The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

The ‘vaquita’ is a beastie with some remarkable claims to fame. It’s one of the two smallest cetaceans in the world, just managing to nudge about 1.5 metres (5ft) long on a good day.

Its name means ‘little cow’, though it is also called the ‘desert porpoise’ or ‘Gulf of California porpoise’ as it lives near arid Baja California. They are the only porpoises found in warm waters.

It was only described by science in 1958, and has a tiny geographic range at the north end of the Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez. At about 4,000 km2 (about the size of Cornwall) it’s among the smallest ranges of any marine mammal.

It’s possibly one of the cutest sea mammals around (with dark eye patches giving it a passable panda look), although very few people have ever gotten a good look at a live vaquita…

Oh yes. And it’s likely to become extinct in just a few years.

Fishery bycatch – what a way to go …


There are fewer than a hundred vaquitas left on the planet, and we humans are reducing that number by a staggering 17% each year!

The truth is – we should be able to save the vaquita. We know where it lives, and we know that we humans are its biggest threat. Vaquitas are caught and killed as bycatch in a fishery targeting fish called totoaba.

The swim bladders of the totoaba are prized as a delicacy for soup in China so there’s lucrative financial incentive for illicit fishing. It just so happens that totoaba are about the same size as a vaquita, which is really bad news for the porpoises when indiscriminate gillnets are used that catch them, too!

By stopping fishing entirely, or moving fully to fishing methods that can’t catch porpoises ‘by accident’, and protecting the vaquita’s habitat, this could and should be one of the easiest marine animals to conserve.

Many of the recognisable marine critters at greatest risk of extinction, such as hammerhead sharks, whale sharks, sea turtles & manta rays have vast ranges, and are much trickier to protect fully from human impacts.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, of course, but it does surely make it all the more ridiculous if we can’t get our act together to save the vaquita.

They have a ‘marine protected area’ – but it’s too small

In fact, in 2005 a ‘marine protected area’ was designated specifically to protect this tiny porpoise, covering the central part of its range (see map, right). But it’s surrounded by heavily-fished areas, and ongoing fishing – both legal and illegal – is killing more and more porpoises.

A much larger protected area has now been proposed (see map) in which fishing would still take place, but the gill nets in which the vaquitas are so often fatally entangled would be banned.

As Nampan, the North Americas Marine Protected Areas Network reports: “Experts worldwide are in agreement that the surest way to prevent the extinction of the vaquita is to eliminate the use of entangling nets in the areas where vaquitas occur.

“The immediate removal of such nets must be accompanied by one or more financial mechanisms to compensate the fishermen who can no longer pursue their livelihoods in the same way. This means that economic alternatives and vaquita-safe fishing methods must be developed and made available in the fishing communities of the northern Gulf.

“It is crucial for the CEC to support Mexico’s pursuit of these objectives. Without immediate, decisive action, the vaquita could become the second cetacean species to have been rendered extinct as a direct consequence of human activity in the present century.”

We owe it to the vaquitas to try to save them.

Is that enough cetacean extinction now?

This generation has already seen the extinction of the Baiji, a Chinese river dolphin. Other species are declining fast thanks to humanity, with ship strikes, pollution, habitat destruction, and irresponsible fishing taking an increasingly heavy toll.

The vaquita is top of the list, but the future is also bleak for the Maui’s dolphin, the North Atlantic right whale, the Ganges river dolphin, the Western Pacific gray whale, the Irrawaddy dolphin and many more.

Then there are the ice whales – narwhals, beluga & bowheads – whose habitat is being destroyed and plundered as it melts away.

We should be able to save the vaquita. But do we collectively care enough to do it? The President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto, is considering introducing a new law that could protect the vaquita’s home.

Our encouragement will surely help him to reach the right decision.

 

---

 

Action: Sign the petition to send a message to Enrique Peña Nieto and make sure he knows we want to save the vaquita.

Find out more about vaquitas and how to save them: vaquita.tv.

Willie Mackenzie is part of the Greenpeace UK biodiversity team. He works mostly on oceans and fishy issues. Twitter: @williemackenzie

This article was originally published on the Greenpeace blog.

 

Measure 92, Oregon’s food labeling initiative for GMO ingredients, will go to an automatic recount after the difference in vote between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes narrowed to just 809 with all votes counted.

The count has been been going on continuously since the 4th November election. Opponents were vocal in calling the vote in their favor just a day after the election, but as more votes came in from all 36 counties, the gap narrowed to 0.06% – well under the recount trigger level of 0.2%.

“Regardless of what the final outcome of this race is, this is a very encouraging sign for those of us who support labeling of genetically engineered foods“, said Sandeep Kaushik, a spokesman for the ‘Yes on Measure 92‘ campaign promoting the measure.

“We’ve known since election night that this race is too close to call. Instead of throwing in the towel when we trailed narrowly in the first vote counts, the ‘Yes on Measure 92’ campaign went to work. We activated our campaign staff and hundreds of volunteers over the last week to ensure that every possible valid vote is counted.

“Our efforts have led in recent days to thousands of Oregon voters correcting signature issues so that their valid ballots can be counted and their voices heard in this election.” 

Big food spent $20 million fighting Measure 92

The incredibly narrow race comes despite a $20 million campaign from the opposition led by big food and chemical companies. The previous record for spending on an Oregon ballot initiative was $12 million for both sides combined.

Monsanto donated nearly $5 million, DuPont Pioneer $4.5 million, Dow AgroSciences over a $1.1 million, with Pepsi and Coke, who use sugar and corn genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides in their products, combining for over $3.5 million.

On the other side the Yes campaign raised around $6 million, $1 million of which came from the Centre for Food Safety’s political arm, the CFS Action Fund, which also helped to mobilize thousands of volunteers in Oregon and across the country.

CFS previously worked with and provided legal and grassroots support to campaigns in Oregon to ban the planting of GE crops in two Oregon counties, and worked with the State Senate to ban GE canola in the Willamette Valley until 2019.

“Thanks to the tireless efforts of on the ground organizers, and despite an aggressive and expensive opposition campaign, GE food labeling is still alive in Oregon”, said CFS director Andrew Kimbrell. “The power and tenacity of the Food Movement has been on full display here in Oregon.”

A fourth state to require GMO labelling?

If the ‘yes’ votes are victorious on the recount, Oregon would be the fourth US state to require GE labeling.

Connecticut and Maine each passed GE labeling laws this past spring, but both bills include a trigger clause requiring several other states to also pass labeling bills before the new laws can be implemented. Vermont was the first state to pass a no-strings-attached labeling law, set to go into effect in 2016.

In Colorado, where a similar ballot initiative was also up for a vote, the anti-labeling side won the vote after spending over $16 million, hugely outspending the ‘Yes on 105 campaign’.

In all, companies funding anti-labeling campaigns have spent over $100 million in just four states – California, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

In 2013, Rep. Peter DeFazio and Sen. Barbara Boxer introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 1699/S. 809) to make GE food labeling mandatory across the country.

Supported by 63 Representatives and 17 Senators, the bill directs the Food and Drug Administration to use its authority to enact a federal, mandatory GE labeling policy that would guarantee all Americans the right to know.

“We are optimistic that when the recount is complete Measure 92 will prevail”, said Kaushik. “But we want to be clear about one thing: regardless of the final outcome of the mandatory recount, the labeling issue is not going away.

“This movement continues to grow and build support across this state and around the country, and that growth will continue.”

Summon into your mind, for a moment, the image of a deeply perplexed Ed Davey, late at night, deep in thought, sitting there behind his Secretary of State’s desk in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, staring down at a single large number in a memo from his Permanent Secretary:

Strictly confidential – for the Secretary of State

As requested, we’ve researched three options to provide c. 7% of total UK electricity demand by 2025 at the latest:

1. A barrage on the Severn Estuary.
2. 2 new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
3. 20 GW of renewable electricity generation capacity on UK farms.

As it happens, Secretary of State, the choice is actually a bit of a no-brainer, apart from two little stumbling points that I’ll come to in a minute.

For the time being, let’s immediately dismiss Option 1. Too many uncertainties, very high cost, and the bird brigade really don’t like it.

Regarding Option 2, we already know that those two reactors (at c. £24 billion) would be the most expensive power stations anywhere in the world – were they ever to be built.

As you know, Secretary of State, recent news means that now looks increasingly unlikely:

• The main construction company involved (AREVA) is in a ‘financial crisis’.
• Even parts of the nuclear industry think the chosen reactor design is “unconstructable“.
• And I’m afraid it gets worse: we’ve known for some time that the Treasury is carrying out a secret review of the whole deal.

It’s a bleak outlook. Which brings us to Option 3 – and this really is the no-brainer!

Farming energy – 20GW can be mobilised by 2020

A brilliant new piece of research from Forum for the Future, Farmers Weekly and Nottingham Trent University has analysed the potential for rolling out different renewable technologies on UK farms – principally solar and wind, with a bit of anaerobic digestion thrown in for good measure.

Based on experience to date (there are already more pioneers out there than you might imagine!), their report estimates that it would be relatively simple to get the first 20 GW onto the grid from farm-based solar and wind.

And that could be on stream by 2020 if we get behind it, well before the projected date of 2023 for completion at Hinkley Point – if you believe that!

The National Farmers Union loves it – and you can’t say that very often! It’s true, of course, that wind has fallen out of favour with your coalition partners, who are competing furiously with UKIP to see who can more effectively trash our wind industry while simultaneously hammering the rural economy.

Despite the media and political spin, the majority of Brits like wind power. But solar power is really very popular. Not just on roofs (farmhouses and farm buildings have lots of roofs pointing in the right direction, or so I’m told!), but mounted on the ground.

14GW of solar on 0.5% of Britain’s farmland – and the sheep can carry on grazing

So let’s look at solar more closely. If these ground-mounted solar farms are designed in the right way (to minimise visual intrusion through screening with trees and so on), on the right bits of land, with local communities consulted and involved at every turn, this would be an absolute winner.

And the 14GW of solar in the overall total of 20 GW of renewables would require no more than 21,000 hectares, or just 0.5% of the land area of UK farms. Typically that will be pastureland on south-facing slopes, and guess what – with the panels in place, animals can just carry on grazing.

And to prove it I’ve got some wonderful photos to show you, Secretary of State, of sheep grazing happily amongst the solar panels – and chickens too, come to that! There are some even more beautiful images of panels in amongst restored wildflower meadows, with bees and butterflies all over the place.

It even turns out that bumblebees just love making their nests in the ground sheltered by the panels! What, as they say, Secretary of State, is not to like?!

Two things, unfortunately, as I mentioned above.

SNAFU #1 – Liz Truss

Your fellow Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Liz Truss, threw a bit of a hissy fit about farmers needing to stick to the business of food production, and not getting involved in energy production.

It turns out that she hadn’t seen any of the beautiful photos I’ve referred to above, and seriously thought that ground-mounted solar arrays carpeted the entire land area! (I blame her ignorance on Defra’s Permanent Secretary personally!)

And this is unfortunate, because even she has belatedly woken up to the importance of protecting pollinating insects, with lots of enthusiastic discussions going on between her department and National Rail and the Highways Agency.

Unfortunately, she doesn’t realise that farm-based solar could be a great way of helping all those bees – which we probably want to be close to the crops anyway, I would have thought?

SNAFU #2 – Hinkley C nuclear power station

We’ve pretty much put all our low-carbon eggs into EDF’s all-encompassing nuclear basket – to the tune of £24 billion, or even £37 billion by some estimates!

I’m sorry to have to tell you, Secretary of State, that there’s no way of saving face here. You’re already an object of scorn for some environmentalists (I think I showed you that blog from bloody Jonathon Porritt!), and if you now flip back again, having so assertively flopped into the nuclear camp, many people (even outside the Treasury) might start to question your judgement.

However, I don’t think we need panic here. The Hinkley Point deal with EDF probably won’t come unstuck until after the next General Election, and in the meantime, you have a wonderful opportunity to buff up your residual green credentials by pressing the start button on Farm Power UK right now.

And the overall cost of renewable electricity from our farms is likely to be much lower than that from nuclear power stations, while also creating much needed rural employment.

Moreover the power will begin to flow pretty much immediately – reducing the chances of electricity shortages in time for winter 2015 – never mind waiting until 2023 (if we’re lucky) before a single watt is produced.

We’re talking 7% after all!!

Jonathon Porritt has been an environmental campaigner since 1974, and is still hard at it nearly 40 years on. His latest book is The World we Made. He blogs at jonathonporritt.com/blog.

This article is also published on Jonathon’s blog.

Plans to build two giant nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in south-west England are being reviewed as French energy companies now seek financial backing from China and Saudi Arabia – while the British government considers whether it has offered vast subsidies for a white elephant.

A long-delayed final decision on whether the French electricity utility company EDF will build two 1.6GW European Pressurised water Reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset – in what would be the biggest construction project in Europe – was due in the new year, but is likely to drift again.

Construction estimates have already escalated to £25 billion, which is £9 billion more than a year ago, and four times the cost of putting on the London Olympics last year.

Costs escalate. And escalate …

Two prototypes being built in Olikuoto, Finland, and Flamanville, France, were long ago expected to be finished and operational, but are years late and costs continue to escalate.

Until at least one of these is shown to work as designed, it would seem a gamble to start building more, but neither of them is expected to produce power until 2017.

With Germany phasing nuclear power out altogether and France reducing its dependence on the technology, all the industry’s European hopes are on Britain’s plans to build 10 new reactors. But British experts, politicians and businessmen have begun to doubt that the new nuclear stations are a viable proposition.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at the University of Greenwich, London, said: “The project is at very serious risk of collapse at the moment. Only four of those reactors have ever been ordered. Two of them are in Europe, and both of those are about three times over budget. One is about five or six years late and the other is nine years late. Two more are in China and are doing a bit better, but are also running late.”

Tom Greatrex, the British Labour party opposition’s energy spokesman, called on the National Audit Office to investigate whether the nuclear reactors were value for money for British consumers.

Peter Atherton, of financial experts Liberum Capital, believes the enormous cost and appalling track record in the nuclear industry of doing things on time mean that ministers should scrap the Hinkley plans.

Billionaire businessman Jim Ratcliffe, who wants to invest £640 million in shale gas extraction in the UK, said that the subsidy that the British government would pay for nuclear electricity is “outrageous”.

Cold feet in the Treasury as liabilities are set to soar

Finding the vast sums of capital needed to finance the project is proving a problem. Both EDF and its French partner company, Areva, which designed the European Pressurised water Reactor (EPR), have money troubles. Last week, Areva suspended future profit predictions and shares fell by 20%.

Chinese power companies have offered to back the project, but want many of the jobs to go to supply companies back home – something the French are alarmed about because they need to support their own ailing nuclear industry. Saudi Arabia is offering to help too, but this may not go down well in Britain.

On the surface, all is well. Preparation of the site is already under way on the south-west coast of England, with millions being spent on earthworks and new roads. The new reactors would be built next to two existing much smaller nuclear stations – one already closed and the second nearing the end of its life. The new ones would produce 7% of Britain’s electricity.

But leaks from civil servants in Whitehall suggest that the government may be getting cold feet about its open-ended guarantees. The industry has a long history of cost overruns and cancellations of projects when millions have already been spent – including an ill-fated plan to build a new nuclear station on the same site 20 years ago.

The Treasury is having a review because of fears that, once this project begins, so much money will have been invested that the government will have to bail it out with billions more of taxpayers’ money to finish it – or write off huge sums.

The whole project is based on British concern about its ageing nuclear reactors, which produce close on 20% of the country’s electricity. The government wanted a new generation of plants to replace them and eventually produce most of the country’s power.

£37 billion subsidy package approved by EU – but is it legal?

In order to induce EDF to build them, it offered subsidies of £37 billion in guaranteed electricity prices over the 60-year life of the reactors. This would double the existing cost of electricity in the UK.

The European Commission gave permission for this to happen, despite the distortion to the competitive electricity market. But this decision is set to be challenged in the European Court by the Austrian government and renewable energy companies, which will further delay the project.

Since the decision was made to build nuclear power stations, renewable energy has expanded dramatically across Europe and costs have dropped. Nuclear is now more costly than wind and solar power. In Britain alone, small-scale solar output has increased by 26% in the last year.

In theory, there are a number of other nuclear companies – from the US, China, Japan and Russia – keen to build stations of their own design in Britain, but they would want the same price guarantees as EDF for Hinkley Point.

With a general election in the UK looming in May next year, no decisions will be reached on any of these projects any time soon. And a new government might think renewables are a better bet.

Paul Brown, a former environment correspondent for the Guardian, now writes for Climate News Network. He began working as a reporter on a weekly paper in Sussex and progressed to evening and morning newspapers before joining The Guardian in 1981. In his role as environment correspondent, he travelled to more than 50 countries, and to the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This article was first published by Climate News Network.

The World Bank will invest heavily in clean energy and only fund coal projects in “circumstances of extreme need” because climate change will undermine efforts to eliminate extreme poverty, says its president Jim Yong Kim.

Talking ahead of a UN climate summit in Peru next month, Kim said he was alarmed by World Bank-commissioned research from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, which said that as a result of past greenhouse gas emissions the world is condemned to unprecedented weather events.

“The findings are alarming. As the planet warms further, heatwaves and other weather extremes, which today we call once­-in­-a-century events, would become the new climate normal, a frightening world of increased risk and instability.

“The consequences for development would be severe, as crop yields decline, water resources shift, communicable diseases move into new geographical ranges, and sea levels rise.”

“We know that the dramatic weather extremes are already affecting millions of people, such as the five to six feet of snow that just fell on Buffalo, and can throw our lives into disarray or worse.

“Even with ambitious mitigation, warming close to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels is locked in. And this means that climate change impact such as extreme heat events may now be simply unavoidable.”

‘Only in extreme need will we do coal again’

But the Bank, which has traditionally been one of the world’s largest funders of fossil fuel projects and has been accused of adding to the problem of climate change, said it could not ignore the poorest countries’ need for power.

“We are going to have to focus all of our energy to move toward renewable and cleaner forms of energy”, said Kim.

“But on the other hand we believe very strongly that the poorest countries have a right to energy and that we not ask these energy ­poor countries to wait until there are ways of ensuring that solar and wind power can provide the kind of base load that all countries need in order to industrialise.

“The stakes have never been higher. We cannot continue down the current path of unchecked growing emissions. The case for taking action now on climate change is overwhelming, and the cost of inaction will only rise.”

Kim was backed by Rachel Kyte, World Bank group vice president and special envoy for climate change. “It will only be in circumstances of extreme need that we would contemplate doing coal again”, she said.

“We would only contemplate doing [it] in the poorest of countries where their energy transition as part of their low-carbon development plan means that there are no other base load power sources available at a reasonable price.”

“The focus is on being able to ramp up our lending and the leveraging of our lending into all forms of renewable energy. That’s the strategy. It includes everything from all sizes of hydro through to wind, to solar, to concentrated solar, to geothermal. I think we’re invested in every dimension of renewable energy. That is what we’re concentrating on.”

Now, what about oil, gas and other fossil fuels

The bank’s report showed that with a 2C warming, soya and wheat crop yields in Brazil could decrease 50-70%: “In the Middle east and north Africa, a large increase in heatwaves combined with warmer average temperatures will put intense pressure on already scarce water resources with major consequences for food security.

“Crop yields could decrease by up to 30% at 1.5-2C and by almost 60% at 3-4C. Pressure on resources might increase the risk of conflict.”

Climate change posed a substantial risk to development and cutting poverty, the report said, adding that action on emissions need not come at the expense of economic growth.

But the bank made no commitment to cut funding for oil or other fossil fuel exploration. Analysis earlier this year by Washington-based NGO Oil Change International showed that the bank had funded $21bn (£13bn) of fossil fuel projects since 2008, including $1bn of oil and other fossil fuel exploration in 2013.

“The bank has taken an important first step in essentially stopping its support for coal-fired power plants, but climate change is caused by more than just coal”, said Stephen Kretzmann, director of Oil Change International.

“The vast majority of currently proven fossil fuel reserves will need to be left in the ground if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, but last year the bank provided nearly $1bn in support for finding more of these unburnable carbon reserves.”

John Vidal is Environment Editor for the Guardian.

This article was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced with thanks via The Guardian Environment Network.