Earlier this month, a small group of interested citizens gathered at the Evergreen Library in Evergreen, Colo., to attend a Tuesday night program called “Beyond the Headlines: The Pine Beetle Infestation.” For some, it may seem a strange time to hold such a program, as the weather has been pretty wet and there hasn’t been much pine beetle activity in their neck of Colorado’s Front Range.
But a potential disaster looms just over the next ridge, figuratively and literally.
“The community does know that it is a problem that is going to be upon us itself in two or three years,” said Janice Tang, a librarian who attended the event. “They’re coming over the continental divide at this point. They’re up in Vail. They’re wreaking havoc in the pine forests in Vail.”
Several species of bark beetles – such as mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae), piñon ips beetle (Ips confusus), and spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis) – are attacking and devastating the predominantly conifer forests of western North America from British Columbia to New Mexico. Tens of millions of acres of western forests have been affected by die-offs of infected trees the past few years, causing more than $1 billion in damage annually in the United States alone.
The problem will likely worsen, unless steps are taken to the reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to a warmer climate, according to a recently released government report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
How global warming is affecting the delicate biological cycles of a single family of insects offers a stark warning on unforeseen ecosystem disruptions that climate change will usher in if left unchecked.
Bark beetles are a natural part of the forest ecosystem. They help increase the diversity of forest stands, killing older or weaker trees and creating patches of forest that differ in species composition, stem density, age, and successional stage. The beetles, by helping break down dead wood, also contributing to the recycling of minerals and nutrients. But, when outbreaks are widespread, they can cause massive die-offs and increase the likelihood of massive, devastating fires that can undo their normally beneficial effects.
Climate change influences the frequency, intensity, and distribution of bark beetle outbreaks by affecting both the beetles as well as the trees themselves. Kenneth F. Raffa, a professor in the departments of entomology and of forest and wildlife ecology at the University of Wisconsin and lead author of 2008 paper on the dynamics of bark beetle outbreaks in the journal BioScience, said that two climatic factors are important: temperature and drought.
“Elevated temperature has beneficial effects on bark beetles in two ways,” Raffa said. “One, it reduces the amount of mortality they experience in the wintertime. That’s obviously particularly important at the higher latitudes and the higher elevations. The other thing that elevated temperature does is that it can reduce the time needed for them to complete a generation. … You put those two elements together, their shorter life cycle and their higher survival, and you have more beetles, and more beetles allow them to attack healthier trees.”
All life stages of bark beetles can be killed by low temperatures, but the degree of coldness is not as important as its timing. Barbara J. Bentz, a research entomologist at the USDA Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station, explained why.
“They’re not like us. When we get cold our tissues freeze and, boom, we’re dead. They metabolize these – basically we call them anti-freeze compounds. Glycerol is the one mountain pine beetle uses. What glycerol does is allow their tissues to not freeze” said Bentz. “We’ve recorded them down to minus 40 C when they have the maximum amount of glycerol in their bodies.”
Anti-freeze compounds such as glycerol take a lot of energy to make, Bentz said, so bark beetles rely on temperature trends to signal when to begin and end production of the compounds. Cold temperatures are more effective at killing the beetles when they are caught unprepared for the cold – particularly in the fall, when they are beginning production of the anti-freeze compounds, and spring, when they begin cutting back production of the compounds.
Since the beetles’ body temperature – thus their metabolic rate – is controlled by the environment, it should come as no surprise that warmer temperatures, therefore a faster metabolism, can shorten the time it takes for them to develop to their adult stage.
For organisms that can increase their numbers at potentially exponential rates, the shortening of the generation time can lead to explosive population growth – and devastating outbreaks in affected forests. This is more of a problem in higher latitudes and higher elevations, where warmer temperatures allow bark beetles that normally complete their life cycle in two years to do so in one.
In addition to boosting the growth side of the population equation, the shortening of the generation time may also decrease some types of mortality.
“If it takes one year instead of two years, they’re probably exposed to less predator-caused mortality,” Bentz said. “If it takes two years, they have to go through two winters, thus two periods of potential mortality from cold.”
While changing temperatures primarily affect the beetles, drought primarily affects the trees themselves. Drought stress taxes trees’ metabolism, making it more difficult for them to make the chemicals they use to defend themselves against a variety of pests and pathogens. Bark beetles can sense the concentration of the chemicals in individual trees and are attracted to those that are weakened by drought.
“Those chemicals that the beetle uses as an attractant are for the most part the same chemicals that the tree uses to defend itself, so concentration becomes very important,” Raffa said. “It’s often if the tree produces small amounts of those chemicals, the beetle can detect that. If the tree produces large amounts of those chemicals, then the beetle knows that that might be just too toxic a dose for it to contend with.”
Warming temperatures in the West allows bark beetles to have a greater effect on forests at higher latitudes and higher elevations – places where cooler conditions once kept them in check.
“As it has gotten warmer, it’s allowed mountain pine beetle, for example, to be at higher densities at further latitudes than in the past,” Raffa said. “It’s probably been in those higher latitudes at some kind of marginal basis for a long time, but never really had a big outbreak like now. These conditions have allowed it to change.
“The same with the higher altitudes. I think mountain pine beetle has always gotten into the high-elevation whitebark pine stands. It would get warm, and the beetle would go up there and kill some trees, then it would get cold, and the beetle would die off.
"The difference is now we’re seeing one year after another warmer than what it was historically and lots of tree mortality up in those high stands.”
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Get it right with climate change
PANOS Caribbean and the National Environment Education Committee have issued a call for all Jamaicans to, "in their own small way", do what is necessary to address the problem of climate change.
Well, the store is close so let's conserve and help not to pollute the air with smoke. Let's ride a bicycle instead of driving.
According to environmental lobbyists, the introduction of more legislation will not be the answer to tackling climate change. Instead, they say the solution will be to educate people on what they need to do to help address the challenges climate change presents.
Indi Mclymont-Lafayette, regional director of media and environment at Panos Caribbean, said that with so many laws already in the country, the approach to addressing the problem of climate change should not be to write more legislation but to educate and sensitise more people about what they can do.
"Each and every Jamaican in their own small way can help to address the problem of climate change," she said.
Clifford Mahlung, lead climate negotiator for Jamaica, said the emission of greenhouse gases was one of the main contributors to the problem of climate change.He noted that in Jamaica, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were the energy and transportation sectors.
"It is therefore important for Jamaicans to do what they can to address the problem," Mahlung said, adding that conservation of electricty and car-pooling are ways people can help address the problem.
"Using a solar water heater instead of an electric heater is another way," he said.
Well, the store is close so let's conserve and help not to pollute the air with smoke. Let's ride a bicycle instead of driving.
According to environmental lobbyists, the introduction of more legislation will not be the answer to tackling climate change. Instead, they say the solution will be to educate people on what they need to do to help address the challenges climate change presents.
Indi Mclymont-Lafayette, regional director of media and environment at Panos Caribbean, said that with so many laws already in the country, the approach to addressing the problem of climate change should not be to write more legislation but to educate and sensitise more people about what they can do.
"Each and every Jamaican in their own small way can help to address the problem of climate change," she said.
Clifford Mahlung, lead climate negotiator for Jamaica, said the emission of greenhouse gases was one of the main contributors to the problem of climate change.He noted that in Jamaica, the largest emitters of greenhouse gases were the energy and transportation sectors.
"It is therefore important for Jamaicans to do what they can to address the problem," Mahlung said, adding that conservation of electricty and car-pooling are ways people can help address the problem.
"Using a solar water heater instead of an electric heater is another way," he said.
Oil Group's 'Citizen' Rally Memo Stirs Debate
A petroleum industry trade group is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend rallies attacking climate-change legislation, an approach to grass-roots politics that resembles strategies used recently by some opponents of health-care reform.
In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for "Energy Citizen" rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress's August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a "human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.
"Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies," Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.
Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform -- including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals -- have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at "town hall" meetings.
"It's the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming," Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group's plans. "These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater."
The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.
Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.
In a telephone interview, Gerard defended the meetings as events of education and discussion. He said they are designed to be standalone rallies, not efforts to pack lawmakers' scheduled meetings.
"There's a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn't agree with their views somehow doesn't play by the rules. We disagree strongly with that," Gerard said. His group says the bill passed by the House would cost millions of jobs and burden the U.S. economy with higher energy costs.
This skirmishing over the memo shows how hot the debate on climate-change legislation has become, even with health care dominating the Hill. Last week, the Center for Public Integrity found that 1,150 firms and advocacy groups were lobbying over climate- change legislation.
The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy "allowances" for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.
The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a "cap and trade" approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the "Energy Citizen" rallies.
And former vice president Al Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have -- or would like to have -- jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.
Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.
"They're reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that's not something that we've used as a tactic," she said.
In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for "Energy Citizen" rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress's August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a "human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy," including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.
"Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies," Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.
Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform -- including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals -- have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at "town hall" meetings.
"It's the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming," Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group's plans. "These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater."
The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.
Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.
In a telephone interview, Gerard defended the meetings as events of education and discussion. He said they are designed to be standalone rallies, not efforts to pack lawmakers' scheduled meetings.
"There's a lot of folks out there that would like to suggest that anybody that doesn't agree with their views somehow doesn't play by the rules. We disagree strongly with that," Gerard said. His group says the bill passed by the House would cost millions of jobs and burden the U.S. economy with higher energy costs.
This skirmishing over the memo shows how hot the debate on climate-change legislation has become, even with health care dominating the Hill. Last week, the Center for Public Integrity found that 1,150 firms and advocacy groups were lobbying over climate- change legislation.
The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy "allowances" for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.
The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a "cap and trade" approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the "Energy Citizen" rallies.
And former vice president Al Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have -- or would like to have -- jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.
Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.
"They're reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that's not something that we've used as a tactic," she said.
Farm Bureau: Climate Bill Will Not Change the Climate
American Farm Bureau Federation: Climate change legislation currently being considered by Congress will have a devastating impact on family farms and agricultural production across the country. The House-passed bill (H.R. 2454), which is being examined by the Senate to serve as the potential basis for its climate change legislation, poses a real economic threat for the U.S. agricultural economy. It also places our nation at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners and fails to provide viable alternative sources of energy to keep our economy strong and hold down costs. And, after all this, the measure would have little or no impact on the climate.
Not for Everyone
Farmers and ranchers are dependent on abundant and affordable energy not only for their vehicles, but also for the costs of fertilizers, irrigation and crop protection tools. Raising production costs while lowering farm income will affect all producers and all commodities. While offsets may help some farmers with these energy-related costs, it is not the complete answer. Even with a robust agricultural offset program, H.R. 2454 does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be unable to benefit.
Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market.
A Ton = A Ton
Our producers and the world depend on export markets. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 doesn’t allow U.S. producers to stand on equal footing with their global counterparts. The bill’s cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopt similar programs. The increased costs to U.S. producers will not be borne by competitive producers in other countries that do not have similar restrictions, putting our producers at a clear disadvantage.
H.R. 2454 provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs. The bill creates a hole in our energy supply, leaving farmers, ranchers and others with either reduced sources of energy or energy that is too expensive.
Lastly, at the end of the day, there is no conclusive scientific data that all of these measures will have any significant impact on the climate. Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050 without the participation of other countries. Reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will not work. A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.
And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.
It is imperative that Congress look at this issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. On a matter that will affect our nation for decades to come it would be the height of folly to rush to pass climate change legislation that threatens our economy and has little hope of changing the climate
Not for Everyone
Farmers and ranchers are dependent on abundant and affordable energy not only for their vehicles, but also for the costs of fertilizers, irrigation and crop protection tools. Raising production costs while lowering farm income will affect all producers and all commodities. While offsets may help some farmers with these energy-related costs, it is not the complete answer. Even with a robust agricultural offset program, H.R. 2454 does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be unable to benefit.
Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market.
A Ton = A Ton
Our producers and the world depend on export markets. Unfortunately, H.R. 2454 doesn’t allow U.S. producers to stand on equal footing with their global counterparts. The bill’s cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopt similar programs. The increased costs to U.S. producers will not be borne by competitive producers in other countries that do not have similar restrictions, putting our producers at a clear disadvantage.
H.R. 2454 provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs. The bill creates a hole in our energy supply, leaving farmers, ranchers and others with either reduced sources of energy or energy that is too expensive.
Lastly, at the end of the day, there is no conclusive scientific data that all of these measures will have any significant impact on the climate. Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050 without the participation of other countries. Reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will not work. A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.
And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.
It is imperative that Congress look at this issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. On a matter that will affect our nation for decades to come it would be the height of folly to rush to pass climate change legislation that threatens our economy and has little hope of changing the climate
CLRI develops green tech to process leather
Researchers at the Chennai-based Central Leather Research Institute have developed a novel green technology for leather processing which makaes use of biocatalysts to reduce the amount of environmental pollutants.
The new process makes use of enzymes which reduces the discharge of hazardous substances during the tanning and pre-tanning steps of leather processing by almost 90%, P Thanikaivelan, senior scientist in CLRI, said. It uses enzymes such as carbohydrases, proteases and protelytic to replace the conventional steps of soaking (cleansing and re-hydration), de-hairing, bating (removal of unwanted proteins) and degreasing (removal of fat), he said. "These biocatalysts perform chemical transformations on organic compounds which is otherwise performed by conducting chemical reactions," Thanikaivelan said. Nearly 70 per cent of emission loads of the conventional leather processing emanates from pertaining operations, according to estimates by leather scientists. Citing an example, Thanikaivelan said that the process of de-hairing -- which causes maximum pollution in leather processing -- the scientists had used sodium alkali and sulphide as biocatalysts
The new process makes use of enzymes which reduces the discharge of hazardous substances during the tanning and pre-tanning steps of leather processing by almost 90%, P Thanikaivelan, senior scientist in CLRI, said. It uses enzymes such as carbohydrases, proteases and protelytic to replace the conventional steps of soaking (cleansing and re-hydration), de-hairing, bating (removal of unwanted proteins) and degreasing (removal of fat), he said. "These biocatalysts perform chemical transformations on organic compounds which is otherwise performed by conducting chemical reactions," Thanikaivelan said. Nearly 70 per cent of emission loads of the conventional leather processing emanates from pertaining operations, according to estimates by leather scientists. Citing an example, Thanikaivelan said that the process of de-hairing -- which causes maximum pollution in leather processing -- the scientists had used sodium alkali and sulphide as biocatalysts
India is now a major carbon sink: Govt report
India is rapidly transforming itself into a major carbon sink igniting hopes of big funds for maintaining natural green cover, a new report has said.
The report titled "India's Forest and Tree Cover" prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests said that from 1995 to 2005, the carbon stocks stored in the country's forests and trees have increased from 6,245 million tonnes to 6,662 million tonnes registering an annual increment of 38 million tonnes of carbon or 138 million ton of Carbon dioxide. The report, which was released by Union Minister of state for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh recently here, also said that India can get Rs 6,000 crore every year for its carbon sink assuming the value of $7 per ton of Carbon dioxide. Noting that the forest cover accounts for 2.8% of India's total geographical area, the report said, the forest and tree cover is enough to neutralise 11.23% of the country's total green house emissions at 1994 level. This is equivalent to offsetting 100% emissions from all energy in residential and transport sectors or 40 per cent of the total emissions from agriculture sector.
The report titled "India's Forest and Tree Cover" prepared by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests said that from 1995 to 2005, the carbon stocks stored in the country's forests and trees have increased from 6,245 million tonnes to 6,662 million tonnes registering an annual increment of 38 million tonnes of carbon or 138 million ton of Carbon dioxide. The report, which was released by Union Minister of state for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh recently here, also said that India can get Rs 6,000 crore every year for its carbon sink assuming the value of $7 per ton of Carbon dioxide. Noting that the forest cover accounts for 2.8% of India's total geographical area, the report said, the forest and tree cover is enough to neutralise 11.23% of the country's total green house emissions at 1994 level. This is equivalent to offsetting 100% emissions from all energy in residential and transport sectors or 40 per cent of the total emissions from agriculture sector.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)