Not all species are declining. A classic example is the Little Egret, which over the past couple of decades has greatly expanded its range in Europe. It has colonised Britain, and is now breeding in many parts of southern England. Last year driving back and forth between my home office and the World Land Trust office, I saw several prospecting trees along the river bank.
And then last weekend I saw one in our own garden. We have a small copse, which has a rookery with about a dozen nests in it, close to a stream and a pond -- an ideal site for a small heronry -- so parhaps we will have little egrets nesting in our backyard within a year or two. I certainly hope so. It would justify all the effort we have been putting into habitat restoration. Next to our copse is a field of about two acres, which we have been mowing to eliminate the nettles and thistles (over a metre high when we moved in), and are now grazing the field with llamas and sheep. The open, unsprayed meadow should be ideal for egrets, as they also often like to asociate with grazing animals.
Fingers crossed, watch this space.
Tuesday, 14 February 2006
Friday, 3 February 2006
Recycled printer cartridges
Readers of this blog may be interested in this news story, published on edie.net yesterday (with quotes from the WLT's Viv Burton):
Court case tightens company's grip on its ink cartridges
Tokyo Canon Inc has won a court case over their claim that companies refilling empty Canon printer cartridges are breaching the manufacturer's patent rights. This could spell trouble for charities relying on recycling cartridges as a source of income. And more importantly, if printer cartridges can no longer be refilled and reused, the effect on the environment from using these products will be greater. Said Viv:
"If Canon aren't prepared to do let others refill them they should be encouraged to do it themselves."
Court case tightens company's grip on its ink cartridges
Tokyo Canon Inc has won a court case over their claim that companies refilling empty Canon printer cartridges are breaching the manufacturer's patent rights. This could spell trouble for charities relying on recycling cartridges as a source of income. And more importantly, if printer cartridges can no longer be refilled and reused, the effect on the environment from using these products will be greater. Said Viv:
"If Canon aren't prepared to do let others refill them they should be encouraged to do it themselves."
Wednesday, 1 February 2006
More about goats
It was before Christmas that I first wrote to OXFAM about their programme to create herds of goats across Africa, as a solution to poverty. Since writing my blogs on this issue, I have had lots of people confirm my negative views on this, as anyone with even scant knowledge about environmental degradation in Africa, is aware that goats are one of the main causes.
Unfortunately OXFAM have been unable to come up with a spokesperson who can justify their activities. Despite reminders, the best I got was a message that some one would contact me in about three weeks time.
An issue I did not mention in my earlier blogs, is that very often animals such as goats and camels (also being 'sold' as Christmas gifts) are frequently used as status symbols, not as sources of food. Goat keepers often try to accumulate large herds, which are then used for trading, bride-money etc.
But the big issue is still what do goats feed on? They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation. And it is this latter which is the problem. As far as I am concerned, until OXFAM, and the other charities involved can answer these criticisms, we should consider goats a threat to the environment, and discourage any increase in their populations, which are already unsustainable in many parts of Africa.
Unfortunately OXFAM have been unable to come up with a spokesperson who can justify their activities. Despite reminders, the best I got was a message that some one would contact me in about three weeks time.
An issue I did not mention in my earlier blogs, is that very often animals such as goats and camels (also being 'sold' as Christmas gifts) are frequently used as status symbols, not as sources of food. Goat keepers often try to accumulate large herds, which are then used for trading, bride-money etc.
But the big issue is still what do goats feed on? They either feed on foodstuffs that could have been eaten by humans, or they graze (and usually over-graze)on what is left of the natural vegetation. And it is this latter which is the problem. As far as I am concerned, until OXFAM, and the other charities involved can answer these criticisms, we should consider goats a threat to the environment, and discourage any increase in their populations, which are already unsustainable in many parts of Africa.
Monday, 30 January 2006
Germans in decline. Great for conservation.
Returning from a short holiday in Sicily last weekend, I read in the Daily Telegraph about the new German Chancellor's fears concerning the declining birth rate. According to the report, Angela Merkel is concerned that the falling birth rate will eventually lead to Germans disappearing. (see for a summary http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20060128-13590500-bc-germany-babies.xml ). I always feel guilty when flying back from a holiday, but feel that my flying a few times a year is no worse than producing a large family of future consumers -- as exemplified by the British Prime Minister.
It may be the way the Daily Telegraph reported the issue, but it seemed almost to have neo-Nazi overtones, concerning a decline in German-ness. According to Merkel, an aging population would not be able to support itself, and more children were needed.
This of course is a hoary old myth, that expanding economies depend on. Surely the German Chancellor realises that children cost thousands and thousands of euros, pounds or dollars to rear to maturity. Health care, education and countless other facilities over the first 20 years of a person's life add up to a tidy sum. The elderly, by comparison, generally only become very expensive in the last four or five years of their life, and they also often have the means to pay for it. The problem is, that the elderly often want to hang on to their wealth, and expect the state to pay for their health care.
But my interest in the subject is that the one hope for the modern world is declining populations of humans in the developed world. It is the populations of countries like Germany and Britain that consume disproportionate amounts of energy and other non-renewable resources. So any decline in population has to be beneficial, both in the short term and in the long term. Every baby brought into this world will consume, and possibly reproduce itself with more consumers. The quality of life for huge numbers of people throughout the world is already terrible, and even in the more prosperous parts of the world, there are increasing gaps between the haves and have nots.
Malthus got it right, and human populations are limited by resources. Those who deny this connection are ignoring the fact that the only way that the current human populations are being sustained is by reliance on irreplaceable fossil energy, the systematic over-exploitation of renewable resources, and by huge, and steadily increasing levels of abject poverty. Anyone who thinks that all the world's human population can live at a reasonable standard of living, is living in a fool's paradise.
I hope the German Green Parties are celebrating the fact that the population is declining. It gives some hope for the future.
And as an afterthought, take any one item of consumerism, such as face-washes (what's wrong with water?), bottled water, or pet foods. If we devoted 1% of the amount spent on any of these items to preserving what's left of the planet, we could achieve a huge amount. Now there's a thought.
It may be the way the Daily Telegraph reported the issue, but it seemed almost to have neo-Nazi overtones, concerning a decline in German-ness. According to Merkel, an aging population would not be able to support itself, and more children were needed.
This of course is a hoary old myth, that expanding economies depend on. Surely the German Chancellor realises that children cost thousands and thousands of euros, pounds or dollars to rear to maturity. Health care, education and countless other facilities over the first 20 years of a person's life add up to a tidy sum. The elderly, by comparison, generally only become very expensive in the last four or five years of their life, and they also often have the means to pay for it. The problem is, that the elderly often want to hang on to their wealth, and expect the state to pay for their health care.
But my interest in the subject is that the one hope for the modern world is declining populations of humans in the developed world. It is the populations of countries like Germany and Britain that consume disproportionate amounts of energy and other non-renewable resources. So any decline in population has to be beneficial, both in the short term and in the long term. Every baby brought into this world will consume, and possibly reproduce itself with more consumers. The quality of life for huge numbers of people throughout the world is already terrible, and even in the more prosperous parts of the world, there are increasing gaps between the haves and have nots.
Malthus got it right, and human populations are limited by resources. Those who deny this connection are ignoring the fact that the only way that the current human populations are being sustained is by reliance on irreplaceable fossil energy, the systematic over-exploitation of renewable resources, and by huge, and steadily increasing levels of abject poverty. Anyone who thinks that all the world's human population can live at a reasonable standard of living, is living in a fool's paradise.
I hope the German Green Parties are celebrating the fact that the population is declining. It gives some hope for the future.
And as an afterthought, take any one item of consumerism, such as face-washes (what's wrong with water?), bottled water, or pet foods. If we devoted 1% of the amount spent on any of these items to preserving what's left of the planet, we could achieve a huge amount. Now there's a thought.
Friday, 20 January 2006
Make Poverty History
I have just read an appeal from the 'make poverty history team', asking everyone to lobby the Chancellor to provide even more aid.
I can only reiterate what I have stated many times before. I have seen very little evidence that increasing aid diminishes poverty. Most of the countries which receive large amounts of aid also spend large amounts of money on arms, and suffer from varying degrees of institutional corruption. Aid benefits the donors, by ridding countries of food surpluses, and often makes recipient countries aid dependent. It salves the consciences of individuals, who live a life style, which is often dependent on exploiting poorer countries. It also absolves corrupt and oppressive regimes of solving refugee problems. Aid is also a huge industry, with a large number of (often very well paid) jobs in the developed world now dependent on it. The celeb's sponsoring fund raising to 'make poverty history' could easily take enough money out of their own bank accounts to donate more than is raised from the widows' mites. And some aid -- such as increasing the number of goats in Africa) -- leads to environmental degradation. Aid is a short-term papering over of two long term problems: increasing human populations, and environmental degradation. While we spend more on the wall paper than restoring the crumbling bricks and mortar, we can be sure the wall will fall down soon.
This is not to say that some emergency aid is not vital. But long term aid is not a long term solution.
This is a personal view, based on extensive experience of travelling the world. When I first started travelling 40 years ago, there was serious poverty in Spain, southern Italy and many parts of Central and South America. Those areas have mostly seen dramatic improvements in standards of living, while Africa has seen dramatic increase in those living in serious poverty; is there an aid connection?
I wrote to Oxfam recently asking about their goat policies, and the impacts on the environment, but have not had a response......
I can only reiterate what I have stated many times before. I have seen very little evidence that increasing aid diminishes poverty. Most of the countries which receive large amounts of aid also spend large amounts of money on arms, and suffer from varying degrees of institutional corruption. Aid benefits the donors, by ridding countries of food surpluses, and often makes recipient countries aid dependent. It salves the consciences of individuals, who live a life style, which is often dependent on exploiting poorer countries. It also absolves corrupt and oppressive regimes of solving refugee problems. Aid is also a huge industry, with a large number of (often very well paid) jobs in the developed world now dependent on it. The celeb's sponsoring fund raising to 'make poverty history' could easily take enough money out of their own bank accounts to donate more than is raised from the widows' mites. And some aid -- such as increasing the number of goats in Africa) -- leads to environmental degradation. Aid is a short-term papering over of two long term problems: increasing human populations, and environmental degradation. While we spend more on the wall paper than restoring the crumbling bricks and mortar, we can be sure the wall will fall down soon.
This is not to say that some emergency aid is not vital. But long term aid is not a long term solution.
This is a personal view, based on extensive experience of travelling the world. When I first started travelling 40 years ago, there was serious poverty in Spain, southern Italy and many parts of Central and South America. Those areas have mostly seen dramatic improvements in standards of living, while Africa has seen dramatic increase in those living in serious poverty; is there an aid connection?
I wrote to Oxfam recently asking about their goat policies, and the impacts on the environment, but have not had a response......
Thursday, 12 January 2006
Large Area projects
I have recently received my winter edition of Natural World -- the magazine of the Wildlife Trusts. I am a keen supporter of the Wildlife Trust movement, and would always urge all WLT supporters to also support their local Wildlife Trust. But I thought that the current issue does put the WLT's activities into some sort of perspective. Natural World Contains a special report on 'The 40 large area projects that are helping repair Britain's ecosystems'. If you are not already supporting this initiative then I urge you to consider it. But what really interested me, was what constituted a large area project. Of the 40 projects listed the majority were under 2000 hectares, with several under 1000 hectares. This puts the WLT projects up in the region of giant projects -- our latest project in Paraguay is starting with a land purchase of 3600 hectares (14 square miles), and has a potential for at least twice as much. And with over nearly 500 square miles protected by our Belizean partners, with much of the funding coming from the WLT, it gives an idea of the sort of projects we can undertake.
Of course one of the reasons we are able to do this is that there is a huge differential in land prices. with land in England often around £10,000 an hectare, compared with less than £35 an hectare in parts of South America -- that means we can buy 285 times as much land for every £1.00. And of course the good news does not stop there. Species diversity is also several times greater in tropical areas, so if that is an important issue, it is also more species per £1.00.
The World Land Trust would very much like to support a project to acquire over 160,000 acres (280 square miles)of forests and other wonderful habitats in Belize, but has failed to come up with the £5 million needed -- that's around £30 an acre. In England £5 million might buy a large farm - about 1,000 acres. But our problem is that while it's reasonably easy to raise funds to buy a few acres in England, it is very difficult indeed to raise funds to buy large chunks of rainforest. Does anyone know a rockstar, or city slicker with the odd million to invest in the future of the planet?
Of course one of the reasons we are able to do this is that there is a huge differential in land prices. with land in England often around £10,000 an hectare, compared with less than £35 an hectare in parts of South America -- that means we can buy 285 times as much land for every £1.00. And of course the good news does not stop there. Species diversity is also several times greater in tropical areas, so if that is an important issue, it is also more species per £1.00.
The World Land Trust would very much like to support a project to acquire over 160,000 acres (280 square miles)of forests and other wonderful habitats in Belize, but has failed to come up with the £5 million needed -- that's around £30 an acre. In England £5 million might buy a large farm - about 1,000 acres. But our problem is that while it's reasonably easy to raise funds to buy a few acres in England, it is very difficult indeed to raise funds to buy large chunks of rainforest. Does anyone know a rockstar, or city slicker with the odd million to invest in the future of the planet?
Monday, 9 January 2006
Why save energy?
Just a thought. What I am about to write is only that. It is certainly not WLT policy, and it is not even something I believe in, but it's meant as a thought to elicit thoughts of others, and perhaps some facts to discredit it or prove it.
Is there any point in conserving energy? At present the amount of energy consumed globally is largely limited by supply, not demand. So if I reduce my energy use, someone else, somewhere else will use that energy. But they may use it on something more damaging. In simple terms, I may save a gallon of petrol by not driving somewhere, but the person who uses the petrol may use it to power a chain saw to cut down a tree.
Another thought. Cheap public transport is damaging to the environment. The cheaper public transport is, the more people will use it -- a pretty obvious and incontrovertible fact. But is this a good thing? Just because it is public transport, and perhaps more 'efficient' it is not automatically a good thing. Cheap public transport allows people living over 100 miles from London to commute daily; in order to do so they may ruin a nice bit of countryside to build a commuter home. Surely the only 'green' form of commuting is bikes or feet.
And finally, what about the air transport dilemma. If air transport becomes more energy efficient than trains, is it 'greener'? Our local, highly subsidised, half empty trains, does not compare favourably with a full-to-capacity easy Jet. What we are always failing to ask, is: what is the purpose of the journey? Public transport is no greener than any other form of transport, if it is for a non-essential journey. So it all boils down to what is an essential journey. I.e the whole debate about energy efficiency and travel is really a philosophical one, not one about facts, since the facts are almost entirely subjective. Most journeys are non-essential, and most freight being shipped around is far from essential. Worrying about the energy used shipping it, and making minor savings is, as one of my correspondents wrote recently, like "rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic".
The iceberg ahead is comprised of the billions of people now on this planet. And like an iceberg, below the waterline are all those under 20 years old, yet to reproduce themselves. And like the Titanic we are on a course that cannot be altered in time to avert a disaster. A few may get into the lifeboats but the rest, in steerage will probably go down.
Just a thought.
Is there any point in conserving energy? At present the amount of energy consumed globally is largely limited by supply, not demand. So if I reduce my energy use, someone else, somewhere else will use that energy. But they may use it on something more damaging. In simple terms, I may save a gallon of petrol by not driving somewhere, but the person who uses the petrol may use it to power a chain saw to cut down a tree.
Another thought. Cheap public transport is damaging to the environment. The cheaper public transport is, the more people will use it -- a pretty obvious and incontrovertible fact. But is this a good thing? Just because it is public transport, and perhaps more 'efficient' it is not automatically a good thing. Cheap public transport allows people living over 100 miles from London to commute daily; in order to do so they may ruin a nice bit of countryside to build a commuter home. Surely the only 'green' form of commuting is bikes or feet.
And finally, what about the air transport dilemma. If air transport becomes more energy efficient than trains, is it 'greener'? Our local, highly subsidised, half empty trains, does not compare favourably with a full-to-capacity easy Jet. What we are always failing to ask, is: what is the purpose of the journey? Public transport is no greener than any other form of transport, if it is for a non-essential journey. So it all boils down to what is an essential journey. I.e the whole debate about energy efficiency and travel is really a philosophical one, not one about facts, since the facts are almost entirely subjective. Most journeys are non-essential, and most freight being shipped around is far from essential. Worrying about the energy used shipping it, and making minor savings is, as one of my correspondents wrote recently, like "rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic".
The iceberg ahead is comprised of the billions of people now on this planet. And like an iceberg, below the waterline are all those under 20 years old, yet to reproduce themselves. And like the Titanic we are on a course that cannot be altered in time to avert a disaster. A few may get into the lifeboats but the rest, in steerage will probably go down.
Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
