Environment

Ingestion of microplastics by lugworms could have impact on ocean ecosystems due to their importance to food chain

Tiny bits of plastic rubbish ingested by marine worms is significantly harming their health and will have wider impact on ocean ecosystems, scientists have found.

Microplastic particles, measuring less than 5mm in size, have been accumulating in the oceans since the 1960s and are now the most abundant form of solid-waste pollution on Earth.

Two UK-based studies published in the journal Current Biology looked at whether these near-invisible, microscopic plastics that sink into mud and sand in high concentrations are causing harm to species at the base of the food chain that ingest this sediment during feeding, and play a key ecological role as a source of food for other animals.

Using the lugworm as an indicator species, the first study, from the University of Exeter, found that worms feeding in highly contaminated ocean sediment ate less and had lower energy levels. The second study, from Plymouth University, has established for the first time that ingesting microplastics can transfer pollutants and additives to worms, reducing health and biodiversity.

Ingestion of microplastics by species at the base of the food web is a cause for concern as little has been known about its effects until now. Many other organisms that have a similar feeding behaviour, such as starfish, sea cucumbers and fiddler crabs, may be similarly affected.

Lugworms are common invertebrates found widely found across the whole of the north Atlantic, living in burrows in the sand of beaches. They eat sand particles, digesting any micro-organisms and nutrients and passing the sand as waste through their tail, leaving a distinctive trail or "cast" on the beach. The worm can make up about 30% of the biomass of an average sandy beach, making it an important source of food for wading birds and flatfish.

The "earthworms of the sea", lugworms provide another important ecosystem service by turning over large volumes of sand, replenishing organic material and oxygenating the upper layers to keep the sediment healthy for other animals and microorganisms to thrive in.

Microplastics can be made from polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, PVC or polystyrene. They are too small to be captured through existing wastewater treatment process, and wash straight into the ocean.

They fall into three categories: the raw material called "nurdles" that are melted down to make larger plastic items or used as exfoliating beads in cosmetic products, or larger pieces of plastic that have degraded and broken down into smaller particles over time. Microplastics are also found as fibres and have been traced back to synthetic textiles like polyester that are used to make clothes, which can release up to 1,900 tiny fibres per garment every time they are washed.

Microplastics carry a complex mix of chemicals which have the potential to harm the worms, the research showed. Many plastics contain chemical additives, such as plasticisers, dyes, and antimicrobials, which can leach out into sediments and seawater. Microplastics also concentrate water-borne chemicals on their surfaces, such as pesticides and detergents.

There has been much campaigning around the impact of larger marine plastic pollution, with widely documented instances of fish and bird entanglement, ingestion and suffocation. But particles of this microscopic size are available to a much broader range of marine organisms, who ingest and retain these tiny plastic particles and act as prey for larger species.

The first study, by Stephanie Wright from the University of Exeter, put worms into laboratory tanks of varying levels of plastics contamination for up to one month, measuring their growth, physiology, survival and ability to gain weight. She found that lugworms feeding in sediment that was highly contaminated with microplastics put on less weight than worms in clean sediment and had less energy to invest in key processes such as growth and reproduction. These effects could cause populations to decline with knock-on effects for predators, the paper found.

Reduced feeding also means the sediment is being reworked less, the research found. The condition of the sediment could fall, leading to a decline in the communities which live in it. Wright said: "If worms in contaminated environments were to reduce feeding levels by an amount comparable to that seen in the lab, it would mean significantly less turnover of sediment. In an area the size of the Wadden Sea, for instance, sediment turnover could drop by more than 130,000 litres each year."

"We believe our study has highlighted the need to reduce the amount of plastic waste and therefore microplastics which enter our seas," says Prof Tamara Galloway of the University of Exeter. "Plastics are enormously beneficial materials. However, if marine plastic pollution continues to increase, impacts such as those demonstrated in our laboratory studies could occur in the natural environment. It is therefore important that we prevent the accumulation of plastic and microplastic debris in marine habitats through better waste-handling practices and smarter choices in the materials we use."

A separate report, from Dr Mark Anthony Browne on work performed at Plymouth University, showed microplastics can transfer harmful chemicals to lugworms, including hydrocarbons, antimicrobials and flame retardants. Due to its role as a prey species, lugworms could pass these chemicals up the food chain to top predators such as fish.

"These chemicals are persistent, meaning they could accumulate in the tissue of organisms and take a long time to break down," said Prof Richard Thompson of the school of marine science and engineering at Plymouth University, who was the project lead for the work. "Our laboratory studies provide the first clear evidence that microplastics could cause harm and show that this could result from both the physical presence of ingested plastic and chemical transfer. Our next steps will be to establish the full implications of these findings for organisms in natural habitats."

• Marine life
• Pollution
• Oceans
• Waste
• Animals
• Zoology
• Biology

Jessica Aldred
theguardian.com © 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

Andrew Sparrow's rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including the full details of the government's plans to cut energy bills, energy firms announcing cuts in response, and David Cameron in China

Andrew Sparrow

Coal lobbyist Milton Catelin says Christiana Figueres is too focused on climate change and misunderstands energy sector, reports RTCC

The idea that a meaningful agreement can be forced upon countries is farcical, writes Joseph Zammit-Lucia, we need co-operation on achievable policies

Predictably, COP19 in Warsaw has achieved little. Maybe the biggest achievement is that is has now become abundantly clear that the prospects are now close to zero that a meaningful legally binding, global agreement on carbon emissions will be signed in Paris in 2015.

Of course, some agreement may well be signed to enable all to claim success. But that can only happen if a form of words can be found to make such an agreement largely meaningless. As famously said by Geoffrey Howe, by drawing on the ability to separate words from meaning.

For many years, the COP negotiations have achieved little in spite of all the resources mobilised and the taxpayer money spent. Now, however, they have gone beyond being useless to being actually counter-productive to the cause of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Why?

Negotiations pitched in the framework of achieving legally binding emissions targets were always likely to result in confrontation by pitching one country's interests against the other. This generates antagonism and defensiveness rather than co-operation.

Many delegations no longer come to these talks armed with constructive suggestions. Rather, some focus on pushing others to make concessions in their own particular interests while others simply want to make sure that nothing gets written that could harm their national interests. The negative impact of this goes beyond the bland statements and paralysis to which we have now become accustomed. It is a framework that generates suspicion, mistrust, antagonism and casting of blame this way and that.

The endless and tiresome public condemnations emerging from environmental groups further increase the negative ambiance and governments' siege mentality.  All this has been further escalated in Warsaw with ill-advised attempts to try to hold developed countries legally liable for the effects of past emissions. If there ever was an idea designed to irritate and turn un-cooperative countries that were previously helpful, this was a master stroke.

All this anger, mistrust and finger pointing came to a head in Warsaw when a whole gaggle of delegations simply walked out of the talks.

In such a poisonous atmosphere, no meaningful progress is possible. Worse than that, institutions such as the US Congress will, on principle, simply never ratify an agreement that they perceive as having been pushed upon them by other countries. China and Russia will likely take the same attitude. The idea that a meaningful agreement can somehow be forced upon the whole international community is farcical.

A primary issue is that the COP process is focused on the wrong target. There is very little disagreement on the reality of climate change. Neither is there much resistance to the idea that reducing emissions and preparing through adaptation are both desirable goals.

But no government is comfortable with what would be the appropriate policies to achieve these twin goals without compromising their economies or spending billions of non-existing taxpayer funds. It's not a lack of will that is the problem; it's a lack of politically and practically achievable ways to achieve these results. In this environment, it is sheer folly to attempt to impose targets without a meaningful road map of how such targets can be practically achieved.

What would be a productive way forward? The first, overwhelming need is not for a legally binding agreement but for an atmosphere of positive co-operation. We can achieve this - over time - by converting these UN-sponsored meetings into conferences of achievement. Government delegations should be invited to share with others what they have done right, how they have done it, what they have learned, and what they are planning to achieve further progress.

Other governments can take whatever they want from these experiences and adapt them to their own circumstances. Small groups of countries whose interests may coincide can, if they wish, form formal alliances to work together to achieve progress. Larger, wealthier countries can offer help and support in technology transfer and financial assistance on a bilateral basis.

These conferences can become deal-making conferences where everyone can take what they wish in an atmosphere that is focused on positive achievement, where nobody is called out as the culprit, and where no attempts are made to hold individual countries' feet to the fire.

Second, the focus needs to change from emissions targets to devising appropriate and credible policies. In spite of the continued assertions of activists to the contrary, it has been shown time and time again that we currently have neither the technologies nor the social structures nor the policy know-how to convert developed economies quickly to low carbon ones without considerable economic and social cost.

As has been shown in Canada and Australia, over-reach simply results in electoral loss and quick policy U-turns. Neither do developing countries yet have the wherewithal to accommodate their development aspirations using a low carbon path. These meetings would be more productive if they were to focus seriously on the 'how' of low carbon economies rather than clamouring for targets that countries will never sign up to simply because they have no idea how they might credibly achieve them.

Finally, these meetings need to be taken out of the hands of scientists, technocrats and activists and handed over to institutions that understand the language, the practicalities and the difficulties of multi-lateral diplomacy. Countries should not be represented by environment ministries that tend to be dominated by technocrats and, as we have seen in Warsaw, simply get axed when they concede too much.

Ministries of foreign affairs, ministries of industry and the economy and overseas development agencies would provide a much more rounded and appropriate skills base. The voice of environmental organisations would be more effective and less disruptive if it were represented by a single, respected agent such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature – a membership organisations that counts all the major environmental NGOs, as well as many government organisations, among its members. A single voice providing constructive input is more effective than an un-coordinated free for all.

The continued march of climate change and its human, natural and economic impacts is a tragedy. The COP process has converted it into a farce. If we are to make progress, we need to dismantle the current poisonous atmosphere of conflict and mistrust and replace it with an atmosphere of co-operation. This can only be achieved by having the right people at the table talking about positive achievement and changing the focus from meaningless targets to exploration of practical and achievable policy innovations.

Joseph Zammit-Lucia is an author, commentator and leadership adviser. He is president of WOLFoundation and a partner at Camunico

Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox

• Leadership
• Sustainability
• Climate change
• Collaboration
• Climate change
• COP 19: UN climate change conference | Warsaw

theguardian.com © 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 study examines meteorologists, the global warming consensus, political ideology, and climate expertise

Several surveys have found relatively low acceptance of human-caused global warming amongst meteorologists. For example, a 2009 survey found that among Earth scientists, only economic geologists (47 percent) had lower acceptance of human-caused global warming than meteorologists (64 percent). A new paper by social scientists from George Mason University, the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and Yale University reports results from a survey of members of the AMS to determine the factors associated with their views on climate change.

Climate Scientists and Meteorologists, Apples and Oranges

Predictably, many climate contrarians have already misrepresented this paper. In fact, the Heartland Institute (of Unabomber billboard infamy) misrepresented the study so badly (and arguably impersonated the AMS in a mass emailing), the AMS executive director (who is a co-author of the paper) took the unusual step of issuing a public reprimand against their behavior.

The misrepresentations of the study have claimed that it contradicts the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming. The prior studies that have found this high level of consensus were based specifically on climate experts – namely asking what those who do climate science research think, or what their peer-reviewed papers say about the causes of global warming.

The AMS on the other hand is not comprised primarily of climate experts. Some of its members do climate research, but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years (78 percent said it's mostly human-caused, 10 percent said it's equally caused by humans and natural processes, and 5 percent said the precise degree of human causation is unclear, but that humans have contributed). Just 2 percent of AMS climate experts said global warming is mostly natural, 1 percent said global warming isn't happening, and the remaining 4 percent were unsure about global warming or human causation.

The authors also note that they asked about contributions to global warming over the past 150 years, whereas climate scientists are most confident that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past 50 years. Some survey participants sent emails implying that if the question had more narrowly focused on the past 50 years, even more respondents might have said that global warming is mostly human-caused.

Importantly, most AMS members are not climate researchers, nor is scientific research of any kind their primary occupation (for example, weather forecasters). Among those AMS members who haven't recently published in the peer-reviewed literature, just 62 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming, with 37 percent saying humans are the main cause over the past 150 years.

The bottom line is that the previous studies finding 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming are not directly comparable to this new study, which surveyed all AMS members, most of whom are not climate experts. The study's lead author, Neil Stenhouse, agrees that the Heartland Institute's James Taylor has misrepresented their study.

"Mr. Taylor's claims are highly misleading, but we expect that from someone with a long history of distorting the truth about global warming. We found high levels of consensus on global warming among the climate experts in our sample. You only see low levels of consensus in the sample if you also look at the views of people who are not climate experts."

What's Causing Meteorologist Skepticism?

When we actually examine the questions the study does investigate, as opposed to the contrarian approach of twisting the results to try and make them fit preconceived notions, it contains a lot of interesting information. The authors proposed four hypotheses to explain the variation in AMS members' views on global warming. They found evidence supporting each of the four hypotheses. In terms of predicting meteorologists' positions on human-caused global warming, listed in order from strongest to weakest, these were:

1) Perceived scientific consensus on global warming
2) Political ideology
3) Climate expertise
4) Perceived conflict among AMS members on global warming

Interestingly, the strongest single factor in predicting meteorologists' acceptance of human-caused global warming was their perception of the level of expert consensus on the subject. This result is consistent with previous research finding that people are more likely to accept this reality and support taking climate action if they're aware of the expert climate consensus. Like most people who are not expert in a particular field, most meteorologists also defer to the expert consensus...when they're aware that expert consensus exists. This is precisely why climate contrarians work so hard to deny that the climate consensus is real. The authors suggest tackling this misconception head-on.

"First, the strong relationship between perceived scientific consensus and other views on climate change suggests that communication centered on the high level of scientific consensus may be effective in encouraging engagement by scientific professionals."

Political ideology was the second strongest predictor of meteorologists' positions on global warming. Conservative AMS members were significantly more likely to doubt the reality of human-caused climate change. This tells us that the relatively high rate of rejections of the climate consensus isn't based on science, because the scientific evidence has nothing to do with politics. This is also evident from the fact that meteorologists with more climate expertise are more likely to accept human-caused global warming. According to this study, the relatively low level of consensus across all AMS members is due to a combination of factors: lack of awareness of the expert consensus, political bias, and lack of climate expertise.

In any case, the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming is still a reality.

• Climate change
• Climate change scepticism
• Climate change

Dana Nuccitelli
theguardian.com © 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

Voters don't trust the government or the energy companies – so plans to reduce fuel bills by £1 a week may not win them over

It's the process as much as the policy. The Conservatives may not gain as much as they hope from George Osborne's plans to cut domestic fuels bills by an average of £50 a year. This is because recent YouGov polls for the Sunday Times and Prospect suggest that what is currently driving public opinion is not only the price of gas and electricity, but deep distrust of both the government and the energy companies.

Let's take the specific policy first. Our latest survey for the Sunday Times shows that the "green levy" is not popular. Given three options, only 17% want the levy to continue in its present form. However, a further 38% still want the same amount spent on measures to tackle climate change but want the money to come from general taxation rather than fuel bills; so 55% back the spending in principle. Only 32% want green spending scrapped altogether. It looks, then, as if the chancellor has got the balance about right, cutting the typical family's fuel bills by £1 a week, by using part of the government's better-than-expected finances to maintain green spending.

But the politics of fuel prices and climate change goes deeper than that. David Cameron has a particular problem. He appealed to voters to "vote blue, go green", and promised the "greenest government ever".

Today, only 16% think we now have the greenest ever government. Among Tory voters, the number is higher, 33%, but well short of a majority.

The prime minister still insists on his devotion to a green future; but by almost three-to-one (58%-21%), we think that he does not really believe in environmental policies but says he does so "for political reasons". This week's autumn statement risks reinforcing public scepticism, if voters regard the switch in green funding as a panicky, tactical reaction to Ed Miliband's promise of a fuel price freeze rather than the latest chapter in a clear and consistent narrative.

Indeed, the Conservatives (and Liberal Democrats) may have problems defending this week's switch in funding of the green levy if voters think the cost should be borne by the energy companies rather than the taxpayer. Consider this question that YouGov asked recently for Prospect: "Britain's major energy companies are raising the price of gas and electricity this winter by 8-10%. They say that their prices are determined by (a) general energy prices in world markets over which they have no control, (b) "green" rules and levies imposed by successive governments to reduce carbon emissions and (c) the need to find money to invest in future power supplies and avoid blackouts in years to come.

Critics of the companies say that the real reason they are putting up prices is to protect excessive profits, and that they could keep prices down, afford to buy energy on world markets, meet their "green" obligations and still afford investment in future energy. A clear majority, 57%, sides totally with the critics. A mere 3% think the companies are right – while 30% think the companies have a case but are raising prices more than they need to.

However, the next question shows that most people are reacting against the storytellers rather than the three elements of their story. We asked respondents to imagine that our energy was supplied by not-for-profit companies owned by their customers. In those circumstances, big majorities recognise that our gas and electricity prices would need to reflect world energy prices, include "green levies" and generate money for investment – and even add more to our energy bills in order to limit our reliance on imports in the long term.

The figures relating to green levies are particularly striking. All else being equal, people would prefer cheaper energy bills. But there is a broad consensus that embraces young and old, men and women, north and south, rich and poor, that if such levies would be justified if they were part of a long-term plan developed by companies they respected. This is a specific example of the wider point that our horror at the bills we will face this winter flows from our perception of corporate greed more than price rises per se.

All of which suggests that Ed Miliband should be basking in public adulation for being pro-green, pro-price-freeze and anti-fuel-company greed. However, he too has a story/storyteller problem. Although two-thirds of voters regard a freeze as a good idea, most people who like it in principle think it "risky in practice given the volatility of energy prices in world markets".

When we add together those who regard the idea as nice-but-risky (36% of the total electorate) and those who think government price controls are a bad idea (24%), then six out of 10 voters are sceptics. If Miliband is to win the next election, he must convince more voters not only that his policies are attractive but that he knows how to make them work. Above all, this means persuading many more people that he is up to the job of prime minister.

Our political leaders, then, are right to detect the political sensitivity of fuel prices. But they should beware of interpreting public opinion too simply. Yes, voters like any help they can get coping with the cost of living. But what they want even more is competent, clear-sighted political leadership. A pound a week off our fuel bills, like the promise of a 17-month post-election freeze, is all very well. But it will attract electoral dividends only if it can be presented as part of a responsible and lasting approach to the problem. Which is why the choice of immediate policy is only part of the challenge. Restoring trust is the bigger task, and the leaderships of all three main parties have a huge amount to do.

• Energy bills
• Energy industry
• Economic policy
• Energy

Peter Kellner
theguardian.com © 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

Leading scientists and economists, including Ross Garnaut, say a world on track for 4C warming will put Australia ‘under assault’

Oliver Milman

Expert says it is 'very likely' that the risk of tuberculosis in cattle has gone up after the cull failed to reach target

The failure of the controversial badger cull in Gloucestershire to come close to its target means it is "very likely" that the risk of tuberculosis in cattle has gone up, not down, according to a leading scientist.

Badger culling is intended to cut bovine TB but the pilot cull in Gloucestershire, despite having been almost doubled in length to 11 weeks, killed just 39% of the badgers estimated to be in the area. The initial target had been a minimum of 70% in a maximum of six weeks.

"It's very likely that so far this cull will have increased the TB risk for cattle inside the Gloucestershire cull zone rather than reducing it," said Prof Rosie Woodroffe, a key member of the team that conducted an earlier, decade-long trial of badger culling.

However, the environment secretary, Owen Paterson, told parliament on Monday that the extended cull had been a success. "The extension in Gloucestershire has been successful in meeting its aim in preparing the ground for a fully effective four-year cull," Paterson said. "The independent panel of experts will now consider the information collected during the pilots on the safety, effectiveness and humaneness of controlled shooting. This will inform my decision on the wider roll-out of badger control in those parts of England most severely affected by this disease." He said that between January and August 2013, more than 22,500 otherwise healthy cattle had been slaughtered because of bovine TB.

The extended Gloucestershire cull ended on Saturday, three weeks earlier than planned due to very low numbers of badgers being shot. Natural England revoked the extension licence, with the agreement of the culling company and the National Farmers Union (NFU), but licences permitting six-week culls over four years in Gloucestershire and Somerset remain in place.

Prof David Macdonald, a badger expert at Oxford University and lead scientist on the board of Natural England, told the Guardian: "Revoking the licence was the right decision. Those facing this decision at Natural England should be congratulated on their dedication to following the evidence."

Anti-cull campaigners labelled the cull a fiasco and a shambles after the end of the cull was revealed by the Guardian on Friday. Maria Eagle, shadow environment secretary, said: "The decision to revoke this badger cull licence is a humiliation for Owen Paterson and must spell the end for his misguided and unscientific policy. It's clear that the government's continual moving of the goalposts on these culls has rendered them worthless, while risking the further spread of TB, and they should now be abandoned."

The pilot culls were intended to test whether shooting free-running badgers at night could kill sufficient numbers of the animal to reduce TB in cattle herds. An earlier, decade-long trial called the randomised badger culling trial (RBCT) found that culling could after four years curb TB infections by about 16%, but it used the more expensive method of trapping the badgers in cages before shooting them.

The RBCT culls were also carried out quickly – within eight to 11 days – and experts have warned repeatedly that the much longer and less effective current pilots risk actually increasing TB, as fleeing badgers spread the disease more widely, an effect called perturbation. The scientists behind the decade-long trial have called the cull "mindless" and a "costly distraction".

Woodroffe told the Guardian: "The current situation shows the risks of trying to control cattle TB by killing badgers. The 70% target has been revised down again and again, from at least 70%, to hopefully 70%, to 53%, and now we learn that only 39% was achieved."

"Culling low numbers of badgers, over a prolonged period, during these winter months, are all associated with increased TB," she said. "As Defra [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs], Natural England, the NFU, and the farmers themselves consider how to proceed, they can bear in mind two important lessons learned from these pilot culls. First, because cull companies can't kill enough badgers, fast enough, the disease control benefits of this sort of culling are likely to be smaller than Defra estimated. Second, because free shooting didn't work and because there was massive public protest, the costs of culling are much higher than expected."

Woodroffe said the £1m spent on policing just the first six weeks of culling in Gloucestershire could have secured five years of volunteer-led badger vaccination over a similarly large area. "Vaccination by volunteers is cheaper than culling and it also builds bridges between farmers and wildlife lovers, instead of setting them at odds," she said.

Paterson's written statement to parliament said: "I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who have undertaken the pilots in both areas, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority." He added: "Culling is only one part of our approach to tackle the spread of TB. We are using every tool available including tougher movement controls for cattle, better biosecurity on farms and working to develop effective and usable cattle and badger vaccines."

• Badgers
• Wildlife
• Animals
• Bovine tuberculosis
• Rural affairs
• Farming
• Animal welfare

Damian Carrington
theguardian.com © 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

Every year milllions of reptile skins are traded, but illegal activity and a lack of transparency has led to poor management and poor animal welfare standards

The Python Conservation Partnership (PCP) was launched last week by the IUCN/SSC Boa & Python Specialist Group (BPSG), the International Trade Centre (ITC) and the multi-brand group Kering (owner of Gucci, among others). The initiative aims to contribute to the conservation of two of the world's largest snakes; the Reticulated and Burmese pythons.

Over the next three years the BPSG will conduct research and analysis, and provide recommendations on sustainability, transparency, animal welfare and local livelihoods related to the python skin trade worldwide.

But why is this important? Well, let's put this trade into context. Each year, several million reptile skins are traded internationally, half a million of which are from pythons in South East Asia. The primary use of these skins is for luxury leather goods (handbags, shoes) and traditional musical instruments in China, however the meat and gall bladder is also utilised in South East Asia for traditional medicine. Combined, these uses have resulted in increased pressure on python populations.

The trade in pythons is regulated internationally by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and is consequently subjected to controls at the exporting and importing level. However, this has not been enough to guarantee trust in a growing trade, which according to a recent study by the ITC, the Trade in Southeast Asian Python Skins (PDF), involves not less than six countries of the region, hundreds of thousands of hunters and generates about $1bn per year. Despite being a significant industry in its own right, circulation of images and video from python slaughterhouses via the internet has once again thrust this trade into the spotlight.

Despite the increased attention, concerns surrounding this trade are not new. During the 1990s there were warning signs that trade in pythons could negatively impact the conservation of some species. Scientific studies were carried out, reports and recommendations were issued, but little or nothing was actually accomplished. Commitment from the industry was haphazard. Only regional associations participated in the initiative - but none of the major brands followed - and the trade went on with no visible improvements or innovations. This is where the PCP initiative aims to remedy that situation.

Today we know that in spite of the benefits represented by python trade to local communities, there are serious deficiencies in the commercial chain and sourcing, which results in lack of transparency and favours illegal activity. The lack of transparency and the illegal nature of at least part of the trade hinder proper management of pythons at the local level, favour unfair benefit-sharing among stakeholders, and impede the application of better standards for animal handling.

Furthermore, an increasing proportion of python skins in trade are being declared as originating from breeding facilities. However serious reservations have been expressed about the economic and biological viability of these operations. Even though this is not necessarily a matter of survival for South East Asian pythons, which have been exploited for at least eight decades, the current system of utilisation endangers the sustainability of the activity as a whole, and with it the livelihoods of the people who cohabit with them.

The PCP will contribute to addressing these issues with several projects concerning wild harvest, captive breeding, animal health and welfare, and the impact on livelihoods. Over the next 18 months we expect to publish a series of reports that will highlight the findings and recommendations.

Over the next month we will be finalising the first report on the feasibility of captive rearing of pythons. By the end of the first year we propose to have a third report on the livelihood impacts that the python has for local people in South East Asia and a management protocol for ensuring sustainable wild harvests. These documents will provide the data and recommendations for CITES, government authorities and the private sector to begin creating systems for improved monitoring of the trade in terms of sustainability, traceability and animal welfare.

The BPSG faces the challenge of coping with conservation problems for nearly 200 species worldwide. Even though this initiative relates to fewer than 3% of the species within our remit, the approach is innovative and the hope is it will pave the road toward a new paradigm for conservation.

Until now, collaboration by scientists, specialists in international trade and major industry stakeholders to improve wildlife trade has not been accomplished. This is an exciting initiative for all stakeholders and for python conservation. Watch this space!

Tomás Waller is chair of the Boa & Python Specialist Group (BPSG) and a member of International Union for Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Species Survival Commission (SSC)

Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a member of the Guardian Sustainable Business Network to get more stories like this direct to your inbox

• Supply Chain
• Sustainability
• Snakes
• Animal welfare
• Fashion industry

theguardian.com © 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

At the start of a three-day visit to China on Monday, prime minister David Cameron speaks at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing

Oliver Jeffcott: Police fined Alex Paxton for going through a red light because the Advanced Stop Line box was filled by a car

The scale of the elephant poaching epidemic could lead to local populations becoming extinct, an IUCN report says

Africa will lose one-fifth of its elephants in the next decade if the continent's poaching crisis is not stopped, data published on Monday shows.

There were about 10 million African elephants (Loxodonta africana) at the turn of the 20th century, but that number has fallen to half a million due to poaching and habitat loss, and the new figures show 22,000 were killed in 2012. While less than the record 25,000 deaths in 2011, the rate of killing compared to natural population growth means the largest animal on Earth could soon become extinct in local areas, conservationist warn.

John E Scanlon, secretary-general of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites), the treaty that protects endangered species, said: "Current elephant poaching in Africa remains far too high, and could soon lead to local extinctions if the present killing rates continue. The situation is particularly acute in central Africa – where the estimated poaching rate is twice the continental average."

Eight men were arrested in the past week in the Democratic Republic of Congo for illegal wildlife trafficking. One of the eight, a 32-year-old Chinese national, was arrested with ivory jewellery while attempting to board a flight. Much of the demand for ivory is driven by China, where a growing middle-class is buying it as a status symbol.

Tom Milliken, ivory trade expert at Traffic, which monitors the illegal wildlife trade, said: "From 2000 through 2013, the number of large-scale ivory movements has steadily grown in terms of the number of such shipments and the quantity of ivory illegally traded. 2013 already represents a 20% increase over the previous peak year in 2011; we're hugely concerned."

The new figures, from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), come as African leaders and ministers meet today in Gaborone, Botswana, to discuss measures to tackle illegal poaching.

Lamine Sebogo, African elephant programme Manager at WWF International, said: "Wildlife crime is a serious global security issue and participation by all countries is required to stop it. In many places improvements are needed in regulation, enforcement, transparency, resourcing and transnational collaboration."

• Illegal wildlife trade
• Endangered species
• Wildlife
• Conservation
• Animals
• Africa

Adam Vaughan
theguardian.com © 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

How the government measures might work and how your energy bill might fall

The government has anounced a series of measures which it claims will cut household energy bills by an average of £50.

How will the cuts be made?

There are two measures which could save consumers cash:

• The cost of the energy company obligation (Eco), an insulation scheme delivered by major energy suppliers, will be reduced – a move that should shave £30-£35 off bills.

• The Department of Energy & Climate Change (Decc) will offer customers a rebate of £12, payable for the next two years.

• The electricity distribution network companies have volunteered to reduce network costs in 2014/15, which will lop about £5 off electricity bills, which energy suppliers can pass on to their customers as well.

Will my bill fall?

Not necessarily – and if it does, not by as much as it has already risen this year. British Gas has announced it will cut household gas and electricity prices by an average of 3.2%, which is equivalent on average to £41 off the annual dual fuel bill – on top of this its customers will get the £12 rebate. However, it just put prices up by 9.2%, or £107 a year. Also, the cuts will not be implemented until 1 January 2014.

Npower has said it will reduce its prices, but it is still to calculate by how much, while SSE has announced a 4% decrease which will be implemented before the end of March, but it has just put prices up by 8%.

EDF had already factored in the changes to the Eco costs when it announced a 3.9% rise, set to come into force in January, so it will only reduce bills by the £12 offered through the rebate.

Co-operative Energy had done the same, reducing a planned price rise in November, so its customers will see bills reduced by just £12 a year.

Does this mean my bill won't rise next year?

Sadly not. Even npower's pledge not to raise energy prices before spring 2015 came with the caveat "unless there are increases in wholesale energy costs or network charges".

Will the energy companies' profits be reduced?

With the exception of the agreement to reduce distribution costs, the rest of the cuts are being funded by the government, so energy firms' profits are not set to be hit.

Will there still be help to make homes energy efficient?

Yes there will. The energy companies will still be required to help vulnerable households improve their efficiency by offering "easy" measures such as free loft and cavity wall insulation through the Eco. What is being reduced is their obligation to do difficult work like solid wall insulation, although they will still have to provide a minimum of 100,000 homes with this.

There will also be a new payment for homebuyers to fund energy-saving measures when they move into a property.

How will that work?

Details are scant, but if you are buying a property you will be able to claim money to help you make it more energy-efficient. This could be up to £1,000 for measures like insulation, or up to £4,000 for particularly expensive measures like solid wall insulation.

How it will work is to be consulted on – it could be linked to the green deal, or run as a separate scheme. A spokesman for Decc said it is unlikely to come into effect until the next financial year.

• Energy bills
• Household bills
• Consumer affairs
• Utilities
• Energy industry
• Energy

Hilary Osborne
theguardian.com © 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 stunning time-lapse HD video of an artist at work drawing a beautiful, realistic parrot

Sometimes, watching an artist at work is almost like watching magic happen. A flat surface of paper or canvas is transformed into a three-dimensional picture that looks real. In this case, I was so impressed by Italian artist Marcello Barenghi's drawing of a blue-and-yellow macaw, Ara ararauna, that I had to share the stunning time-lapse video of its creation with you.

The blue-and-yellow macaw -- also known as the blue-and-gold macaw -- is a large parrot with a long pointed tail. These parrots are sapphire blue with lemon yellow underparts, an emerald green forehead, a charcoal black throat and a white face. Blue-and-yellow macaws are large; adults measure between 76 to 86 cm from beak to tail-tip, and weigh between 900 to 1500 grams (2-3.3 pounds).

These parrots live throughout dry woodlands of South America in family groups and loose flocks. Although the blue-and-yellow macaw is nearly extirpated from some areas (Paraguay in particular), it nevertheless is common throughout much of its range, so it is classified as "least concern". Wild blue-and-yellow macaws are protected from capture, trade and hunting under international law.

Wild blue-and-yellow macaws consume a tremendously varied diet of fruits, vegetable material and nuts. Their large beak evolved as a multi-purpose tool that the parrots use to break open the hard shells of nuts, to redecorate nest cavities and they also use it as a "third hand" for climbing.

Although loud and destructive, captive-bred blue-and-yellow macaws are commonly kept in the United States and throughout parts of Europe because, when handled respectfully and often, they make gentle and affectionate pets. They are long-lived, intelligent and trainable and they require a lot of attention and interaction on a daily basis. These parrots can mimic the human voice, although I think they sound like they are shouting rather than chatting.

As promised, here's a time-lapse video of the artist creating a drawing of this parrot species. I particularly enjoy that special moment when the drawing goes from being a flat representation to something more -- when the parrot seems to pop right off the surface. This 3 minutes and 48 seconds long video captures the entire creation process, which the artist says took 3 hours and 52 min to complete:

[Video link]

Illustrator Marcello Barenghi specialises in creating hyperrealistic speed drawings for HD videos. He maintains an extensive website filled with time-lapse videos of him drawing a huge variety of subjects.

GrrlScientist can also be found here: Maniraptora. She's very active on twitter @GrrlScientist and sometimes lurks on social media: facebook, G+, LinkedIn, Pinterest.

• Art
• Birds
• Zoology
• Science
• Animals
• Pets

GrrlScientist
theguardian.com © 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

British Gas says it will cut average £41 from dual-fuel bills, while Scottish & Southern Energy expects to cut £50

Britain's under-fire energy suppliers have said they will cut household bills after the government confirmed a shakeup of green levies.

British Gas said it would reduce gas and electricity prices by an average of 3.2%, equivalent to £41 from an annual dual-fuel bill, with an extra £12 rebate for the government's warm home discount scheme.

Its rival Scottish & Southern Energy said it expected a saving for the typical dual-fuel customer of around 4% before the end of March, equivalent to a saving of around £50.

The moves come after the chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that the costs of some energy-efficiency schemes would be rolled back in this week's autumn statement.

Npower said it did not plan to increase energy prices before spring 2015 unless there were increases in wholesale energy costs or network charges.

The cut in British Gas bills comes two weeks after it raised electricity prices by 10.4% and gas tariffs by 8.4%, adding around £123 to the average annual bill.

British Gas's managing director, Chris Weston, said on Monday: "British Gas is pleased to be cutting energy bills by an average of £53 from 1 January.

"We have been able to do this because the government has committed to making changes to the environmental and social obligations that are paid for through energy bills. These changes will now allow us to help more people at a lower cost."

The government is cutting the cost of the energy company obligation (Eco), an insulation scheme delivered by major energy suppliers, in a move that should shave £30-£35 off bills, on average, next year.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change also announced it was establishing a rebate, saving the average customer £12 on their bill for the next two years.

Electricity companies will also take voluntary action to reduce network costs in 2014-15, funding a one-off reduction of around £5 on electricity bills.

The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, said: "Energy bills are a big concern for many people, which is why we've been working to reform the energy market, increase competition and make it easier for people to shop around and switch supplier.

"Today's announcement confirms a serious, workable package which would save households around £50 on average."

• Energy bills
• Utilities
• Household bills
• Energy industry

theguardian.com © 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

Parties to separate fates of Climate Change Authority and Clean Energy Finance Corporation to test 'rationale' for abolishing them

Singer Katy Perry's new album has been adored in some reviews, but one critic is the Australian Department of Agriculture. Seeds included in the CD could pose a threat to the environment there.

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

The prime minister returns to parliament on Monday beset by criticism over his broken promise on Gonski, the debt ceiling and the wash up on GrainCorp. Follow the day as it happened

Gabrielle Chan

Guardian News & Media publishes annual sustainability report:  Scott Trust values in a digital age

Christopher Hodgson

Wild Network is urging parents to encourage children to play with nature and the outdoors rather than technology

With sales of tablets, smartphones and gadgets predicted to soar this Christmas, many British households will soon be temples to the latest technology.

But parents are now being asked to consider a low-tech alternative – to root around in the back garden and give their children a stick or a stone instead, in place of the latest smartphone, and to swap "screen time" for "wild time".

The Wild Network (www.projectwildthing.com) wants to drag youngsters off the sofa and get them interested in nature and outdoor play.

The network has therefore drawn up an "alternative Christmas list for kids" that suggests a stick makes a brilliant gift. Sticks, it helpfully suggests for baffled parents, are "easy to pick up, perform a thousand different uses and can be thrown away as easily as you found it. Great for helping with imaginary games, playing Pooh sticks, building things."

Think that may be a tad tricky to wrap? Then what about a smooth stone "which can be skimmed or carved" or a pair of wellington boots for "jumping in puddles, wading through streams, walking along muddy lanes".

A National Trust spokesman said: "Technology has a role to play in all of our lives but so does time spent in nature and playing outdoors – whether that's a local park, green space or a trip to the country."

The Wild Network was founded in September this year and members include the National Trust, Play England, the Scouts, the National Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, Play England, RSPB, NHS Trusts, schools, playgroups, local authorities and outdoor centres. They have all signed up to encourage children to spend time outside.

New research has shown that children spend an average of 4.5 hours a day looking at electronic screens.

• Christmas
• Toys
• Children
• Tablet computers
• iPad
• Computing
• Wildlife
• The National Trust

Rebecca Smithers
theguardian.com © 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