It has seemed all along that Obama lacks background in the natural sciences. He often appears to lack the understanding that would let him fully accept the real dangers of global warming. Instead, he believes the topic is important because of the concerns of his advisers and voters. Thus, it is something that he can use politically for bargaining and negotiations.
Category Archives: Human Impact
Toxic threat of cyanobacteria may be growing worldwide
This is a serious threat to wildlife.
Study calls for better monitoring, more warnings
Staff Report
FRISCO — Dammed rivers, global warming and increased agricultural runoff all contribute to the growing threat of toxic cyanobacteria, scientists said after taking a far-reaching look at the issue of blue-green algae blooms in fresh water.
The study, conducted by researchers with Oregon State University and the University of North Carolina, found that the threat is poorly monitored and represents an under-appreciated risk to recreational and drinking water quality in the United States. More testing and monitoring is needed to track potential threats to human health, the scientists concluded.
View original post 866 more words
Do nanoparticles threaten sediment-dwelling organisms?
The loss of wild animals, more than half, is scary. Anything that might harm them should be studied before it is used.
Carbon nanotube schematic, courtesy the Wikimedia Commons.
Scientists highlight the need for more research
Staff Report
FRISCO — As the use of nanomaterials increases, there’s a need to study how those particles change as they make their way through ecosystems, especially when they pass from water to sediment and then into sediment dwelling organisms.
The study by researchers with the University of Exeter highlight the risk that engineered nanoparticles released from masonry paint on exterior facades, and consumer products such as zinc oxide cream, could have on aquatic creatures.
Textiles, paint, sunscreen, cosmetics and food additives are all increasingly containing metal-based nanoparticles that are engineered, rather than found naturally.
View original post 265 more words
U.S. Forest Service approves massive expansion of summer recreational facilities at Breckenridge ski area
By Bob Berwyn
FRISCO — The U.S. Forest Service is on track to approve a huge expansion of summer activities at Breckenridge Ski Area that will accommodate up to 150,000 additional visitors during the summer season.
The agency this week released a final environmental study for the new installations and programs, along with a draft decision letter from White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams, who said he thinks the new facilities — including zip lines, canopy tours and challenge courses — will enhance public appreciation of national forest lands and the outdoors.
The proposal was controversial in Breckenridge, as some residents expressed concerns about drawing more visitors to the already crowded town. Other locals support the plan as a way of increasing tourism revenues and drumming up more business for local restaurants and shops. Sourced through Scoop.it from: summitcountyvoice.com
GR: At all costs, people first! Sad that a national land-management agency would not see the need to preserve nature now that more than half of all animals on Earth age gone primarily because of habitat loss.
Yellowstone: a Dangerous Place—for Bears
We must change our attitude toward wildlife. We shoot and poison for our convenience with little regard for the ecosystem consequences. We also need to update our views on population. Let’s hope that the Pope will get serious about population next.
Text and Wildlife Photography©Jim Robertson
Much has been speculated since the Yellowstone employee was recently found partially consumed by a bear and her two cubs. For example, it can’t be known for certain that the popular bear nicknamed “Blaze” was the one who caused his death—teeth and claws do not leave fingerprints. Likewise, the bear’s motive for killing can’t be known for sure either. Sometimes humans just die easily. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, entitled, “Forget bears: Here’s what really kills people at national parks,” folks are far more likely to die of drowning, car accident, a fall, suicide, pre-existing condition, heat or cold exposure than by wildlife (which is last on the list in descending order).
But the motive for killing the bear was pretty clear: an eye for an eye. This was an act of revenge. You don’t kill a human in…
View original post 356 more words
Study quantifies natural gas development impacts on mule deer
A new study by Colorado State University and Colorado Parks and Wildlife found that natural gas development could be adversely impacting large areas of critical winter range for mule deer. Source: phys.org
GR: So, if we have the proof (from the study), how long will it take to stop development of natural gas in the mule deer winter range?
Has the Amazon rainforest been saved, or should I still worry?
Deforestation
Lucy Siegle: “Peak deforestation angst didn’t actually coincide with peak deforestation. While the wearing of “Save the Rainforest” T-shirts was de rigueur in the late 80s, the worst destruction came in 2004, a year when we (as in humankind) chopped down 27,000km2 of Amazon rainforest. By that point there wasn’t much left to play with: the Brazilian Amazon region (the largest continuous tropical rainforest in the world) had shrunk from four million kilometres (close to half the size of continental Europe) to just 18% of that size.
“Brazil is still home to 40% of global rainforest, despite so much of it being destroyed to supply a range of products from toothpaste and face creams (tallow from cattle) to leather for football boots. It was in the 80s that agronomists first recognised that agricultural markets were behind runaway deforestation. In 2009, the Greenpeace report Slaughter of the Amazon showed the international leather and beef trades as the primary drivers of deforestation in the region.” Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.theguardian.com
Deforestation and Human Population
GR: Deforestation continues. As long as the human population grows, the destruction of natural vegetation is inevitable. This article describes some of the steps that can mitigate the impacts. A glance at the Groene Woud photo will tell you that the mitigation is no substitute for native vegetation. I’ve even seen arguments that the replacement of native vegetation with human-built environments isn’t such a disaster, because cities themselves provide habitat for wild animals. That’s true, but the habitat is not the one that fits the adaptations of most of the species of a region. Native plants and plant communities support native animals that, in turn, thin, pollinate, and connect native plants. From experience, I can report that the vegetation of cities, roadsides, and power transmission corridors are composed primarily of nonnative species. Replacing natural plant communities with urban plant communities reduces biodiversity and productivity.
Navajo Nation President Begaye demands immediate explanation of EPA accident.
The EPA actually has no concern for the environment, they just happen to use the environment as a cover story to create laws and gain an advantage for the companies that lobbied for exemptions to the agency’s regulations, and to collect money in fines. There are solutions outside the common government paradigm, and that is mainly the ability for individuals, not governments, to hold polluters personally and financially accountable. . . Sourced through Scoop.it from: colouredjustice.wordpress.com
GR: Initial reports suggest that EPA acted like any other polluter attempting to gloss over a catastrophic spill. Have to follow this story a bit farther.
Energy-saving street lights might be bad news for bugs
Wildlife managers and conservationists are often faced with dilemmas in which they are forced to choose the less bad of two bad choices. For example, some might argue that limited trophy hunting is preferable to habitat loss, if it encourages landowners to maintain ecosystems in their natural state (or something close to it). Here’s another dilemma: is it better to swap older street lights for LED lamps, even if the new energy-saving bulbs are detrimental for declining wildlife? These are not easy decisions to make, but in order to make them it helps to know exactly what the stakes are. Sourced through Scoop.it from: conservationmagazine.org
GR: No one stops to think about the possible nature impacts of new technology. And even when managers know about impacts and establish mitigation procedures, they rarely perform follow-up measurements to test mitigation success.
GarryRogers Nature Conservation 
Earlier this week President Obama made one of the worst decisions of his presidency. He decided to ignore the concerns of thousands of protesters and more than 60 percent of the American public over the issue of climate change. He decided to approve a dangerous plunging of new wells into unstable, clathrate-laden seabeds in the Arctic. Effectively, he’s deciding to play a dangerous game of chicken with a natural world that’s been riled and wounded by climate change. And in this game he puts us all at risk.
It’s a bad move that sends all the wrong signals. It demonstrates an attachment to the old, limited resource dominance based, policies that cause so many problems and that keep us dependent on fossil fuels for far too long.
(Shell is now approved to poke holes into the Arctic seabed in a mad, climate-destroying, quest for oil. The Arctic, overall, is…