Science Says

photo by karin widemann

The Guardian out of London covered a frightening article this week from Nature entitled “Extinction risk depends strongly on factors contributing to stochasticity.” by Brett Melbourne and Alan Hastings, which suggests that existing models for wildlife extinction rates may be terribly flawed and severely underestimating the vulnerability of those populations.

Since those faulty models are the basis for much of the law and policy concerning their protection, it would seem to be a potentially fatal flaw.

The gist of the article, which was published in the current issue of Nature, is that “only with the full stochastic model can the relative importance of environmental and demographic variability, and therefore extinction risk, be correctly determined from data.”

Their assertion is that, in many cases, wildlife biologists have not yet been able to assemble full profiles of the stochastic pressures affecting wild populations and that it has contributed to recent surprises, such as the sudden disappearance of the Yangtze river dolphin and the demolition of a western gorilla subspecies by viral outbreak.

The paper in Nature is a very interesting read, and the Guardian’s coverage was very interesting. The Guardian article can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/02/climatechange.endangeredspecies

Photo by JTDGarlic

John McCain has straddled the line on environmental issues in his career. He’s been a friend to business, but opposed drilling in ANWR as well.

In recent weeks, however, McCain got the Big Oil bat out, and is swinging for the fence: he announced he would seek a repeal of the offshore-drilling ban, and the President stepped behind it morning after (pun intended)

Throughout all this, McCain’s campaign has maintained policies that sound like they’re hip with the  environmental rhetoric:

	•	Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables.
	•	Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System.
	•	Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets.
	•	Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology.
	•	Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.

But these points are laden with anti-environment conservative buzzwords.

>Scientifically-Sound

This is the classic model - claiming that policy must be based on “scientifically sound” information lets McCain sound like he has a progressive climate policy, while giving him a perfect excuse when that translates to “More oil,” like offshore drilling.

McCain wouldn’t have added “scientifically-sound” if he wasn’t planning on needing it later.

>Market-Based

McCain’s market-based cap-and-trade system is a farce - he seems to believe that, left to their own devices and shielded by free carbon-emission allowances, big businesses will choose to change. In fact, he wants to GIVE the allowances to big businesses so that they have room in the budget to develop new technologies, instead of paying for the pollution they’re already causing.

The logic is flawed - small businesses stand to make a name through innovation, while the established players have shown that they’d rather guard their bottom line. McCain’s plan places all the burden on small companies and new players, while letting Big Pollution get out of jail free.

Who likes the market-based approach? Ford, Toyota, British Airways, and BP - companies that profit directly from carbon fuels, or who would lose big money cutting back on emissions. Business’ interests are not the environment’s interests, not yet. That should be all you need to know.

>Minimize Costs

That seems sound, right? Good responsible progress. Wrong - this statement is a loaded contingency, a promise that McCain won’t choose progressive climate policy at a cost to US business. The question is “Minimize costs to whom?” Will McCain seek to minimize the cost to big businesses or to the public? Short-term costs or long-term?

Current energy policies have minimized the cost to the fuel and petroleum industries, but passed the buck to the consumer through sky-rocketing energy costs.

Current policies minimized the cost of modern infrastructure and emergency management preparation to the government, and massive tax cuts to the wealthy, but left New Orleans and the Mississippi river basin underwater.

Current policies have minimized the cost to the automobile manufacturers, but left the consumer with inefficient automobiles that further exacerbate gas prices’ effect on the cost of living.

Personally, I’ll take energy policies that promise me long-term sources of inexpensive fuel over a $300 tax rebate anyday.

>Facilitate International Efforts

I don’t know specifics about this part of McCain’s plan, but I do know that the language makes me nervous. What does he want to see from the international community? Many of them are ahead of us already. The US, you’ll remember, is the only industrial nation that rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bottom Line:

All of McCain’s statements about climate change and energy policy sound good on the surface, but each is hinged on these contingencies, each one predicated on a statement that will give him a way out if he or his supporters become uncomfortable with the trend.

You have to ask: if John McCain was serious about stopping climate change, would he need all the extra words? If he was serious about progress, would he be so careful to leave himself a way out?

Just a quick site update:

It took a bit of tinkering, but I got a rudimentary contact form up on the Ask Science Says page. Feel free to use that in the future for any questions you’d like answered. I’ve got a couple backed up that I’ll be working on ASAP.

Next week is Presidential Energy Week on Science Says!

Here’s what you can expect:

John McCain’s Anti-Environment Buzzwords

How McCain’s policies hide plans for offshore drilling, nuclear power, the price of energy independence, and environmental disaster in rhetoric.

The Ecological Impact of Offshore Oil Drilling

America’s precarious coastlines, offshore rigs and oil spills, why the Gulf of Mexico can’t take any more damage, and the vital importance of the continental shelf.

Barack Obama’s Energy Policy

Renewable energy, carbon emissions, and a “clean energy future.”

*And a special bonus post!*

Gas Prices and Environmental Amnesia

With gas prices rising, do Americans care about the environment anymore? How skyrocketing gas prices are changing the American psyche.

I’ll be using this week to put together a comprehensive profile of Barack Obama and John McCain’s energy policies, their environmental implications, and any environmental pitfalls that may have glossed over in all the rhetoric.

These candidates are running for office at a time that is crucial to the future of our country and this planet. Environmental conditions are changing faster than ever, and the decisions that are made in the next 4-8 years could have a monumental impact on the rest of our lives. Don’t you want all the facts before you cast your vote?

Make sure you catch the whole series! You can bookmark this page for links to each post throughout the week, or click on “Subscribe” at the top of the page.

Please leave a comment if you have any questions that you’d like to see addressed.

Hey everybody-

Happy Tuesday! You may have noticed a new graphic on the right side of the page that reads “Ask Science Says!” If you follow that link, it takes you to my contact page, for now. In the next couple of days, that’ll be switched out with a contact form so that you can automatically enter and submit your questions for the site.

I’m hoping that this can become a regular feature on the site since my goal is to help provide scientific background behind common questions or confusions about the natural world.

So…

If there’s anything on your mind, please click the graphic on the right-hand side of the screen and drop me a line!

Thanks. - Jeff

A new report released today by the Lenfest Ocean Program in Washington DC has revealed that as many as 96% of Mediterranean sharks are gone as the result of intense overfishing.

Evidence for severe declines in large predatory fishes is increasing around the world. Because of its long history of intense fishing, the Mediterranean Sea offers a unique perspective on fish population declines over historical timescales. We used a diverse set of records dating back to the early 19th and mid 20th century to reconstruct long-term population trends of large predatory sharks in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. …Hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.), blue (Prionace glauca), mackerel (Isurus oxyrinchus and Lamna nasus), and thresher sharks (Alopias vulpinus) declined between 96 and 99.99% relative to their former abundance. According to World Conservation Union (IUCN) criteria, these species would be considered critically endangered.

The most frightening part of this whole situation is the shocking rarity of mature females - sharks have very low fecundity and small litters, meaning that they take a long time to mature, a relatively long period of time between each mating season, and have fewer babies. These factors decrease the speed at which a  population can recover and put shark populations in drastic danger of going extinct. I’ve written before about the dangers that face Hammerhead sharks - it’s sad to see a study that confirms that the grand majority of them are already gone in the Mediterranean.

This is not an isolated problem - it’s notoriously difficult to study wild oceanic populations, but the Mediterranean has provided a microcosm to study these species. The Mediterranean has been a specifically pressurized place for fish populations because of the number of nations competing for the fish stock. Many of the countries that border the Mediterranean sea have long-standing traditions regarding fishing and the use of the oceans as a resource. However, as their populations experienced rapid growth and industrial fishing fleets took to the seas, this proximity rapidly became a problem.

It’s especially hard to regulate fish populations that are being pursued by more than one nation, and especially when stocks are declining. When a large nation like the US or Australia decides to regulate a fish population, they can do that - when the western Chinook salmon populations imploded earlier this year, the government was able to cancel the fishing season without fear that Mexico or Canada would ride in and take the fish while American fishermen were being forced to let the population heal.

In a situation like this, when the population begins to decline, fishermen tend to just fish harder, taking more and more fish before their neighbors do. Their regulatory bodies struggle to come to agreements on responsible catch and how to divvy up the fish between the nations in question. International bodies have often struggled as well to get nations to come to terms over problems like this in which their fishermen share an area or migratory fish populations pass through more than one country’s waters.

I hope that this will motivate the IUCN to reconsider these sharks status next year and that something can be done to save these animals.

Do you think this news will help change peoples’ minds about the importance of saving shark species?

Photo by hobbes8calvin

With the news that Ford and General Motors are experiencing massive losses this quarter and GM’s announcement this week that they will be shutting down 4 truck and SUV plants, it seems that now more than ever there’s an opening for someone to make a huge impact in the small-car market.

Indeed, Ford’s F-Series pickup trucks just lost their spot as the most popular car in America this quarter after an astounding run of 26 years! The Ford pickup not only lost their spot, however, but were beaten out by four separate small cars - the Honda Civic, the Honda Accord, the Toyota Camry, and the Toyota Corolla in that order.

Just one day after announcing their rapid scale-back in the SUV market, GM has announced a comprehensive plan to get an electric car on the roads as soon as possible - the Chevrolet Volt, which would be the only mass-produced electric car by a major automotive manufacturer, runs entirely on electrical power, can be plugged into a standard home electrical outlet, and will be available for sale in the US by 2010.

GM is not alone, but they’re taking a huge first step. While the Tesla Roadster is already available, at $100,000 thousand dollars it’s primarily a boutique item; the Chevy Volt is a mass-production car for the everyman. Nissan and Mitsubishi are close on their heels, with the MiEV from Mitsubishi debuting in Japan next year, and Nissan announcing this Spring that they would have an electric car in showrooms by 2010 and getting it on the roads by 2012, but two years is a darn big lead for GM.

The irony, of course, is twofold:

• The reason GM has a two year lead is that they had an electric car ready for mass-production already…in 1996! As was well-documented in the awesome documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?, GM leased thousands of the EV-1, the first consumer electric car, more than 12 years ago, but yanked the car off the market for a variety of reasons - oil companies, political pressure, and their own bottom line - and instead sat idly by as gas prices, global climactic temperature, and air pollution steadily climbed over the last decade.

• It’s a glorified hybrid - can the Chevy Volt operate solely on electric power? Sure, for 40 miles per charge. Is the Volt gasoline-independent? Hardly. GM has still included a gas tank on the car and are already lauding how gasoline can be used to recharge the battery and that the car’s total mileage will be 640 miles per tank. That’s well and good, but the 2008 Prius can already get 570 miles!

GM is certainly on the right track, but it’d be nice if they stopped acting like they’re single-handedly saving the world. It’s about time the American carmakers caught up with the rest of the world. GM hasn’t turned a profit since 2004 and are finally getting back into the business of saving their own asses. If the Prius can get 570 now, imagine what Toyota will be getting in two more years - the next generation batteries are already estimated to move the Prius to 125 miles per gallon. Eat your heart out, Detroit.

Th!nk Motors, a Norwegian company dumped by Ford in 2003, has got new financial backers and will have their Th!nk City car on American streets by the end of 2009! The car can hit 65mph and gets 110 miles per charge, but what more do most people need in an average American day?

Photo by momentimedia

Priced at $25,000 thousand dollars to start, it’s the first earnest attempt by any carmaker to get a real electric car out there and running. The Th!nk City might not be perfect, but it’s a great first try, something that GM didn’t have the courage to do ten years ago. Who knows how different things would be if they had?

Does it offend you when companies try to pull a bait-and-switch like this? Please feel free to comment!

Technorati Tags: electric car, GM, green, hybrids, SUVs, prius, chevy volt

It’s been a long year for the gas-guzzlers!

No one’s wallet has been hit harder by the rising gas prices than the truckers and soccer moms with  forty gallon gas tanks. At $4 dollars a gallon, that’s a $160 tank of gas, and it’s even more if your designer SUV only takes premium gasoline, or your truck runs on $5.50 bucks per gallon diesel fuel. At these prices, it was only a matter of time before that fad finally ran its course.

First came the news last week that car dealers couldn’t move SUVs off their lots, and that used-car dealers were going to stop buying up the glut of unwanted SUVs that are flooding their market.

“For the first four months of this year…SUV sales plummeted 32.8 percent”

In line with classic supply and demand, General Motors just announced yesterday that they’ll be closing four major truck and SUV manufacturing plants this year. In fact, they may just ditch the Hummer brand altogether, hopefully selling it off to whatever chump can eat the losses.

The company also announced that they’ll be moving their focus towards smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

The best part of this whole collapse, though, was this statement:

“High fuel prices have produced a rapid and permanent change in consumer preferences away from the truck models on which it has depended.”

This is the really important part of the puzzle - the companies will always shift their priorities in accordance to the bottom line. However, you’d better believe they would go right back to building huge, gas-guzzling trucks if they were popular enough to make them profitable. However, a “permanent change” in consumer attitudes is the stuff environmentalists have been dreaming of, and something that all the public education initiatives could never accomplish.

It’s too bad that it took gas prices to make the American public reject the SUV, and that the change in consumer attitudes didn’t regard the damage that the cars have been doing to the planet. Still, I think the environmentalists will take what they can get - I know that I’m satisfied with whatever gets these polluting, inefficient cars off the road.

Technorati Tags: electric car, GM, green, hybrids, SUVs, prius

Sorry I’ve been away so long, everybody!

It turns out that graduating from college takes a lot more time than you’d think. Between revising my senior thesis and closing out the other classes, I found it was awfully hard to make time for more writing.

I’m sorry to those of you who’ve been dutifully checking in for updates. I should be back on top of it all soon! Keep an eye out, please.

President Bush held a press conference today to announce a broad new initiative intended to combat global warming. Aside from a few inexplicable sidetracks, like:

Right way - reduce carbon emissions

Wrong way - abandon coal industry and “nucular power”

in which he seemingly forgot that coal IS carbon (which when burned, becomes smoke, which…typically gets emitted…) it was the most scientifically-accepting, forward-thinking program we’ve seen from the Bush government.

In the meantime, it almost sounds like President Bush has got his head on straight. I also like his talk about international responsibility, though I can see it becoming a scapegoat to use that “binding international agreement” to hold them to a lower standard than ourselves.

He also seems to have his head on straight about realistic ways to make this happen. It makes my heart warm to hear that the government is aware that these technologies are pricey and that their convoluted incentives program is really just stifling green technology and rewarding the same old fat cats. Hopefully revamping that system will put the money into the right, able hands to innovate and make green technology more effective and affordable.

Additionally, I’m pleased to see the concern for bringing these technologies into the developing world, although I suspect it may have been a dig at China, whose emissions dwarf our own and continue to grow every year. While I’m sure the President is interested in helping American businesses get ahead of the game in marketing these technologies to the rest of the world and setting the foundation for another American export industry, I’m happy to hear some recognition of the pricing challenges that would entail. The talk about encouraging the specific development of products for those markets and the need to “eliminate trade barriers for clean energies and technologies” makes me think that something might actually get done.

If nothing else, at least the President is (finally) acknowledging that there IS some sort of global climate change and that we need an “environmentally effective, economically stable” solution. I’m also glad

Also, he almost slipped and referred to our “feller nations,” which would have made me chuckle with glee.