Monthly Archives: September 2014

Three in every four nuclear power builds worldwide are running late





As of this month, 49 of 66 reactors under construction around the world are running behind schedule, according to an updated analysis conducted by the authors of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014.

The study takes into account several delay announcements in recent weeks:

  • USA: two reactors, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 2 and Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Unit 3;
  • South Korea: two reactors – Shin-Hanul-2 and Shin-Wolsong-2;
  • and Finland: Olkiluoto-3.

Little is known about the progress on four nuclear reactors in India. All the other reactor projects have been under way for less than two years, which makes it difficult to identify delays in the absence of full access to information.

The full and up to date list of reactors under construction and related delay details is available at World Reactor Delays.

The European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)

The study highlights the two EPR-design reactors currently under construction: Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 and France’s Flamanville-3. Both are running about $7 billion over their initial budgets and now projected to cost more than $11 billion.

EDF’s Flamanville reactor was due to be completed by 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion, but is now projected for completion in 2016 at a cost of €8.5 billion.

Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 reactor, the first EPR construction project, is likely to be a decade behind schedule upon delivery, with a projected completion date of 2018. Construction of the 1.6GW plant began in 2005 and was originally due for completion in 2009. Cost figures are similar to those for Flamanville.

Despite the severe problems with existing EPR projects, the French parastatal power company EDF is planning to build a twin-reactor 3.2GW plant in the UK at Hinkley C in Somerset.

The UK Government strongly supports the project and has agreed terms for a support package that may be worth as much as £100 billion over its lifetime. It includes both a guaranteed electricity price double current wholesale market levels (at £92.50 per megawatt hour) and a £10 billion construction finance guarantee.

Critics like Nikki Clark of the Stop Hinkley campaign group have denounced the UK’s choice of the EPR design as “insane” given the delays and cost overruns in France and Finland.

The support package for Hinkley C is under review by the European Commission as possible ‘illegal state aid’ and may never win approval. The reactors are not included in the study since construction has not proceeded beyond extensive groundworks.

Delays a key factor behind rising costs

Mycle Schneider, Paris-based international consultant on energy and nuclear policy and lead author of ‘The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2014′ said:

“Delays in construction – some of them multi-year – are a key factor behind rising costs and the clear trend of the shrinking share of nuclear energy in the world’s power production, which declined steadily from a historic peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013.

“That trend is likely to persist as costly construction delays continue to dog the relatively small number of new reactor projects around the globe.”

Contrary to what is often claimed in the United States by proponents of nuclear power, he added, “the reality is that other nations around the globe do not have a better track record when it comes to delivering nuclear reactor projects on time and on budget.”

The global picture

According to the study:

  • China – often cited in the US as an example of where nuclear power is being delivered on time and inexpensively – is actually experiencing construction delays at 20 of its 27 reactor projects.
  • Russia is seeing delays at nine out of nine reactor projects.
  • India is reporting delays at two out of six reactor projects, but little information is available about the on-time status of the other four.
  • South Korea is seeing delays at four out of five reactor projects.
  • The United States is reporting delays at all five new reactor projects now under construction.
  • Ukraine’s two reactors were commenced in 1986-1987, and grid connection is officially due in 2015-2016.
  • Five reactors in Pakistan (2), Slovakia (2) and Brazil (1) are also running behind schedule.
  • Finland – Olkiluoto EPR delayed by almost a decade (see above).
  • France – Flamanvile EPR four years behind schedule (see above).

Of these eight reactors have been listed as ‘under construction’ for more than 20 years, and another for 12 years.

With Belarus, a new country was added in the last year to the list of nations engaged in nuclear projects, while Taiwan has halted construction work at two units. Fourteen countries are currently building nuclear power plants.

The remaining 13 reactors all started construction in 2012 and after, making it hard to see how construction is advancing. They are also in countries with little open information on building progress.These 13 reactors comprise: Argentina (1), Belarus (2), China (7), South Korea (1), UAE (2).

“This is by no means any guarantee that these plants are factually on time, let alone on budget”, says Schneider.

Contruction delays – a feature of nuclear power for 40 years

“For the last 40 years, the US nuclear power industry has been plagued by construction delays and by cost overruns”, comments Peter Bradford, adjunct professor on Nuclear Power and Public Policy, Vermont Law School.

The former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and former chair of the New York and Maine state utility regulatory commissions, continued:

“Because nuclear power is already more expensive than alternative ways both of generating electricity and of fighting climate change, these delays and overruns further undermine nuclear power’s claim that special nuclear subsidies are an essential part of the world’s climate change strategy.”

 


 

Further information: http://bit.ly/worldreactordelays.

 

 






Finding the food in complex environments

Many animals locate resources and orient in rather complex environments like vegetation, coral reefs or leaf litter. How does the presence of a stimulus affect animal movement in such complex environments? And what is the relative contribution of a stimulus vs. the complexity of the environment on animal movements? Find out in the Early View paper “Relative roles of resource stimulus and vegetation architecture on the paths of flies foraging for fruit” by Oriol Verdeny-Vilalta and co-workers.

Below is the author’s summary of the study:

To answer the questions above, we developed a novel method using random walks on graphs to accurately estimate both the perceptual range and the attraction strength from 3D movement trajectories of individuals. The perceptual range gives us an idea of the maximal distance at which a stimulus source biases the movement. The attraction strength measures how the attraction of the stimulus varies at different distances within the perceptual range. Additionally, the methodology enabled us to calculate the relative roles of the architecture of vegetation and of the strength of attraction of a stimulus on the movement of individuals. We applied the methodology to estimate perceptual range and strength of apple maggot flies (Rhagoletis pomonella) foraging for artificial fruit in apple trees of varying complexity.

 

Movements

Figure: Main steps (a-d) followed to study animal orientation in complex vegetation structures.

 

In our study we have shown that, conditional on visiting the stimulus location, the presence of the fruit affects animal movement much more than the plant architecture. Moreover, we found that plant complexity makes a minor contribution to defining the perceptual range, but a large contribution to the attraction strength. Thus, we highlight the importance of estimating not only the perceptual range but also the attraction strength of animals, which has been traditionally neglected. Our findings have implications for studying foraging ecology and landscape connectivity. For example, several dispersal models developed to study landscape connectivity incorporate the perceptual range of individuals, but the distinction between perceptual range and attraction strength is still lacking. We expect that landscape connectivity will be higher in animals showing higher attraction strengths for equal perceptual ranges. Given that animals use their sensory systems to make informed decisions and that they move and interact in heterogeneous environments, our approach might be of relevance to the myriad of animals walking and searching in complex environmental structures.

Changing to non-GMO soy transformed the health of my pigs





I want to tell you what I have seen on my farm and about the on-farm and lab investigations carried out in collaboration with Professor Monika Krüger and other scientists.

My farm – ‘Pilegaarden’ – which translates as ‘Willow Farm’ – is an average Danish farm in the small village of Hvidsten. Our pigs are raised accordingly to United Kingdom regulations for pig housing, and exported to the UK for consumption.

Inside the pig farm is a straw-based system for the sows as well as a standard farrowing house.

I had read about the effects that GM feed has on rats in lab experiments (see [1] GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or Sterile, SiS 33), so I decided to change the feed from GM to non-GM soy in April 2011 without telling the herdsman on the farm.

Instant benefits from non-GMO soy

Two days afterwards, he said to me: “You have changed the food.” He always notices whenever there is any problem with the feed and tells me. This time was different. Something very good was happening with the food as the pigs were not getting diarrhoea any more.

The farm was using two thirds less medicine, saving £7.88 per sow. Not just my farm but three other farms in Denmark that switched from GMO to non GMO feed have also seen the same.

Medication after the changeover in the weaners barn also went down dramatically by 66%. One type of antibiotic has not been used since.

The sows have higher milk production; we can tell because the sows are suckling one, two or three more piglets and have more live born pigs, on average 1.8 piglets more per sow. They wean 1,8 pigs more per litter, and have more live born pigs.

We have seen an aggressive form of diarrhoea disappear altogether from the farm. It affected young piglets in the first week of life, killing up to 30% of the animals. It has completely gone now for over three years.

Sows no longer suffer from bloating or ulcers and they have longer productive lives, only dropping in fertility after eight litters compared to 6 on GM soy.

So, a change to non-GM soy makes the herd easier to manage, improves the health of the herd, reduces medicine usage, increases production and is very profitable.

Glyphosate toxicity

Deformities in the pigs used to be very rare and I used to be proud to send Siamese twins to schools for classes because it was a ‘one in a million’ event. But then they became frequent.

So I read a lot on the subject and my suspicion fell on glyphosate. I read how glyphosate had been shown in scientific studies (see [2] Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, SiS 48, [3]) to cause deformities and noted it was the same type of deformities that I was seeing in my pigs.

I also observed deformities matching those found in anencephaly babies in Washington counties in US [4] that Don Huber talked about as well as the birth defects in Argentina [5, 6] (Argentinas Roundup Human Tragedy , SiS 48), as described by Dr Medardo Avila-Vasquez where high levels of glyphosate are used.

I had looked at studies showing that a 2-day exposure to 3.07 mg/l glyphosate herbicide caused only 10% mortality but caused malformations in 55% of test animals [7].

A toxicological study in 2003 led by Dr Dallegrave [8] found bone abnormalities, absence of bones or parts of bones, shortened and bent bones, asymmetry, fusions, and clefts in rats. So, after this I began to list all the deformities I saw in my pigs.

A catalogue of deformities in piglets

I decided to be on the safe side, by listing the clear deformities that cannot be missed, like a back that is totally kinked over (see Figure 1). I have pictures of all the deformed piglets, which are born alive in most cases.

One had a 180° bend in one of its vertebra. There were also deformities in the soft tissue, and one without an anus. One had kidney problems; another had its stomach outside the body. One had a cranial deformity, with no eyes and its brain outside the head; this is very typical. One had no cranium at all.

Some are even messier. There was a piglet with only one eye, and one completely headless. There was a little nose, but it had no bones to grow on so it probably would have died just after birth. We also started counting deformities of the tail, which are never fatal but are actually spinal deformities.

I sent the deformed piglets to Germany to be analysed by Krüger at Leipzig University. She opened them up and took the organs including the lungs, liver, kidneys, muscles, nervous system, intestines and heart; and she found glyphosate in all of the organs (see Box). You can see some of them in the scientific paper I published with Krüger and other scientists [9].

Glyphosate detected in malformed piglets

A total of 38 deformed Danish one-day old piglets were euthanized and the tissues analysed for glyphosate using ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay).

All organs or tissues had glyphosate in different concentrations. The highest concentrations were seen in the lungs ((0.4-80mg/ml) and heart (0.15-80 mg/ml). The lowest were in muscles (4.4-6.4 mg/g).

Rate of malformation increased to one out of 260 born piglets if sow feeds contain 0.87-1.13 ppm glyphosate in the first 40 days of pregnancy. In case of 0.25 ppm glyphosate one out of 1,432 piglets was malformed.

These piglets showed different abnormalities as ear atrophy, spinal and cranial deformations, cranium hole in head and leg atrophy; in one piglet only a single large eye developed. Piglets without trunk, with elephant tongue, and female piglet with testes were also present.

One malformed piglet showed a swollen belly and fore gut and hind gut were not connected.

The researchers note: “Further investigations are urgently needed to prove or exclude glyphosate in malformations in piglets and other animals.”

Teratogenic dose a fraction of the regulatory allowed dose

In addition to these experiments, I had over 30,000 piglets born over two years and therefore have statistical data that are not easily available in the lab and this is where farmers have the ideal opportunity to do their own testing.

I tested the food, the foetuses, the urine and the grains that came into the farm. To do the tests, I would take representative samples from the batches of food, mix them, and take 100 grams in a plastic bag of each to be tested, or 100 ml of liquids.

When taking muck and urine for testing, you need patience. Blood tests can be done by a vet. Send it for analyses to a lab that has the facilities to test glyphosate down to about 0.1ppb = 0.1 milligram per tonne. If tests are only detecting at above 0.1ppm = 0.1 grams per ton, it cannot show you what is in urine and muck. It costs about £30-50 for one test. Tests in oils might not be possible; you need to ask beforehand.

The results of the tests showed that with 0.06 mg/kg of glyphosate residue in the feed – much lower than the allowed 20 mg/kg – I was getting cranial and spinal deformities after two months of feeding (see figure 2). At 0.1 mg/kg I was also getting deformities, but not many so that one pig could alter the numbers.

But, at 0.2 mg/kg the deformities start to go up. At the maximum dose used (but still under 12% of the maximum permitted dose) of 2.26 mg/kg the numbers start to get very high.

Fewer piglets per litter

I also got help from Thomas Böhn from Norway who told me to look at longer intervals. We got numbers after six months to see an accumulative effect. The story is exactly the same. There is a very clear difference between low and high levels of glyphosate.

We also looked at the numbers of pigs born in each litter, which was significantly less after eating food with higher levels of glyphosate (see figure 3). We found a significant average difference of 0.95 fewer pigs born per sow when glyphosate was eaten in feed, between ‘low’ and ‘high’ intakes.

This was measured as accumulated intake of glyphosate over a 35 day period – the last five weeks of pregnancy. The ‘low’ intake was defined as under 3 mg/kg body weight, and the high intake was 3-9 mg/kg body weight.

So with glyphosate present in the feed, we have fewer births, as well as the odd ones that are deformed.

In short, a five-fold increase in glyphosate levels from 0.2 to 1 part per million (ppm) resulted in a five-fold increase in cranial and spinal deformities at birth, five times times more abortions, and 0.95 less piglets born per litter.

Glyphosate has known toxicities at extremely low concentrations

We can also relate the actual levels of glyphosate in feed to the level in the urine. So for 1,132 ppb (or 1.13 ppm), there is 44 ppb (~ 4%) in the urine and 246.33 ppb (~22%) in dung.

When I tested my own urine, I found that I had 2.58 ppb – and that is not from eating GM contaminated feed but from eating normal food from the Danish shops.

This is already at the level of higher rates of abortions and deformities and probably also fertility problems. Is this why in the Western world we have a very big problem with fertility (see [9] Glyphosate/Roundup and Human Male Infertility, SiS 62)?

And at 1,000 ppb, glyphosate is patented by Monsanto as an antibiotic, actually killing the beneficial microorganisms. At 0.1 ppb (less than 1/25 the level measured in my urine) Roundup caused tumours in 80% of rats compared to 20% in the controls [10], which only developed them at 700 days.

To have that high level of glyphosate in my urine, I must have consumed at the level of about 0.2ppm or 2,000 times more than the test rats. So what does that mean for the rates of cancer (see [11] Glyphosate and Cancer, SiS 62)?

I have a short film about how it is to be a farmer, I always feel very bad about my pigs getting ill so I leave the film for people to see. These same things must be happening in Chinese farms also, as they are using the same feed as I used to.

Even non-GM soya contains glyphosate and we as farmers need to demand that it is not sprayed down with glyphosate, because it can affect people as well as pigs.

To conclude

Any farmer who switches away from GMOs and Roundup will experience improved health in their herd and crops.

I know of the scientific studies on malformations due to the chemical Roundup. I know that one in 80 people in certain towns in Argentina have the same defects after being exposed to the chemical. And I know of 14 Danish people born with deformities of the same type.

Now what I have seen in my pigs makes me wonder what we are doing – not just to them but to ourselves. And it scares me.

A farmer’s task is to provide nutritious and healthy food for consumers, GMOs and Roundup provide neither. We can look back to DDT and how we thought that was healthy. That should remind us that we cannot ignore the warning signs for glyphosate.

 


 

Ib Borup Pederson is a Danish pig farmer serving the UK market, now also a scientific researcher and campaigner.

This article is based on a lecture by   at the 1st Forum of Development and Environmental Safety, under the theme ‘Food Safety and Sustainable Agriculture 2014’, 25 – 26 July 2014, Beijing. It was originally published by the Institute for Science and Society.

References

  1. Ho MW. GM soya fed rats: stunted, dead or sterile. Science in Society 33, 4-6, 2007.
  2. Ho MW. Lab study establishes glyphosate link to birth defects. Science in Society 48, 32-33, 2010.
  3. Antoniou M. Habib MEM, Howard CV, Jennings RC, Leifert C, Nodari RO, Robinson CJ and Fagan J. Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence. J Environ Anal Toxicol 2012, S4, 006, doi:10,4172/2161-0525.S4-006.http://omicsonline.org/teratogenic-effects-of-glyphosate-based-herbicides-divergence-of-regulatory-decisions-from-scientific-evidence-2161-0525.S4-006.php?aid=7453
  4. Anencephaly Investigation, Washington State Department of Health, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/IllnessandDisease/BirthDefects/AnencephalyInvestigation
  5. “Birth defects, cancer in Argentina linked to agrochemicals: AP investigation”, Michael Warren and Natacha Pisarenko, The associated Press, 20 October 2013, http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/birth-defects-cancer-in-argentina-linked-to-agrochemicals-ap-investigation-1.1505096
  6. Robinson C. Argentina’s Roundup human tragedy. Science in Society 48, 30-31, 2010.
  7. Lajmanovich RC, Sandoval MT, Peltzer PM. Induction of mortality and malformation in Scinax nasicus tadpoles exposed to glyphosate formulations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 2003, 70, 612-18.
  8. Dallegrave E, Mantese FD, Coelho RS, Pereira JD, Dalsenter PR, et al. The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol Lett 2003, 142, 45-52.
  9. Krüger M, Schrödl W, Pedersen I and Shehata AA. Detection of glyphosate in malformed piglets. J Eviron Anal Toxicol 2014, 4, 1000230, http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000230
  10. Ho MW. Glyphosate/Roundup & human male infertility. Science in Society 62, 14-17, 2014.
  11. Sôralini G-E. Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D and de Vendômois JS. Republished study: long-term toxicity of a Rounup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Environmental Sciences Europe 2014, 26, 14, doi:10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5, http://www.enveurope.com/content/26/1/14
  12. Ho MW. Glyphosate and cancer. Science in Society 62, 12-14, 2014.

 

 






British Museum – is BP driving your heavy-handed approach?





If you visited the British Museum on 15th June this year, you’d have seen quite an unusual sight. At 3.30pm two hundred people, many dressed as Vikings, gathered in the Museum’s huge domed inner court.

They started chanting about how the oil company BP – sponsors of the Museum’s popular Vikings Exhibition – was acting to bring about Ragnarok, the Viking end of the world, thanks to its enormous contribution to climate change.

Seemingly from nowhere, a pop-up longboat (see photo, right) emerged from the crowd, covered in subverted BP logos. The horde of performers then paraded this boat around the Museum, singing mournfully, before “sinking” the ship in order to give BP an unexpectedly moving Viking funeral.

Participants spoke passionately about their disgust that the Museum, through its ongoing sponsorship deal with BP, was allowing itself to be used as a cheap PR tool by such a destructive company.

This Viking-themed ‘flash-horde’ – organised by the performance activist group ‘BP or not BP?‘ – came off successfully and attracted a lot of attention. But despite being a piece of clearly peaceful theatrical protest, it was met with an unprecedented crackdown from British Museum security.

Why did you try to stifle our protest?

Every visitor to the Museum that afternoon was subject to a bag search – creating long queues out into the street – and harmless pieces of costume such as paper helmets and cardboard swords were confiscated.

Several performers (including myself) were recognised from previous performances and refused entry. One man, known as Thor, was even arrested by police after politely asking a security guard why he wasn’t allowed to bring in a cardboard shield adorned with a BP logo. (see photo, above right)

We wrote an open letter to Neil MacGregor, the Director of the British Museum, challenging them on their over-the-top attempts to silence our protests. Published by New Internationalist, our letter demanded some specific answers from the Museum:

Why did you try to stifle our protest? Was it on direct instruction from BP, or were you acting under your own initiative? Why did you alarm visitors by telling them that the door searches were due to a ‘security threat’ rather than a piece of unsanctioned theatre? And do you condone the behaviour of the police officers who aggressively, and almost certainly unlawfully, arrested a man who had broken no laws?”

Why is this 1% of British Museum funding so essential?

We didn’t really expect a reply. We thought they’d just ignore us. But we were wrong. The British Museum have now replied to us, not just once but twice. The first email from David Bilson, their head of security, can be read in full below.

This email claims that they needed to ramp up their security in order to “protect the public and safeguard the museum”. However this ignores the fact that we have held a number of these performance protests in the past, including another 200-strong flashmob back in 2012. None of these previous protests were met with such an excessive security response.

The Museum’s email also claims that they need BP’s money to run their exhibitions. However, according to oil industry watchdog Platform, BP’s sponsorship makes up less than 1% of the Museum’s annual income.

The Museum seem to acknowledge this by referring specifically to temporary exhibitions like the Vikings, which they claim are only possible “with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.”

Faced with the burning urgency of climate change, it’s absurd to suggest that the British Museum – with all its resources, networks and public profile – cannot fund its exhibitions without involving the fossil fuel industry.

Alternatives abound, for both the short and the longer term; for example, the PCS trade union, which represents 5,000 workers in cultural institutions like the British Museum, has laid out an alternative vision for the sector based on properly-directed public funding, decent pay and fairer management structures, in which corporate sponsorship is not required.

Fake beards and cardboard shields

The Museum’s second email to us is less formal, and invites us to come and take a tour of the Museum and have a chat with the head of security. We replied (see full version below):

“Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither …

“Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge.

“Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

“Your suggestion that there has been ‘a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people’ is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012 (see photo, above right), and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people …

“We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?”

We await their reply with keenest interest.

 


 

Danny Chivers is author of the No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change and a member of the BP or not BP? performance activism group.

Join the group on the People’s Climate March this Sunday September 21st – meet at 12.15pm outside the MacAdam Building, Kings College London, and look out for the pop-up Viking ship!

 

 


 

Correspondence – the first email from the British Museum

Dear BP or Not BP,

Thank you for your comments with regard to the security measures taken to protect the British Museum, the collection, staff and visitors on June 15th.

It is important to us that we are able to present leading exhibitions of objects and new research to our visitors. The British Museum is grateful to BP for their loyal and on-going support which has allowed us to bring world cultures to a global audience through hugely popular exhibitions and their associated public programmes. These have included; Hadrian, Italian Renaissance Drawings, Book of the Dead, Shakespeare: staging the world and Vikings: life and legend, as well as first-class visitor facilities such as the Museum’s dedicated lecture space, the BP Lecture Theatre. Without the support of BP all of this would not have been achieved.

The British Museum believes it is more important than ever to deepen people’s understanding of the world’s many and varied cultures and this is something that can be achieved through the temporary exhibition format. It is only possible to develop and host temporary exhibitions with the kind of external support that BP and other large commercial interests are able to offer.

It is equally important that our visitors can get access to our galleries and exhibitions. You acknowledge that as a group you made no contact with the Museum to make us aware of your intentions or to discuss essential public safety planning. We were obliged to work with uncertain information that we could expect a flashmob crowd and an attempt to bring a longship into the Great Court. Your previous protests have been much smaller and less intrusive for other visitors, especially when there were only about 12 players in the group. There has been a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people. The Museum feels that to conduct such an event without considering public safety issues in a space that is already crowded might be described as irresponsible. We would ask that if you intend to conduct a protest at the Museum in the future, that you notify us in advance to discuss the matter in detail.

The priority for the Museum, in delivering its safety responsibilities in relation to events such as this, is to protect the public and safeguard the Museum and the collection. While we retain the right to ask protesters to leave the Museum, it is our policy to seek to work with organisers of protests who contact us. In this way we can try to facilitate the free expression of views in a safe and pre-planned manner whilst discharging our legal responsibility with regard to safety. When organisers work with us to share their plans, we are more able to find an accommodation that permits entry to the Museum, so that people can make their views known, that also respects the safety of other visitors, who want to enjoy the Great Court.

We understand that you have strongly held views and acknowledge the importance of those views to you. We have no wish to stop you from expressing opinion or to inhibit debate, but we have to balance that against the safety, and wishes, of visitors who want to see the Museum. We hope that you will understand and support our safety and operational requirements in a similar spirit.

With thanks for your comments and interest in the work of the British Museum.

Yours sincerely,

David Bilson

Head of Security and Visitor Services

The second email was very short and informal, and invited members of the BP or not BP? group to come on a tour of the Museum.

 

 


 

Correspondence – our reply in full

We’ve decided to write this as an open letter because we want this to be a public debate; we’d be very interested in thoughts and comments from Ecologist readers!

Dear David Bilson,

Thank you for your reply to our open letter published in the New Internationalist on June 20th. We would like to accept your offer of a tour, so long as the Museum Director Neil MacGregor also joins us. We would like him to share his views on the issues surrounding oil company sponsorship, as until now neither he nor anyone else at the Museum has directly addressed the points we raised in our open letter.

Aside from general questions about the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputation of BP – a company that is actively driving us towards irreversible climate disaster – there are some specific points from our last letter that we are still waiting for you to answer.

Firstly, why were performers prevented from entering the building, and why were their costumes and props confiscated? Museum regulations prohibit visitors from bringing in items which are ‘illegal’ or carry a ‘risk’ to the collection, but cardboard shields and fake beards are neither. Again, your letter cited health and safety concerns as the reason the museum attempted to prevent our peaceful protest on June 15th, but you know from our past actions that we do not pose any such risks. There has been no harm to any people or exhibits from any of our seven interventions in the Museum, as we are careful to consider public safety when planning our performances. We also aim to be entertaining to the public rather than ‘intrusive’, as you claim in your letter.

Secondly, one performer was arrested and forced into a police car, despite doing nothing more than peaceably conversing with a security guard outside. He posed no threat to either the exhibits or the general public, and he had broken no law – as evidenced by the fact that he was released without charge. Why did this happen, and why did the museum guards who witnessed this not intervene on his behalf? We feel that the museum is partly responsible for this miscarriage of justice, and is deliberately stifling legitimate peaceful protest; but what is your perspective on this?

There’s a simple reason why we don’t ask permission to hold our performances: in order to be effective and capture the attention of the public and the media, our interventions need to be lively, free-roaming and surprising, and we suspect that you won’t give us permission for those kinds of events! Your suggestion that there has been “a substantial change in safety and security considerations as your numbers have grown to the level of 200 people” is simply incorrect; we held a protest with 200 people (a Shakespearean flashmob) in November 2012, and although you searched everyone coming in on that occasion you didn’t confiscate any costumes, exclude anybody or let the police arrest people. We have not “substantially changed” our tactics since 2012, but you have nonetheless escalated your response.

We can assure you that as lovers of history and culture, we have no intention of putting the exhibits, staff or fellow museum-goers at risk. This seems to be obvious to the majority of your security staff, who have generally not prevented us exercising our right to peaceful protest. We can only assume that your new heavy-handed approach is at the request of BP, because the company is embarrassed by the exposure of its real deeds to the public. If there is another reason, what is it?

Thanks again for the kind offer of a tour. As we have mentioned, it is precisely our love of public museum space that has led us to protest against the sponsorship of our cultural institutions by oil companies such as BP, and against the willingness of those in management to protect and preserve the reputations of these dirty companies through these alliances. We hope, therefore, that the museum will respond directly to our questions, as well as allowing us a conversation with Mr. MacGregor.

Yours sincerely,

BP or not BP?

 

 






A Yes vote in Scotland could finish Trident





Much has been made, and quite rightly, about the financial uncertainties for the Scots attached to an independence vote.

But if there is a Yes vote the financial pressures on the UK’s nuclear weapons programme will also bite hard, plunging its future into uncertainty.

Experience so far in the referendum campaign amply demonstrates the inability of the collective Westminster-Whitehall (WW) bubble to accurately assess risk, probability and impact.

As I outlined in a previous post for Open Democracy, Trident will become the subject of negotiation along with other core issues such as currency, the handling of debt and membership of the EU and NATO.

But the bases at Faslane and Coulport will need to move, and within a similar timescale to the introduction of the new submarines.

Even assuming that the political obstacles can be overcome, capital spend on the move will hit at the same point in the cycle as the construction of the submarines, sending costs spiraling.

Trident’s medium term home? Georgia, USA

With any move south of the border the renewal programme would take up well over half the current MoD’s equipment spend throughout the 2020s (it is already set to eat up a third of that budget over this period).

But this is only one half of the double-whammy. The other is that this would happen just when public spending would need to reduce by around 8% as a result of the tax-take from Scotland being removed.

For most government departments, whose spend is relative to the population they serve, this would not be such a big deal beyond the bureaucratic challenge of institutional change.

But the Ministry of Defence will retain just about the same commitments as they have today, and cuts they would have to bear would follow on from major cuts experienced over the last five years.

There is a cost to the rest of the defence establishment beyond which even die-hard pro-nuclear advocates would not tread. Without Faslane, the UK’s only alternative would be to base its Trident submarines at the US’s Kings Bay Trident port on Georgia’s Atlantic coast.

The military community discussing this possibility at present refer to it as a temporary measure, but the political and budgetary costs may force them to consider it a permanent proposition.

But what sort of symbol would that send about Britain’s dependency upon the United States and its capability? It would make a mockery of the claim that they system is operationally independent.

For any member of the public or rational defence planner in London, Scottish independence would surely mean a radical reassessment of Trident.

A new impetus towards global nuclear disarmament?

Any such reassessment, if it leads to disarmament, could be a big shot in the arm for the essential but deeply-troubled global non-proliferation regime upon which we all depend for stability and survival. So far 2014 has been a disastrous year.

Things looked promising in the heady days of 2010, when the US and Russia signed their new START treaty further limiting the numbers of warheads, missiles and bombers, and the NPT Review Conference agreed a comprehensive action plan to pursue disarmament and non-proliferation.

But the rot had already set into any optimism for further progress years before President Viktor Yanukovych was chased out of Kiev at the beginning of this year.

With Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the civil war in eastern Ukraine (now becalmed if not quite over under a peace process), and other major disagreements over missile defence, NATO membership and influence across eastern Europe and the Middle East, the nuclear weapon states are showing no prospects of living up to the cautious agenda they signed up to in 2010.

This leaves next year’s NPT Review Conference and the broader non-proliferation regime in limbo.

Iran hanging in the balance

It also adds a wild card to negotiations with Iran that reopen this Thursday, the same day as the referendum vote.

Just as the Americans and Europeans were hopeful of breakthrough on Iran’s nuclear programme before the deadline in November (though there are still big differences between the negotiating positions), the fragile sanctions coalition could be breaking apart before our eyes.

The Russians are already talking about major deals with Iran that the Americans consider bust the sanctions. If they sense alternatives opening up, it seems highly unlikely that hardliners in Tehran will countenance Rouhani agreeing to tight constraints on the programme. This one silver lining in the dark and foreboding international nuclear proliferation skies hangs in the balance.

If an independent Scotland were to force a rethink on Trident renewal it would be crucial for both governments to see how their choices could best influence this broader context.

If there is a possibility of an established nuclear weapon state taking its arsenal off patrol this must be used to maximum leverage within the broader international diplomatic game to win real moves in a positive direction by other states. This will be an important opportunity for leadership.

In the event of a No

But what of the impact of the only other likely alternative, a close no vote? In this circumstance we are likely to see devolution of many more powers not only in Scotland, but also other parts of the union.

The general assumption within the WW bubble will be that this will not directly affect the trappings of statehood, in particular foreign policy and defence and thereby the nuclear deterrent. There are a number of distinct dangers to this attitude that could reflect more complacency piled on the previous.

When it reported back in July, the Trident Commission, co-chaired by Malcolm Rifkind, Des Browne and Menzies Campbell, pointed to the pressing need for Britain to reconsider its strategy and more effectively lead on achieving multilateral disarmament measures.

There is no room for business as usual whilst strategic international relations deteriorate and the non-proliferation regime faces severe challenges of confidence.

And there is no solution to the contradiction between renewing Trident like-for-like and positively contributing to a stronger non-proliferation regime.

Caution advised – is this a smart way to spend £30 billion?

But back at home our political leaders would be well-advised to be cautious in making their assumptions about London retaining unambiguous control over the existing nuclear weapon infrastructure.

After the referendum it is now clear the nature of the constitutional settlement will change, and could remain fluid and uncertain for some time to come. Demands for change can only grow throughout the union. London may in future struggle to hold the line and prevent further slide towards a break-up of the union as devolution develops.

A close no vote could in the long run simply spell a stay of execution, unless the government more effectively tackles the centrifugal forces driving the home nations apart.

This will need them to go beyond the devolution of certain powers, and radically change the relationship between the WW bubble and the people of Britain.

And Trident has already shown itself to be a significant part of that legitimacy deficit. It is not only the Scots who are sceptical about spending £30bn over the next two decades on the renewal of our nuclear weapons.

If they succeed in convincing the Scots to stay in for now, those interested in saving the union in the longer run may yet come to see Trident and its bases in Scotland as an important political liability that we can ill afford to keep.

 


 

Paul Ingram has been the Executive Director for the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) since 2007. BASIC works in the US, UK, Europe and the Middle East to promote global nuclear disarmament and a transformation in strategic relationships using a dialogue approach.

He was also until recently a talk show host on state Iranian TV promoting alternative perspectives on strategic matters, and taught British senior civil servants leadership skills.

Previously Paul was a Green Party councillor in Oxford and co-Leader of Oxford City Council (2000-2002) and a member of the Stop the War Coalition Steering Group (2002-2006).

This article is based on one originally published by Open Democracy with edits by or agreed with the author. It is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence.

Creative Commons License

 

 






Climate March and Summit: world leaders’ ‘flimsy pledges’ denounced





This Sunday 21st September hundreds of thousands of people have pledged to march in New York, London, Amsterdam and many other cities around the world to demand climate justice, standing with climate and dirty energy-affected communities worldwide.

They are hoping to influence world leaders gathering in New York for their one-day Climate Summit taking place on 23rd September to exceed the poor expectations vested in them.

“Our demand is for action, not words”, the organizers explain. “We must take the action necessary to create a world with an economy that works for people and the planet – now. In short, we want a world safe from the ravages of climate change.”

Friends of the Earth International (FOEI) is among those warning that little progress is likely. “A parade of leaders trying to make themselves look good does not bring us any closer to the real action we need to address the climate crisis”, said Dipti Bhatnagar, FOEI’s Climate Justice and Energy coordinator.

“World leaders are falling far short of delivering what we need to truly tackle climate change in a just way. Their flimsy non-binding pledges in New York will do little to improve their track record.

“What we urgently need are equitable and binding carbon reductions, not flimsy voluntary ones. This one-day Summit will not deliver any substantial action in the fight against climate change.”

Record levels, record increases, of greenhouse gases

Last week the World Meteorological Organization warned that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases hit a record in 2013 as carbon dioxide concentrations grew at the fastest rate since global records began.

The impact of increasingly common extreme weather events, such as flooding, droughts and hurricanes, are devastating the lives and livelihoods of many millions of people.

Climate change is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people per year, most of whom live in poorer countries. Without immediate and decisive action, climate change will certainly get worse and could pass a dangerous tipping point where it becomes both catastrophic and irreversible.

The 195 States that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognise that rich, industrialised countries have done the most to cause climate change and must take the lead in solving it, and provide funds to poorer countries.

Both rich and poor countries are failing their people

But developed countries’ leaders are neglecting their responsibilities to prevent climate catastrophe, as their positions are increasingly driven by the financial interests of fossil fuel industries and multinational corporations.

The same interests are also opposing renewable energy and have succeeded in undermining support regimes in the UK and elsewhere, limiting the funds available and getting the bulk of the ‘low carbon’ finance available in the UK diverted to nuclear power – an expensive and ineffective way to tackle climate change.

Bill McKibben and the 350.org campaign he founded have highlighted the need to return to 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2) – and then lower still – to preserve the planet and its people.

The sharing of this burden, they say, must be based on historical responsibility, capacity to act and access to sustainable development in order to enable a just global transition.

A Peoples’ March to end carbon emissions

A total phase out of carbon emissions by 2050 is necessary, says FOEI, in order to reverse current warming trends and minimize the chance of irreversible damage and possible runaway climate change, with reductions agreed through a legally-binding agreement at the UNFCCC.

“Funds are urgently needed for clean, sustainable community energy and adaptation to climate change in developing countries”, the group adds, explaining its support for a ‘Financial Transactions Tax‘ as a source of climate finance.

The People’s Climate March has been endorsed by over 1,200 organizations representing 100 million people worldwide.

“We know that no single meeting or summit will ‘solve climate change’ and in many ways this moment will not even really be about the summit”, say organizers.

“We want this moment to be about us – the people who are standing up in our communities, to organise, to build power, to confront the power of fossil fuels, and to shift power to a just, safe, peaceful world. To do that, we need to act – together.”

 

 






The BBC, Friends of the Earth and nuclear power





Last Wednesday (10th September), as a World Nuclear Association (WNA) conference commenced in London, the BBC Today programme announced that the campaign group Friends of the Earth (FOE) had made a “huge and controversial shift” away from their “in principle” opposition to nuclear power.

It was news to the group’s campaigns director, Craig Bennett, who had earlier been interviewed for the programme as he relates in his blog.

On Friday the Guardian carried a blog by the BBC’s widely respected environment analyst Roger Harrabin reiterating the view that FOE had made a “huge and controversial shift”, also claiming that the group is now “less strongly anti-nuclear” and “is locked in an internal battle”.

The analysis was way from accurate according to FOE – but the top-line message remembered by busy listeners and readers means damage will have been done – and at a critical time in terms of the impending EC nuclear state-aid and Hinkley C investment decisions, which have global implications.

What Friends of the Earth are really saying

FOE is saying, after refreshing their policy in 2013, that the high cost and long build-times of new nuclear reactors are currently more dominant concerns to them compared to nuclear accidents.

That concern reflects the vital fact that the £10s or even £100s of billions the Government is preparing to sink into nuclear power is money that will not go into the real answers – renewables and energy conservation. Worse, they will cause energy market distortions that will further undermine renewables.

So FOE’s shift is one of relative concern from one of the several core stand-alone reasons against nuclear power (ie radioactive waste management, cost, proliferation, terrorism, major accidents, routine discharges and more recently climate distraction) to another.

That’s fair enough given that the scale of emission reductions required to avoid dangerous global warming is increasing by the year and delays in cutting emissions due to poor energy investment is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.

It’s also important to realise that as a solution to climate change, nuclear power is currently a ‘bit player’ producing just 2.6% of global energy: 2,600 TWh/y out of a global final energy demand around 100,000 TWh/y.

Nor does it offer significant opportunities for growth. The WNA optimistically estimates a nuclear capacity of 400GW – 640 GW by 2035. Taking a figure of 540 GW, that would generate around 4,000 TWh/y in 2035 of a projected global energy demand of 140,000 TWh/y –  just 2.9%.

Nuclear would be hard pushed to ever supply beyond 5% of future energy demand unless fast reactors – the great hope of George Monbiot, Mark Lynas, Baroness Worthington and some others – were ever proven at utility scale.

And that’s highly improbable, given the wasted billions invested in the technology, and decades of failure to deliver an economically viable solution. So nuclear power is hardly a crucial or key technology, as ministers keep arguing.

The other issues remain – and they are of critical importance

The increasing concern in the core issue of climate distraction does not mean that any other issues have materially reduced, the crumbling storage ponds etc at Sellafield are still a clear and present danger, probably more so year on year.

That’s not a softening of stance, as Harrabin’s whole article implies, rather its the opposite. Nuclear power is becoming an even more dangerous issue.

Indeed, considering the dawn of extreme asymmetric warfare (9/11), the rise of extremist groups (eg ISIS), dodgy foreign policy (2003 Iraq war, arms sales to Israel) and concerns about Iran’s nuclear power motives, I would suggest that two other core issues, terrorism and proliferation, are also increasing in danger.

Oddly and alarmingly such major security issues have not featured in most environmental, political or public debate. Yet, the UK is on the brink of being in the forefront of rescuing a dangerous, dodgy and discredited nuclear industry from an investment abyss and placing it centre-stage of a low-carbon energy global policy.

Hitachi is even considering moving its HQ from a contaminated Japan to a lucrative London. The Government is essentially promoting the spread of nuclear technology, materials and expertise around the world, where a few kilos of plutonium or U233 (from thorium reactors) can make a bomb that can change that world.

Future generations will not thank us for missing a fast-evaporating opportunity to bottle as much of the nuclear weapons genie as possible – by switching to safe, abundant and increasingly affordable renewables.

Neither is the decaying waste a diminishing issue. A site for a geological repository has still not been identified, nor a convincing containment technology. Waste from new reactors would be significantly hotter, radioactively and thermally, and may be left in on-site Interim Stores indefinitely by default.

A refreshed look at nuclear power is not a pleasant sight: it shows the dangers are increasing.

Closing existing reactors – when was that an FOE campaign?

Harrabin goes on to say, and make something out of, a change in FOE’s stance on closing existing nuclear reactors. I’m not sure what era Stephen Tindale was a FOE activist (apparently campaigning for existing stations to be closed down) but I never made any such calls in all the years I worked for FOE.

I was FOE Cymru’s specialist energy campaigner in Wales from about the mid 1990’s and then the main anti-nuclear campaigner (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) between about 2005-2010. We had a pragmatic attitude and focussed our limited energy and funding on more winnable campaigns.

So any shift regarding ‘closure calls’ would have been at least two decades ago and could not be portrayed as a recent shift or part of a refreshed ‘less strongly anti-nuclear’ stance.

And if FOE had made any significant ‘shift’ or change in policy on nuclear power (or any other campaign area) the proposed change would have had to be submitted as a written motion to the annual conference, won the Local Groups’ vote and received the agreement of the Board.

It would have presumably then been announced as a change in the organisation’s public material and press releases. It would not have been hidden to be ‘found’ by journalists digging around in consultants reports or reading way too much into comments and nuances in a live interview.

The experienced Harrabin says that the ‘shift in policy was signalled in a little-reported policy paper last year’. The link provided goes to a report written by the Tyndall Centre commissioned by FOE (with disclaimers) and is not FOE policy.

Surely such an experienced journalist would be aware that a externally-written commissioned report is different to a internally-produced policy paper

Is the BBC unbiased on nuclear power?

The article is replete with other outrageous twists. There is something alarming when any journalist writes an article like this. It is more alarming that the BBC environment analyst is doing this.

Perhaps it is not surprising given that two BBC Trust figureheads of this world-respected media organisation are paid advisers to EdF: acting chair Diane Coyle and ex Chair Lord Patten; moreover Coyle is married to the BBC’s technology correspondent.

Is it possible that the BBC Trust’s links to EdF have effects down the ranks of the organisation and permeate the minds of journalists without a word being spoken – a silent, almost subconscious influence?

The Trust can say all it likes about having “no control over editorial content” – but it does not need control. Trust members also adjudicate editorial complaints so one could question the time and effort in complaining about Harrabin’s article.

Regardless of any possible influence on any journalists it is remakable that BBC Trust members can receive money from such corporate interests – and even advise them on how to use the UK media to clinch one of the biggest multi-billion pound deals in British history.

Why won’t the BBC report on the real nuclear stories?

The Hinkley C deal, and others, would have long-term planning and subsidy implications, radioactive waste management issues extending into geological time, potentially irreversible proliferation, foreign policy, energy security and terrorism risk consequences, and yes, still the potential for major accidents.

There are numerous outstanding Assessment Findings regarding the Hinkley C design which, if not resolved before construction were to commence, could be set in concrete in what are globally unproven new reactor designs.

On the morning of the WNA’s conference in London the BBC should have reported relevant real issues such as AREVA’s credit-negative rating (reported on Reuters) or the month’s long safety shut-downs at EdF’s Heysham and Hartlepool nuclear reactors which could lead to capacity-crunches and Grid distortions this winter.

Drumming up stories which imply that one of the main anti-nuclear campaign organisations has made some big policy shift on the quiet is far below what the BBC and Britain was or should be about.

The BBC should refresh its policy on corporate links and the Government should re-evaluate the costs of a new-build nuclear programme. These include significant, perhaps incalcuable, national and global security risks for many future generations in the UK and globally.

The costs also include the extraordinary and counterproductive dis-investment already under way in harnessing safe, largely indigenous renewable energy resources potentially using British low-carbon and carbon-negative climate solutions: both the cheapest form of low carbon electricity, onshore wind, and that with the fastest declining cost, solar PV, are in the firing line for cuts.

In the meantime, FOE should be given the media space to set the record straight given the likely damage caused by Harrabin’s fault-ridden analysis.

 



Neil Crumpton is a writer, researcher and consultant on energy issues, and represents People-Against-Wylfa-B on the DECC-NGO nuclear Forum and the ONR stakeholder Forum. He was FOE’s energy specialist campaigner, 1994-2010.

 






Tory MPs: ‘climate change is not man made’





Only 30% of Conservative MPs accept that climate change has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a new poll by PR Week.

The survey of 119 MPs from all parties was commissioned by the magazine from Populus to establish the attitudes of parliamentarians to climate change and environmental issues as part of a special report on the subject
 
Only 51% of MPs agree that it is an established fact that global warming is largely man made, though there are substantial differences between parties. 

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Labour MPs agree that man-made global warming is now an established scientific fact compared with 30% of Tory MPs.

Over half (53%) of Conservative MPs agree with the statement that “it has not yet been conclusively proved that climate change is man made.” A further 18% agree that “man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda.”

Falling off the political agenda

Climate change has fallen down the political agenda in the past five years, said half of all MPs, compared with 23% who believe the opposite. 

However, 68% of all MPs believe more should be done to raise aware of environmental issues. 

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven described the findings as a “huge embarrassment” for David Cameron in the run-up to the UN climate change summit in New York later this month.

“There’s virtually no scientific argument left about whether manmade climate change exists, yet two-thirds of Tory MPs are ready to ignore the science in the name of ideology”, he said. 

“There’s no reason for the laws of physics to stop at the right of centre of British politics. Climate change is real and is happening – we’re all going to pay a price for our politicians’ failure to take it seriously.”

What happened to Thatcher’s legacy?

The minister for energy and climate change, Amber Rudd, sought to dispel the impression that the Conservatives are the party of climate change denial. 

“Man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that we face”, she said.

“In 1988 Margaret Thatcher, a scientist herself, put climate change firmly on the political agenda in her speech to the Royal Society when she said: ‘It’s we Conservatives who are not merely friends of the earth – we are its guardians and trustees for generations to come…

“‘No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full.'”

PRWeek’s examination of the state of the climate change message includes the results of a separate poll of 2,000 members of the public by YouGov. 

This found that 80% agree that the climate is changing and 60% think it is the result of human activity. 

A third of voters believe concerns about climate change are exaggerated.

 

 


 

This article was originally published by PR Week.

 

 






What are the processes responsible for the effects of habitat loss?

When habitat is lost so are species. One way of investigating the processes underlying this pattern is to pay attention to the identity (not only the number) of species. What happens to between-site differences in species composition when habitat loss transforms formerly continuous habitat into habitat fragments?

Who consults widely applied theoretical frameworks (e.g. theory of island biogeography) to answer this question will come to the conclusion that between-site differences in species composition – i.e. beta-diversity – should increase following habitat loss due to a strong influence of chance on the extinction process. Species are assumed to be ecologically equivalent (all have the same chance of getting extinct) and ecological drift (stochastic changes is species abundance) to increase in importance when populations are small. Further, chance makes it unlikely that populations surviving in different habitat remnants belong to the same species, and homogenization is hindered by isolation.

Beta1

Who, on the other hand, consults empirical work will find that for various groups of plants and animals it is common to observe that, of the diverse set of species in continuous habitats, it is frequently the same small set of species that persists after habitat loss. Apparently, only certain resistant species are able to survive in fragments, thereby making the species composition in fragments deterministically more (and not less) similar, indicating – in contrast to theoretical models – low influence of chance on species extinction.

In our study “Ecological filtering or random extinction? Beta-diversity patterns and the importance of niche-based and neutral processes following habitat loss we investigated how the importance of different processes changes with habitat loss relying on a large database of small mammals in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. We used a null model approach to quantify beta-diversity and make inferences about the relative importance of niche-based (deterministic) and neutral (stochastic) processes on community assembly at landscapes with varying degree of habitat loss.

Beta2

Our results did not support a positive relationship between beta-diversity and habitat loss, as predicted by commonly-used theoretical frameworks. Rather, when considering exclusively species composition (disregarding their abundance), beta-diversity was independent from habitat loss, with small mammal communities being more similar than expected by chance in deforested as well as continuously-forested landscapes. However, when species abundance was taken into consideration, we observed a drastic decrease in beta-diversity with habitat loss (i.e. biotic homogenization), thereby indicating an increase (rather than a decrease) in the importance of deterministic processes at landscapes with high degrees of habitat loss. Finally, we observed a drastic change in species composition in a highly deforested landscape, with communities being not just a rarefied sample but rather disproportionately dissimilar to the communities in continuously-forested landscapes.

Beta3

These results indicate that habitat loss can be seen as a strong ecological filter and species extinction is clearly more influenced by deterministic than by stochastic processes. Against this background, the incorporation of relevant species traits into theoretical models seems to be a useful step forward for the practical relevance of these models. Moreover, pro-active measures seem to be essential to prevent tropical landscapes to go beyond critical levels of habitat loss.

The authors through Thomas Püttker

Tory MPs: ‘climate change is not man made’





Only 30% of Conservative MPs accept that climate change has been proven to be caused by human activity, according to a new poll by PR Week.

The survey of 119 MPs from all parties was commissioned by the magazine from Populus to establish the attitudes of parliamentarians to climate change and environmental issues as part of a special report on the subject
 
Only 51% of MPs agree that it is an established fact that global warming is largely man made, though there are substantial differences between parties. 

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Labour MPs agree that man-made global warming is now an established scientific fact compared with 30% of Tory MPs.

Over half (53%) of Conservative MPs agree with the statement that “it has not yet been conclusively proved that climate change is man made.” A further 18% agree that “man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda.”

Falling off the political agenda

Climate change has fallen down the political agenda in the past five years, said half of all MPs, compared with 23% who believe the opposite. 

However, 68% of all MPs believe more should be done to raise aware of environmental issues. 

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven described the findings as a “huge embarrassment” for David Cameron in the run-up to the UN climate change summit in New York later this month.

“There’s virtually no scientific argument left about whether manmade climate change exists, yet two-thirds of Tory MPs are ready to ignore the science in the name of ideology”, he said. 

“There’s no reason for the laws of physics to stop at the right of centre of British politics. Climate change is real and is happening – we’re all going to pay a price for our politicians’ failure to take it seriously.”

What happened to Thatcher’s legacy?

The minister for energy and climate change, Amber Rudd, sought to dispel the impression that the Conservatives are the party of climate change denial. 

“Man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats that we face”, she said.

“In 1988 Margaret Thatcher, a scientist herself, put climate change firmly on the political agenda in her speech to the Royal Society when she said: ‘It’s we Conservatives who are not merely friends of the earth – we are its guardians and trustees for generations to come…

“‘No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease. This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full.'”

PRWeek’s examination of the state of the climate change message includes the results of a separate poll of 2,000 members of the public by YouGov. 

This found that 80% agree that the climate is changing and 60% think it is the result of human activity. 

A third of voters believe concerns about climate change are exaggerated.

 

 


 

This article was originally published by PR Week.