it for granted that global warming will continue for the foreseeable future could easily be put into the implicit endorsement category; there is no reason to expect global warming to continue indefinitely unless humans are causing it. However, unless an abstract included language about the cause of the warming, we categorized it as 'no opinion'.

Each paper was rated by at least two people, and a dozen volunteers completed most of the 24,000 ratings. The volunteers were a very internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

We also decided that asking the scientists to rate their own papers would be the ideal way to check our results. Who knows what the papers say better than the authors who wrote them? We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Why is this important?

Several studies have shown that people who are aware of scientific consensus on human-caused global warming are more likely to support government action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. This was most recently shown by a paper just published in the journal Climatic Change. People will generally defer to the judgment of experts, and they trust climate scientists on the subject of global warming.

However, vested interests have long realized this and engaged in a campaign to misinform the public about the scientific consensus. For example, a memo from communications strategist Frank Luntz leaked in 2002 advised Republicans,

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"

This campaign has been successful. A 2012 poll from US Pew Research Center found less than half of Americans thought scientists agreed humans were causing global warming. The media has assisted in this public misconception, with most climate stories "balanced" with a "skeptic" perspective. However, this results in making the 2–3% seem like 50%. In trying to achieve "balance", the media has actually created a very unbalanced perception of reality. As a result, people believe scientists are still split about what's causing global warming, and therefore there is not nearly enough public support or motivation to solve the problem.

Check our results for yourself

We chose to submit our paper to Environmental Research Letters because it is a well-respected, high-impact journal, but also because it offers the option of making a paper open access, free for anyone to download.

We have also set up a public ratings system at Skeptical Science where anybody can duplicate our survey. Read and rate as many abstracts as you like, and see what level of consensus you find. You can compare your results to our abstract ratings, and to the author self-ratings.

Human-caused global warming

We fully anticipate that climate contrarians will respond by saying "we don't dispute that humans cause some global warming." First, there are a lot of people who do dispute that humans cause any global warming. Our paper shows that their position is not supported in the scientific literature.

Most papers don't quantify the human contribution to global warming, because it doesn't take tens of thousands of papers to establish that reality. However, as noted above, if a paper minimized the human contribution, we classified that as a 'rejection'. For example, if a paper were to say "the sun caused most of the global warming over the past century," that would be included in the less than 3% of papers rejecting or minimizing human-caused global warming.

Many studies simply defer to the expert summary of climate science research put together by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century has been caused by humans. And according to recent research, that statement is actually too conservative. Of the papers which specifically examine the contributors to global warming, they virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years.

Most studies simply accept this fact and go on to examine the consequences of this human-caused global warming and associated climate change.

Another important point is that once you accept that humans are causing global warming, you must also accept that global warming is still happening. We cause global warming by increasing the greenhouse effect, and our greenhouse gas emissions just keep accelerating. This ties in to the fact that as recent research has showed, global warming is accelerating. If you accept that humans are causing global warming, as over 97% of peer-reviewed scientific papers do, then this conclusion should not be at all controversial. Global warming cannot have suddenly stopped.

Spread the word

Given the importance of the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming in peoples' decisions whether to support action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the public lack of awareness of the consensus, we need to make people aware of these results. To that end, design and advertising firm SJI Associates generously created a website pro-bono, centered around the results of our survey. The website can be viewed at TheConsensusProject.com, and it includes a page where consensus graphics can be shared via social media or email. Skeptical Science also has a new page of consensus graphics.

Quite possibly the most important thing to communicate about climate change is that there is a 97% consensus amongst the scientific experts and scientific research that humans are causing global warming. Let's spread the word and close the consensus gap.

• Climate change
• Climate change

Dana Nuccitelli
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Of more than 4,000 academic papers published over 20 years, 97.1% agreed that climate change is anthropogenic

• Dana Nuccitelli: how we reached the findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Climate change
• Peer review and scientific publishing
• United States

Suzanne Goldenberg
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Your article (European energy chief puts forward case for funding coal, 12 May) says the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has "hinted it may expand funding of high-carbon coal projects despite mounting pressure from climate change campaigners to rule out such investments". This suggestion is wrong. The EBRD is not considering an expansion of its funding of coal projects. The EBRD has been pioneering in its development of a sustainable energy initiative which is actively promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources across the regions where it invests. The EBRD may, on a selective basis and taking into account the lack of availability of alternative sources of energy, consider financing coal-fired projects that would replace highly polluting existing plants with new state of the art ones, thus improving energy efficiency and lowering emissions. But there is no consideration of a policy of expanding its funding for coal projects.
Anthony Williams
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 

• It is disappointing that the transport select committee (Report, 10 May) calls for the expansion of Heathrow, given that millions of Londoners already suffer from the excessive noise and air pollution of an airport that was built in the wrong place. However, in recognising that Britain needs a competitive hub airport and that Heathrow would need a fourth runway, the committee has accidentally made clear why the Davies commission must reject Heathrow expansion and recommend a new airport to the east of London.
Richard Tracey
Transport spokesman, GLA Conservatives

• Coal
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Heathrow third runway
• Airline industry
• London
• Air transport

guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Canvey Wick, Essex: Sitting on our egg boxes are about 20 moths from nine species, including the reed dagger and sloe carpet

Evening falls on this wildlife jewel of a brownfield site. The hazy southern horizon is crenelated with giant fuel storage tanks and chimneys, and dotted with sodium yellow lights. Metallic clanks and distant radio music drift over from an industrial estate. Close by a cuckoo calls enthusiastically from the birch scrub. Our little two-stroke generator is obstinate – coughing, spluttering, smoking and stalling. Eventually it comes to life and we plug in the moth trap; the big mercury vapour bulb flickers on and its glow builds from pink to brilliant white.

Despite the clear sky the air is still and reasonably balmy. We set off on a torch-lit bug hunt, stalking through soggy low-lying areas, striding over the broad asphalt discs where fuel tanks briefly stood in the 1970s, and sweeping nets through herbs growing in sandy areas. Where the vegetation is sparse and sand exposed we find marble-sized, white puffballs on short stems, winter stalkballs (Tulostoma brumale), more usually encountered on sand dunes. We find weevils, shiny round beetles, a variety of spiders, ladybirds, leafhoppers, picture-wing flies and a wealth of other animals – everything is less than 6mm long. Then we spot a bigger beetle climbing nonchalantly on the trunk of a small sallow tree: the blue darkling beetle (Helops caeruleus), a chunky, black, deadwood-feeder with a glorious sheen of metallic blue.

There has been a reasonable catch at the moth trap. The much-delayed spring has been disappointing for moth recorders with low catches widely reported. Sitting safely on our egg boxes are about 20 moths from nine species. Concerns about low numbers are mitigated by the quality of the species. Two are nationally scarce: the reed dagger, a khaki moth with two diffuse black streaks on each forewing, is a wetland-living reed feeder; and the sloe carpet is a delicate grey-brown moth with arched wings and a penchant for blackthorn scrub in Essex and Suffolk. Satisfied by our nocturnal hunt on this enigmatic and wonderful habitat we pack up to the sound of motorbikes speeding up and down the adjacent dual carriageway.

• Rural affairs
• Insects

Matt Shardlow
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

New life is coming to Washington State's Olympic Peninsula. Two dams along the Elwha River are being removed, bringing a rush of sediment downstream and exposing hundreds of acres of once-submerged land. The dams were built in the early 1900s to power nearby timber mills. But they blocked salmon migration and their power is no longer needed, so they're coming out. This story originated as part of the public media collaboration, EarthFix.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

Fish are moving away from the equator and toward the poles to maintain their preferred water temperature. That means, for example, that fishermen are seeing swordfish normally found in the Mediterranean swimming near Denmark. But in the tropics, there are no fish to replace the ones that are leaving.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

Leaked papers show UK rejects proposal to classify oil from tar sands as highly polluting, a label that would deter EU countries from importing it

Britain has given its clearest signal yet that it wants to allow European countries to import carbon-intensive tar sands oil from Canada.

Leaked papers seen by the Guardian show that in EU negotiations on laws intended to encourage the use of low-carbon transport fuels, the UK has rejected language that would class tar sands oil as more polluting than conventional crude or other fuels.

The European commission has proposed labelling the oil as "highly polluting" under its fuel quality directive, a move that would deter countries importing it. Studies suggest that oil from tar sands produces more than one-fifth more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude.

But of six options put to EU countries in April on how to implement the proposal, the UK chose the two that would make no differentiation between the carbon content of fuels.

"Based on the findings so far, it seems clear that [these two] seem to meet the policy aims of the directive with the least risks of unexpected consequences," the UK said in the documents. It firmly rejected others that allowed a difference.

Previously the UK left open the possibility that it would abstain.

The papers were released by Greenpeace as Norman Baker, a minister at the Department for Transport, prepared to meet former Nasa climate scientist Jim Hansen in London. Hansen has been an outspoken critic of tar sands, saying last year "it will be game over for the climate if development of the oil sands isn't stopped".

Charlie Kronick, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said: "Labelling oil from tar sands as highly polluting would strongly discourage tar sands imports into the Europe and possibly other markets. It could also discourage planned tar sands extraction projects in other parts of the world, such as Madagascar.

"If you're not serious about keeping tar sands oil out of Europe, then you're not serious about climate change. This could be the biggest decision Norman Baker will make in his entire career, and right now he's on the wrong side of the science and the wrong side of history."

But Baker said: "Our position has not changed, nor have we chosen any options – Greenpeace is simply wrong. We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and want the fuel quality directive to be a key tool in achieving this aim. We take the treatment of high-emitting oil sands seriously but we want an effective solution to address the carbon emissions from all highly polluting crudes, not simply those from oil sands.

"We continue to encourage the commission to consider and assess options which account for the carbon intensity of all crude oils, including Canadian oil sands. I take this issue seriously and that is why I have arranged to meet Jim Hansen this week to discuss the matter."

• Oil sands
• Energy
• Fossil fuels
• Oil
• Oil
• Canada
• Americas
• European Union
• Europe
• Energy industry

John Vidal
guardian.co.uk © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds