Mountain Critter A Candidate For Endangered List

The American pika could become the first animal in the continental U.S. listed under the Endangered Species Act because of climate change. The cute relative of the rabbit lives in the mountain West, and researchers say warmer temperatures put it at risk for extinction.

If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decides to list the pika, that could prompt new restrictions on the activities that create greenhouse gasPikas, which look like 6-inch potatoes with round mouse ears, live in rocky areas high up in the mountains. They're viciously territorial, and once they lay claim to a home, they hate to move. So, while other species have responded to climate change by migrating upslope, pikas are dying off.

Chris Ray, a researcher at the University of Colorado, wants to know more about why that is. Her research team has been tagging the ears of pikas and placing temperature sensors near their homes. After some preliminary research, she says, climate change is the only obvious explanation.

"Ironically, it looks like global warming might be resulting in pikas freezing to death," Ray says.

Warmer temperatures have reduced the snowpack in the mountains, and pikas rely on snow for shelter from cold wind.

"A thick blanket of snow keeps the ground at, approximately, freezing and keeps it from going below freezing," Ray says. "The air temperature can drop way below freezing. So, a pika under a thick blanket of snow never experiences temperatures far below freezing."

Ray says climate change also could affect pikas in the summer, when they gather cut grass and flowers to make hay. If it's too hot, they might not gather enough food to make it through the winter.

Following The Lead Of The Polar Bears

The pika has the potential to become a huge problem for industries that emit greenhouse gases. While polar bears were listed last year, their habitat is far away from the fossil fuel-burning activities responsible for climate change. The pika lives much closer, and industries are worried that could have a huge effect on the economy.

"We're very concerned about policy developments that could constrain the development of natural gas," says Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser with the American Petroleum Institute. The Rocky Mountain West has experienced a natural-gas drilling boom in recent years.

Ranger says the Endangered Species Act is the wrong mechanism for dealing with climate change. He wants policymakers to do that through laws and regulations that give greater consideration to effects on the economy. He also says environmental groups just haven't made a good case that the pika is facing extinction in the near future.

Could Save Other Species

The Center for Biological Diversity filed the petition to list the pika. Shaye Wolf, a biologist with the group, says the government needs to consider a very long time horizon, because the climate will continue changing well after greenhouse gas emissions are reduced.

"The pika is sort of this alarm bell of impacts and losses [that will] happen if we don't stop global warming," Wolf says. "And the pika can act as an umbrella species to protect other wildlife in these mountain ecosystems." Wolf says that might prevent the government from having to list those species in the future.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected to announce a decision on whether to list the pika early in 2010.es

Climate change seen as threat to U.S. security

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

An exercise at the National Defense University, an educational institute overseen by the military, last December explored the potential impact of a flood in Bangladesh that sent hundreds of thousands of refugees streaming into neighboring India, touching off religious conflict, the spread of contagious diseases and vast damage to infrastructure.

“It gets real complicated real quickly,” said Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, who is working with a Pentagon group assigned to incorporate climate change into national security strategy planning.

Much of the public and political debate on global warming has focused on finding substitutes for fossil fuels, reducing emissions that contribute to greenhouse gases and furthering negotiations toward an international climate treaty — not potential security challenges.

But a growing number of policy makers say that the world’s rising temperatures, surging seas and melting glaciers are a direct threat to the national interest. If the United States does not lead the world in reducing fossil-fuel consumption and thus emissions of global warming gases, proponents of this view say, a series of global environmental, social, political and possibly military crises loom that the nation will urgently have to address.

This argument could prove a fulcrum for debate in the Senate next month when it takes up climate and energy legislation passed in June by the House.

Lawmakers leading the debate before Congress are only now beginning to make the national security argument for approving the legislation.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a leading advocate for the climate legislation, said he hoped to sway Senate skeptics by pressing that issue to pass a meaningful bill.

Mr. Kerry said he did not know whether he would succeed but that he had spoken with 30 undecided senators on the matter.

He did not identify the senators he had approached, but the list of undecideds includes many from coal and manufacturing states and from the South and Southeast, which will face the sharpest energy price increases from any carbon emissions control program.

“I’ve been making this argument for a number of years,” Mr. Kerry said, “but it has not been a focus because a lot of people had not connected the dots.” He said he had urged President Obama to make the case, too.

Mr. Kerry said the continuing conflict in southern Sudan, which has killed and displaced tens of thousands of people, is a result of drought and expansion of deserts in the north. “That is going to be repeated many times over and on a much larger scale,” he said.

The Department of Defense’s assessment of the security issue came about after prodding by Congress to include climate issues in its strategic plans — specifically, in 2008 budget authorizations by Hillary Rodham Clinton and John W. Warner, then senators. The department’s climate modeling is based on sophisticated Navy and Air Force weather programs and other government climate research programs at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Pentagon and the State Department have studied issues arising from dependence on foreign sources of energy for years but are only now considering the effects of global warming in their long-term planning documents. The Pentagon will include a climate section in the Quadrennial Defense Review, due in February; the State Department will address the issue in its new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review.

“The sense that climate change poses security and geopolitical challenges is central to the thinking of the State Department and the climate office,” said Peter Ogden, chief of staff to Todd Stern, the State Department’s top climate negotiator.

Air quality poorer in Malaysia's Borneo

Air quality in Malaysia's Sarawak state on Borneo island edged towards "very unhealthy" levels of pollution Sunday as wildfires raged in forests and peat-growing land in the state.

The Air Pollutant Index (API) recorded unhealthy levels of between 122 and 197 in four areas on Sunday morning, three in Sarawak and one in southern Johor state, the Environment Department said on its website.

The API considers a score of 101-200 to be unhealthy, while 201-300 is very unhealthy.

According to the Star newspaper, wildfires were raging in more than 1,000 hectares (around 2,500 acres) near the Sarawak-Brunei border, causing thick smoke.

Malaysia was hit with the worst haze levels recorded this year on Wednesday and Thursday, when the API recorded six "unhealthy" areas.

Officials said the haze was caused by hundreds of forest fires that were blazing in the Indonesian provinces of Kalimantan and Sumatra, and in Sarawak.

Farmers in Indonesia and Malaysia's half of Borneo island burn forests every year to clear land for agriculture, sending plumes of smoke across neighbouring countries.

The haze hit its worst level in 1997-1998, costing the Southeast Asian region an estimated nine billion dollars by disrupting air travel and other business activities.

Chemical Industry Lends Support to Reform

In a reversal, chemical industry leaders said last week they are joining environmentalists, public health groups and consumer advocates in seeking more robust federal regulation of chemicals.

For the first time, chemical manufacturers said they are willing to furnish the Environmental Protection Agency with health and exposure data they have gathered that are related to their chemicals, and to allow the agency to determine whether the chemicals are safe to use.

They said tougher government regulation is the best way to reassure consumers about the health impact of various chemicals.

"The fundamental duty of the chemical industry and government that regulates it is to make sure those products are safe," said Cal Dooley, president and chief executive of the American Chemistry Council.

The industry has long insisted that the 1976 federal law governing chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act, has been working well.

But a number of critics, including the Government Accountability Office, say the law is weak and does not enable the government to ensure the safety of thousands of chemicals that have been introduced into consumer goods and the environment. This year, the GAO flagged chemical regulation as an urgent priority that Congress and the White House should address.

Dooley and top executives from several companies, including Dow, said the industry wants Congress to give the EPA new authority and resources to ensure the safety of chemicals used in such things as furniture, cellphones and grocery bags.

This is a radical departure from where industry was a few months or a year ago," said Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. "We're getting to a point where industry feels it needs to play nicer cop here, if they're going to have a seat at the table and a voice in determining what they see as happening, which is reform."

The industry leaders said they want a strong federal policy because, in its absence, states and even localities are passing laws to restrict certain chemicals, making it nearly impossible for national companies to comply with a patchwork of rules.

"You're seeing more and more activity at the state level in terms of bans of certain chemicals or states trying to institute their own chemical management systems," Dooley said. "It's a reflection of their lack of confidence in the current regulatory system to assess the safety of those chemicals."

Under current laws, the government has little or no information about the health hazards or risks of most of the 80,000 chemicals on the U.S. market today.

When the Toxic Substances Control Act was passed, it exempted from regulation about 62,000 chemicals already in commercial use. Chemicals developed after the law's passage did not have to be tested for safety. Instead, companies were asked to report information on the health effects of their compounds, and the government would decide whether additional tests were needed.

In more than 30 years, the EPA has required additional studies for about 200 chemicals. The statute has made banning or restricting chemicals extremely difficult, and the EPA has banned just five chemicals since 1976.

Under the law, the government cannot act unless a chemical poses a health threat. However, the EPA cannot force companies to provide the kind of information that would show a health risk.

The hurdles are so high that the agency has been unable to ban asbestos, widely acknowledged as a likely carcinogen and barred in more than 30 countries. Instead, the EPA relies on the industry to cease voluntarily production of suspect chemicals.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) plans to reintroduce a bill in September that would overhaul U.S. chemical regulation. It would require the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to use bio-monitoring studies to identify industrial chemicals that have become so common that they show up in the blood of newborn babies, then decide whether those chemicals should be restricted or banned. A study by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found an average of 200 industrial chemicals in the umbilical cords of newborns.

The bill, known as the Kid-Safe Chemical Act, would require chemical manufacturers to provide health and safety information on chemicals and prove that they do not pose an unacceptable health risk before they could be used in products.

Dooley said the chemical trade group's declaring support for reform improves the chances that Lautenberg's bill will advance in Congress this session.

"If you can find greater alignment between environmental, consumer groups and industry, that can have an influence on Congressional scheduling of legislation to reform the law," Dooley said

Carbon Nanomaterials: Fine for Fly Food, Bad for Fly Coating

A fruit fly walked into a test tube, got coated in carbon black, and lost its ability to climb. Sound like the set up for some bad science-based joke? Nope, it's the premise of a preliminary safety test for carbon nanoparticles.

Nanotechnology—whether multiwalled carbon nanotubes, buckyballs or nanosize particles of silver—has barely begun to make its way into everyday products. But, in an effort to stave off the kind of after-the-fact bad news that has plagued introduced materials ranging from asbestos to bisphenol A (BPA), scientists are preemptively testing the potentially ill effects of the tiny molecules and even atoms engineered at the scale of one billionth of a meter or smaller.

So biologist David Rand of Brown University and his colleague set out to see what impact four types of carbon nanoparticles—buckyballs (fullerene C60), carbon black as well as single-walled and multiwalled carbon nanotubes—had on larval and adult fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster).

By mixing the different carbon nanoparticles into fruit fly food—small enough to be ingested by larval mouths as tiny as 50 micrometers wide—the scientists delivered a dose of as much as 1,000 micrograms per gram of food without any ill effect on the young insects. Some of the carbon nanoparticles ended up discoloring portions of the subsequent adult flies (see picture), proving it was ingested in quantity but without ill effect, and those adults were able to breed normally in turn.

But carbon black and single-walled nanotubes were not so kind to adult fruit flies exposed in test tubes to layers of the fine nanoparticles in powder form. These quickly engulfed the flies and could not be cleaned off by normal grooming behavior, killing them within six hours. These extrafine nanoparticles also made it impossible for the flies to climb the walls of test tubes—a requisite ability for the average fruit fly—perhaps by blocking or interfering with the foot pads or fluids that enable this feat, the scientists speculate.

Further, flies exposed to lower doses that did not kill them spread the tiny particles to an uncontaminated adjacent test tube, and even to other flies. "Such transport and redeposition may bring nanoparticles into contact with human or environmental receptors that might not otherwise be exposed," the researchers wrote in the upcoming August 15 Environmental Science & Technology. "In these scenarios, we expect nanoparticle–insect adhesion and transport similar to microbial transport by flies [that] act as disease vectors."

It remains unclear what the impact of such human exposure might be, although some studies have suggested breathing some nanoparticles might have health impacts similar to asbestos, which is a carcinogen. If that's the case, beware of flies bearing nanotubes

Interest in organic food on the rise in China

Unlike most farms in China, no heaps of blackened sewage sludge are piled on the fields at the Green Cow farm. No workers spray pesticides from pumps strapped to their backs. No animals are in quarantine.

An oasis in a Beijing suburb, the organic farm's modest 6 acres boast pepper and tomato plants, fields of corn and wheat, and sunflower patches that pop up in between. Two rotund cows chomp on grasses; under a grove of fruit trees, three young pigs slurp water.

• 

  Pneumonic plague reported in remote...

• 

  U.S., China end talks with smiles but no...

• Beijing has thing for Puccini opera set in China

• U.S.-China talks start with focus on mutual economic interests

Restaurateur and environmentalist Lejen Chen started Green Cow with her husband in 2004, fearful of the pesticides, chemical fertilizers and sewage sludge used in the cultivation of most domestic produce.

In China, the organic food movement is growing steadily, led by Chen and a small, dedicated group of like-minded farmers. It's a battle in a country of recurring food scares, loosely enforced regulations and skepticism about paying more for produce that looks the same as regular market fare. But interest in natural food is on the rise.

"The Chinese people are very aware that their food is rubbish," said Romuald Pieters, director of Sustainable Development & Agriculture Creation, a consulting firm operating in China, where the shock of last year's contaminated-milk scandal still stings.

Conforming to organic standards when you have no control over neighbors' practices, or what rains down on you, is difficult. But on paper, China's organic farming standards are strict enough, Chen says.

The problem, she says, is making sure that farmers stick to those standards, and ensuring that there are enough authorities to adequately monitor producers who claim their food is organic -- a tall order in a country where toxic, heavy-metal-filled sewage sludge is the cheapest, most easily accessible fertilizer around.

Though one might wonder what could be more organic than excrement, medical waste and factory runoff also make their way into sewer systems. Not limited to China, the use of toxic sludge fertilizer is a widespread problem, seen in the U.S. and elsewhere.

The Chinese Ministry of Agriculture certifies organic products, and its popular "Green Food" label, which designates food produced with restricted amounts of agricultural chemicals, can be seen on products such as fruit, noodles, tea and even beer. The ministry also labels genetically modified food, something the United States does not do.

Though even prosperous locals often pride themselves on thriftiness, in light of recent food scares many are seeking out organic products from suppliers they can trust.

Perhaps the epitome of this mentality is Chen's Community-Supported Agriculture program. Fifteen families receive baskets of fresh seasonal vegetables, and have access to the Green Cow farm, about 20 miles from the center of Beijing, as a leisure spot.

The privilege of a year's involvement with the program costs roughly $45 a week, and families are also expected to help out with chores such as weeding and harvesting at least three times a year. The farm's crops go to program participants, and are also used to supply Chen's New York-style diner nearby.

"It's about proximity and confidence," Pieters said. "You know the person farming, you know how they produce, and you're ready to pay more for these high-quality vegetables."

Chen, who was born in Taiwan to southern Chinese parents and raised in Brooklyn, was not the only one to see a demand for healthy, safe food. Taiwanese entrepreneur Terry Yu runs Lohao City, a successful health-food chain store with seven locations in Beijing and two in Shenzhen.

Yu, a former IT specialist, opened his first shop in 2006, stocking its produce bins exclusively with organic fruit and vegetables from his own ranch. Now Yu has three organic farms around Beijing, which he invites customers to inspect at any time -- an inspiring move in an industry where customer trust is a deciding factor.

"The biggest problem in the Chinese food industry," Yu said, "is that customers don't trust the chain, and the chain doesn't trust its supplier -- no one trusts anyone."

Large-scale supermarkets such as the popular French chain Carrefour suspend informational posters over their organic produce, tracing the vegetables' journey from farm to store. Staff members are stationed alongside to help patrons pick the choicest items and answer any questions.

Chen believes that certifications such as the "Green Food" label are helping foster excitement about eating natural food. Unfortunately, she notes, many still confuse "green," the low-chemical designation, with organic.

Although shoppers' enthusiasm may run high, organic agriculture will need to expand, and become more accessible, before being embraced by the skeptical penny-pincher.

"There's just not enough organic food in China right now" to go around, Chen said. "And people aren't growing it."

In-vitro meat: Would lab-burgers be better for us and the planet

A pioneering group of scientists are working to grow real animal protein in the laboratory, which they not only claim is better for animal welfare, but actually healthier, both for people and the planet. It may sound like science fiction, but this technology to create in-vitro meat could be changing global diets within ten years.

"Cultured meat would have a lot of advantages," said Jason Matheny of research group New Harvest. "We could precisely control the amount of fat in meat. We could make ground beef with an ideal fatty acid ratio -- a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them."

But it isn't just the possibility of creating designer ground beef with the fat profile of salmon that drives Matheny's work. Meat and livestock farming is also the source of many human diseases, which he claims would be far less common when the product is raised in laboratory conditions.

"We could reduce the risks of diseases like swine flu, avian flu, 'mad cow disease', or contamination from Salmonella," he told CNN. "We could produce meat in sterile conditions that are impossible in conventional animal farms and slaughterhouses. And when we grow only the meat we can eat, it's more efficient. There's no need to grow the whole animal and lose 75 to 95 percent of what we feed it."

Conventional meat production is also hard on the environment. The contribution of livestock to climate change was recently highlighted by the United Nations' report, "Livestock's Long Shadow", while groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have demonstrated how soy farming for animal feed contributes to the destruction of the Amazon.

In this context Matheny believes his project could significantly cut the environmental impact of meat production -- using much less water and producing far fewer greenhouse gases.

"We could reduce the environmental footprint of meat, which currently contributes more to global warming than the entire transportation sector," says Matheny.

Preliminary results from a study by Hanna Tuomisto, at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, suggest that cultured meat would reduce the carbon emissions of meat production by more than 80 percent.

Making cultured meat

In-vitro meat is made from samples of animals conventionally slaughtered. For example, "pork" is made from pig ovaries retrieved from slaughterhouses, which are fertilized with pig semen, transforming them into embryos. They are then placed in a nutrient solution, where they grow and develop.

It's a long way from the popular image of animals wandering round the farmyard in the sunshine, but then so is modern intensive farming. The factor that could take the research from the lab to the store and into refrigerators around the world is its remarkable commercial potential.

According to New Harvest, meat is already estimated to be a $1 trillion global market, and demand is expected to double by 2050. With concerns about health, animal welfare and the environment growing the appeal of in vitro meat is obvious.

Watch more

Watch Eco Solutions interview with Jason Matheny, the research scientist for in-vitro meat, and more about meat's impact on the environment on CNN International at 7pm ET on Sunday, August 9.

Matheny told CNN that venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins have shown an interest in his technology, while Stegman, a sausage subsidiary of food giant Sara Lee, is a partner. The Netherlands' Government has also invested around $4 million in Dutch research into in-vitro meat production.

But it isn't just the suits who are circling with their checkbooks out -- campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have announced a $1 million prize for the first commercially viable in vitro chicken product. The Humane Society of the United States has also been supportive.

"We think that a technology to produce cultured ground meats -- burgers, sausages, nuggets, and so forth -- could be commercialized within ten years," said Matheny.

"As with most technologies, successive generations should improve in price, quality, and acceptance. We don't think that matching the taste and texture of ground meats will be very difficult. Both conventional and cultured meat is made of muscle tissue. And conventional ground meat is typically highly processed. Chicken nuggets for instance, are made of something called 'meat slurry' -- it would be hard not to do better!"

Public attitude

But the public doesn't always blindly buy what companies believe they should, and acceptance of what is a very radical proposition certainly isn't a foregone conclusion. There are bound to be claims of "Frankenfoods", and reaction against the work.

"Social acceptance isn't guaranteed, but we all want meat that's safer and healthier," he said. "If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then I think acceptance will be high. The more we learn about the health and environmental impact of conventional meat, the more cultured meat looks like a good alternative."

One obvious touchstone for how in-vitro-meat will be received by the public is perhaps the way GM crops were -- or were not - accepted around the world, something that Matheny draws encouragement from.

"What's interesting about the GM issue is that it has been controversial in some places, but is a non-issue for most consumers," he said.

"Most Americans are regularly eating GM foods. In any case, it's not necessarily the case that cultured meat would involve GM foods.

"We all want meat that's safer and healthier. If cultured meat looks, tastes, and costs the same as regular meat, then do we care that it's produced in a steel tank, rather than in an animal farm?

"Take hydroponic vegetables. We like the idea that they're produced in sterile water instead of dirt and manure. It's true that in-vitro meat isn't natural. Nor for that matter are hydroponic vegetables, or bread, or cheese, or wine. Raising 10,000 chickens indoors and pumping them full of drugs isn't natural, either, and it isn't healthy or safe. The more we learn about how meat is produced now, the more in-vitro meat looks like a better alternative."

Lab-produced meat also raises some ethical considerations. Kate McMahon, Friends of the Earth Energy and Transport campaigner, believes more attention should be paid to improving livestock conditions rather than developing in-vitro meat.

"At a time when hundreds of small-scale, sustainable farming operations are filing for bankruptcy every day, it is unethical to consider purchasing petri-dish meat. Rather, we should be making it easier and more affordable to raise livestock in a safe, humane and ecologically sensitive manner," she told CNN.

Gillan Madill, Genetics Technologies spokesperson for Freinds of the Earth, thinks that clear perameters for in-vitro development need to put in place: "If we can successfully develop these products, what is the defining line between lab-grown meat and natural animals?" she told CNN.

"That is an especially important question since a high level of differentiation and tissue complexity is required to replicate muscle tissue that we use as meat. We need to draw clear lines in order to prevent the commodification of all life."

Ultimately the success of in-vitro meat may be less about consumer sensibilities and more about the hard realities of feeding a growing global population in a finite world.

"With India and China doubling their meat consumption every decade, there's no sustainable way to satisfy the growing global appetite for meat without a significant improvement in technology," said Matheny.

"Cultured meat offers one solution. Improved plant-based meat substitutes offer another. I expect both will be needed."

Test tube burgers? It seems you could be eating them sooner than you might expect.