Reef Relief: Queensland Government enacts new leglisation on the GBR

Posted on by
Reply

pesticidereef

In a major step to protecting the inshore reefs of the GBR, the Queensland Government have inacted fairly dramatic legislation on the use of fertilisers and pesticides on farms in the reef catchment. Under the new rules, farmers in the Mackay-Whitsunday, Burdekin Dry Tropics and Far North’s Wet Tropic catchments must keep records on fertiliser usage and apply ‘no more than the optimum amount of fertiliser to their soil’. The use of the pesticides Atrazine, Diuron, Ametryn, Hexazinone or Tebuthiuron are also subject to an array of new rules and regulations.

Although not without controversy, this is great news for the reefs on the GBR. Over 32,000 tonnes of fertiliser (worth $32 million) leaches out into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon every year through overfertilisation on farms. There is strong scientific evidence showing that elevated pesticide and nutrients from the land associated with flood waters induce coral bleaching and mortality during flood years (see here for a great post by Jon Brodie on the subject).

Strict controls on fertilisers and pesticides and close monitoring of large and high-risk farms in north Queensland will help heal the Great Barrier Reef, Climate Change and Sustainability Minister Kate Jones said today.

Ms Jones, introducing the Great Barrier Reef Protection Bill 2009 to State Parliament, said the legislation would reduce the levels of farm chemicals and sediment harming the Reef.

“The Bill will help detox the Great Barrier Reef and give it a fighting chance,” Ms Jones said.

“The Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s most treasured possession and is worth nearly $6 billion to our economy, supporting about 63,000 jobs.

“But its health has been deteriorating from a number of factors, including damaging run-off from sugar cane fields and beef cattle farms in Reef catchments.

“We must do all we can to ensure this natural wonder of the world survives long after us and that means minimising man-made harm. This Bill is good for the Reef and it makes good business sense for farmers.

“While many farmers are doing the right thing and have minimised their impact, we must go further than the voluntary approach to get the results we need faster.

“Our Reef is too precious so we have no option but to act now and act decisively.

“The Bligh Government told Queenslanders last election that we would regulate to reduce the amount of fertiliser and pesticides entering the Reef by 50 per cent in four years.

“The Bill makes good on that commitment. It’s backed by strong scientific evidence and it gives the Reef every chance of recovering from the damage inflicted by over-fertilising, toxic pesticides and soil run-off.”(Link to media release)

Question and answer session on the new Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill

Posted on by
Reply

reef

I thought this was well worth posting – a comprehensive ‘who, how, what and why’ answer session by the government that neatly answers most common concerns over the new reef protection amendment.

Question – Who and where will the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009 affect? When will regulation and Bill commence and come into effect?

Question: Who will the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009 affect?

Answer:

•    Around 4,500 farmers are likely to be affected.

•    Around 1,000 farmers will initially be required to prepare Environmental Risk Management Plans (ERMPs).

•    The level of regulatory impact on individual farmers can vary considerably depending on the hazards, problems, and management practices on each property.

•    ERMPs will be required for cattle graziers with a property greater than 2,000 hectares in the Burdekin Dry Tropics and sugarcane farmers with properties greater than 70 hectares in the Wet Tropics catchment.

Question: Where does the Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009 and regulations apply?

Answer:

•    All cattle grazing of more than 100 ‘standard cattle units’ and all sugarcane farming in the Wet Tropics, Burdekin Dry Tropics, and Mackay Whitsunday catchments.

Question: When will the new regime come into effect?
•    The initially targeted high risk farmers who must prepare and implement an Environmental Risk Management Plan will have nine months in total from 1 January 2010 to submit their ERMP which will be implemented over a number of years depending on their circumstances.
•    If further ‘hot spots’ are identified, farmers and graziers in these areas will be required to submit a Plan within three months of being notified.
•    Farmers will be notified by the Department of Environment and Resource Management either directly, by media advertising or by the Department’s other communications channels.

Question – How will the new regulations improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef?

Answer:
•    The major threats to the health of the Reef are ocean acidification and coral bleaching due to climate change and reduced water quality due to agricultural pollution.
•    The new threat from climate change means it is now even more critical to reduce the existing damage from land runoff of nutrients, sediments, and pesticides to improve the Reef’s water quality and its resilience to the new impacts of climate change.
•    Reducing all of the threats is essential to a healthy Reef, however regulating agricultural runoff is the most immediate and efficient response to halt the decline of the Reef’s health.
•    Therefore, the new regulation focuses on catchment-scale reduction of water pollution from agriculture to increase the health of the Great Barrier Reef by improving the water quality in our waterways generally.

Question – How do we know that agricultural activities are impacting on the Great Barrier Reef?

Answer:
•    There is substantial and credible scientific evidence that indicates the Reef’s health is suffering long-term decline from the nutrient, pesticide and sediment runoff from broad-scale agriculture in adjacent river catchments.

•    In 2008, the Scientific Consensus Statement on Water Quality in the Great Barrier Reef was released by 13 leading scientists after reviewing 500 technical papers.

•    It confirmed the presence of sediment, nutrients and pesticides in the Reef—up to 60 km offshore—in amounts that will cause it harm. In catchment waterways these contaminants were found at levels proportional to the land under agriculture—there were more contaminants where there was more agriculture.

•    Also in 2006 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s annual marine monitoring report found high concentrations of the agricultural pesticide, diuron, at many river mouth sites.

•    Peer reviewed science in 2006 by leading Reef scientists documented the marked decline in the richness of coral for 400 kilometres south of Cooktown—right next to the catchments dominated by these industries.

•    We know that new science, recently or about to be published, reiterates the growing problem of pesticides and herbicides in freshwater and marine environments.  A paper published this year by Robert Packett and others indicates serious atrazine contamination in the Reef catchment.

Question – What do farmers need to do under the new regime?

Answer:

The bill applies to cattle and sugarcane production located in the priority catchments of the Burdekin Dry Tropics, Mackay-Whitsunday and the Wet Tropics.

Cattle grazing and sugarcane growing will now be designated agricultural environmentally relevant activities under the Environmental Protection Act.

What farmers will be required to do under the bill:

•    Record and report as required on such things as use of fertiliser, weed poisons and farming management practices.

•    If applying fertiliser, they must calculate the optimum amount for application using a soil test and other information and not apply more than the optimum amount, so as to prevent over-fertilisation and reduce run-off.

•    Some specified high risk Farmers will need to prepare and implement an ERMP to entrench the adoption of best management practices and continuous improvement.

•    They will need to be aware of the change to the restrictions on the use of key damaging pesticides in the Chemical Usage (Agricultural and Veterinary) Control Regulation 1999.
Great Barrier Reef Protection Amendment Bill 2009

Question – How are you choosing who needs to prepare and keep Environmental Risk Management Plans?

Answer:

1.    Cattle graziers in the Burdekin Dry Tropics catchment with a property greater than 2000 hectares.

Reason:

•    This will capture most large-scale and extensive cattle grazing properties that contribute the majority of sediment runoff to the Reef.

•    This property threshold will also ensure that coastal pasture and dairy operations that are considered lower priority contributors to runoff do not initially fall under the requirement.

2.    Sugarcane farmers in the Wet Tropics catchment with property greater than 70 hectares.

Reason:

•    The average size of sugarcane farms in the Wet Tropics is 60 to 70 hectares which will capture a large proportion of the catchment with proportionately fewer producers, hence allowing the most pollution reduction for the least cost.

•    The Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater Research report for the State of Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef Protection Package states that: ‘The Wet Tropics generates large amounts of harmful nutrient and pesticide runoff from sugarcane that is directly harming the Great Barrier Reef.  Seventy-eight percent of all nitrogen pollution from human activities comes directly from sugarcane in the Wet Tropics.’

Question – How will you make sure farmers are doing the right thing? How will you know they are not keeping wrong records?

Answer:

•    Farmers’ records, management plans, and chemical and fertiliser use will be audited on risk targeted basis and compliance enforced if necessary.

•    Online advice, tools and forms will be provided free to farmers to help them keep records and improve management practices. This will be supported by ‘how to’ guidance that explains why the information is being collected and what form the records should take.

•    Farmers without access to the internet will be provided with local access to online reporting systems and regional staff.  There will also be training courses available.
•    To save farmers work, the required records will as far as possible align with current automated record keeping systems such as AgDat.  Industry organisations will be invited to help design the tools to ensure the maximum practicality and benefit to farmers and the Reef.

•    There will also be regional reviews where the Department will write to farmers and request their records. This will be risk-based focussing on catchments where poor performance is hindering achievement of Reef Plan targets.

Question – How did the government identify which agricultural chemical to control?

Answer:
•    Key agricultural chemical products to be restricted are: diuron, atrazine, ametryn, hexazinone and tebuthiuron
•    The herbicide residues most commonly found in Reef’s surface waters are diuron, atrazine, ametryn, hexazinone. They come from areas of sugarcane cultivation.
•    Residues of tebuthiuron come from the use of ‘grassland’ on grazing lands for woody weed control.
•    Strong scientific evidence shows the presence of pesticides in the Great Barrier Reef, which have been detected at harmful concentrations up to 60kilometres offshore during the wet season.
•    A recent report noted that river water plumes entering the Reef contain a profile of diuron, atrazine, and hexazinone residues.  Contrary to general belief, these pesticides were not removed by natural physical or biological progress like mixing or dilution with seawater.
•    The study found that exposure to high diuron concentration for four days will hinder the coral’s ability to produce energy, causing bleaching.

Question – Will there be a cost burden on farmers?

Answer:
•    The level of regulatory impact on property owners will vary considerably depending on the level of risk to the Reef of the activity and what current management practices are in place.
•    It is expected that the cost of the regulatory measures are likely, in many instances, to be offset by cost savings from increased productivity and reduced input costs.  Those whose risks are greatest will usually have most to gain by reducing the loss of fertiliser and pesticides, which are increasingly expensive.
•    Many farmers are already doing the right things by keeping a management plan, applying the correct level of fertiliser, using pesticides responsibly and taking measures to minimise Reef run-off.  These farmers will not be greatly affected.
•    For example, a cattle grazing operation implementing a land management agreement under the Delbessie arrangement for leasehold land is likely to be able to satisfy relevant requirements for sediment management on grazing lands without significant additional work.
•    Those who have a plan to implement management practices equivalent to an ERMP will not have to duplicate their effort.
•    The cost of record keeping, preparing plans and reporting under the legislation will vary according to the level of risk of the activity.  Low risk activities will only incur small costs and take very little time.
•    Property owners classified ‘low risk’ will not be required to have an ERMP.
•    For a medium level risk activity an ERMP may cost around $3,500 to prepare.
•    Grazing property owners with an ERMP may need to fence erosion hazard areas, provide off-stream watering points and manage vegetation cover to reduce sediment loss. These measures will vary greatly in cost, but may average around $5,000 a year over three years.  There are major economic benefits in applying these improved management practices.
•    However, ERMPs will be flexible to allow for the spread of investment in new practices over a reasonably long period.
•    There is evidence that optimal application of fertiliser possibly using precision farming equipment (possibly costing about $30,000) might save about $3,000 per year in reduced fertiliser costs for each farmer.  Farmers can use contractors to apply fertiliser or share costs of equipment between a number of farmers.
•    A worst case scenario relates to property owners who perform poorly and:
o    have done no training relating to the use of atrazine, ametryn, hexazinone, diuron, and tebuthiuron handling and application
o    have no property plans relating to environmental management
o    use the atrazine, ametryn, hexazinone, diuron, and tebuthiuron across all areas of their operation
o    do not do any soil testing
o    have not implemented practices that minimise environmental impact
o    do not access any subsidy or grants for training or implementation.
•    The upfront cost to such an operator would be approximately $6,000, consisting of: training ($500); soil testing ($320) and preparation of an ERMP ($5,000 assuming a specialist is employed.  For a simple low risk activity, the farmer should be able to prepare the ERMP without paying for assistance, utilising online and other support provided free by the government).
•    The implementation cost would vary depending on the property and costs would need to be traded off against the benefits in productivity and profits as a result of lower input costs and increased yield.

Question – Will the new laws affect food quality?

Answer:
•    The new laws will not affect food quality.

•    The new laws encourage adoption of better management practices that improve water quality.  It does not require farmers to change practices with respect to production of food that would impact on quality.

•    Food crops will take up the nutrients they need from the soil. Fertiliser that is excess to the crop’s requirements will run off properties to the Reef.

•    The use of atrazine, ametryn, hexazinone, diuron, and tebuthiuron will be restricted in waterways and drainage lines and within certain distances from waterways.  As these are herbicides, there will be no impact on the quality of food.
•     A concern may be around the security of the food generated for local and export markets. The new laws may have some implementation costs for farmers but these costs should be weighed against the benefits in productivity and profits as a result of lower input costs or increased yield. Therefore there should be no impact on security of food supply.

Question – How will we know if Reef run-off has been reduced in four years and the legislation’s objectives have been achieved?

Answer:
•    There will be a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation program to effectively measure the legislation’s progress towards its targets.
•    Program monitoring and evaluation will focus on identifying what effect the regulation has on the level of land practice change and pollution reduction.
•    This data will be modelled to estimate the likely improvement of the quality of water entering the Reef.
•    Monitoring and evaluation will be done collaboratively between Queensland and Australian Government departments, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and regional groups.
•    Development and design of the monitoring and evaluation program is underway in conjunction with statistical experts. The program will be thoroughly peer reviewed.

Question – What else are Governments doing to protect the Reef?

Answer:

•    Since the commencement of Reef Plan in 2003, the Queensland Government has invested about $125 million on natural resource management in Reef catchments, including reef water quality related projects.
•    This is an investment in the health of the entire catchment that is ultimately essential to a healthy reef ecosystem.
•    Earlier this year, the Queensland Government introduced a moratorium on the clearing all native re-growth vegetation within 50 metres of identified watercourses in the Wet Tropics, Burdekin and Mackay/Whitsunday.
•    The Delbessie land management agreement between rural leaseholders and the Government commenced in 2008 offering extended leases to landholders in Reef catchments who improve the condition of their land.
•    Water Quality Improvement Plans are being completed by regional natural resource management groups to identify regional targets for water quality improvement and the management actions needed to reach those targets in specified timeframes.
•    Under the Reef Plan, nutrient management zones were identified to focus water quality investments on the critical ‘hot spots’.
•    The Australian Government’s out a $200 million Reef Rescue Plan which is supporting farmers, regional groups and industry groups to help make management practice change to protect the Reef.
How the programs fit together

•    The Australian Government’s Reef Rescue program will deliver an immediate improvement in management practices. This will be locked in for the long term by the Queensland Government’s regulatory package through its extension support services and regulatory measures.

•    The key issue is the need to significantly reduce pollutant loads of up to 90,000 tonnes year of nutrient mainly from cane farming and up to 66 million tonnes of sediment mainly from cattle grazing.

•    The targets announced as part of the Reef Protection Package by the Queensland Government in 2009 aim is to reduce nutrient and pesticides by 50 percent in four years.

•    Achieving Reef Plan targets will require the permanent adoption of management practices, compatible with Reef health, by farmers of about 80 per cent of cane land and over half of cattle grazing land.  It is likely that less than 10 per cent of this land is currently managed at the necessary standard.

•    While it will be impossible to determine the individual contribution to water quality improvement from any program, the outcome will be better, faster and more permanent with both programs operating together in harmony.

•    This is because Reef Rescue grants mainly help farmers to purchase equipment while the regulation ensures equipment is used to achieve the required outcome and continues to be used and replaced when it depreciates. It locks in the benefits of Reef Rescue for the long term and prevents the waste of the Reef Rescue investment.

•    Furthermore, the regulation is performance based so it drives innovation and continuous improvement, further reducing the call on Commonwealth resources for future Reef protection.

‘Reef beef’ – Great Barrier Reef pesticide controls anger farmers

Posted on by
Reply

farm

Conservationists are anticipating a victory in their long running battle with farmers over the effects of runoffs from pesticides and fertilisers on the Great Barrier Reef.

Legislation has been introduced into the Queensland Parliament that would restrict farmers’ use of the chemicals. Failure to comply could trigger a $30,000 fine.

But farmers say there’s no proven links to coral bleaching and infestations of the crown of thorns starfish, and it’s just part of Green preference deals.

(Link to ABC Radio, click below for audio)

[audio:https://climateshifts.org/media/reefbeef.mp3]

Paul Gilding: “Don’t sweat the small stuff, Copenhagen is just a training exercise”

Posted on by
1

copenhagen

Paul Gilding, a climate change activist and independent writer has published an astonishing piece on his blog (‘The Cockatoo Chronicles‘) on why we shouldn’t worry too much about the outcome at Copenhagen Conference in December this year:

Now the world is slowly waking up to the climate threat, passionate debates are raging around the world on climate policy – cap and trade systems vs taxes, renewables vs coal with CCS and global agreements vs national action. From the US, to China, from South Africa to Australia, policy makers are examining their options and vested interests are furiously protecting their turf.

As recently as a year ago I would have been deeply engaged by these debates, deeply concerned that we got the right reduction target, the right policy mechanism, the right strategy in place. Now I find myself watching with an almost surreal detachment, observing with interest but rarely getting excited or disappointed as the debate swings this way or that.

Why?

This is all just shadow boxing, the training session before the game really begins. What happens this year and next, even at the Copenhagen conference is of marginal significance only. What? That’s heresy! Isn’t the Copenhagen Climate conference the most critical global meeting in history, the one that will determine the future of civilisation? No, not really. Here’s why.

(Read More)

Testing the ‘macroalgal dominated coral reefs’ paradigm

Posted on by
Reply

The paradigm of ‘coral vs algae’ has become entrenched in coral reef science over the last few decades. The classic example of this paradigm in the Caribbean was from a paper published byTerry Hughes in a 1994 article in the journal Nature, entitled “Catastrophes, Phase Shifts and Large-Scale Degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef”. The paper documented a series of disturbances in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, including two major hurricanes, a disease outbreak and the loss of a seaweed-grazing urchin, after which coral cover declined dramatically from ~70 percent cover to less than 10%, and macroalgal cover to rose to almost complete dominance >90% .

jamaica

Temporal trends of coral and algae on Jamaican Reefs (top left, 1975 - 1995, Discovery Bay showing dramatic declines and corals and corresponding dominance of macroalgae, top right 1995 - 2004 from Dairy Bull Reef showing a rapid recovery and reversal of the macroalgal phase shifts)

Since then, reefs throughout the Caribbean have undergone dramatic declines in coral cover, leading to the regionwide collapse of the two dominant reef building corals, Acropora cervicornis and Acropora palmata. One ‘good news’ story did come out from a neighbouring reef in Jamaica called ‘Dairy Bull’ reef, where Joshua Idjadi and a team reported a doubling of live coral cover over the last decade, resetting the balance from a macroalgal dominated reef to a coral reef.

picture-502

Photograph of Dairy Bull Reef in 2003 showing the recovery of the branching coral Acropora cervicornis. No macroalgae to be seen!

Since this iconic case study, a considerable quantity of scientific literature has been devoted to management principles, herbivorous grazing pressure and the reversal of macro-algal dominated reefs. However, documented examples of regional ‘phase shifts’ between coral and algae in the literature are surprisingly few and far between (asides from a few notable exceptions). John Bruno & Elizabeth Selig, two coral reef researchers who have developed a considerable dataset on coral reefs throughout the world, decided to test this assumption by randomly samply for regional trends and patterns in algal cover – much the same as an epidimiologist would determine the generality of case reports in the medical literature.

John and his team trawled through an immense number of reef surveys (3,500 to be exact) from over 1,800 reefs across the globe between 1996 and 2006, and developed a ‘phase shift index’ based upon corals and macroalgae. They then tested this index in four geographic regions (Greater Caribbean, Florida Keys, Indo-Pacific and the Great Barrier Reef) to see if the severity of phase shifts altered over the decade between 1996 – 2006. Their findings were  surprising, and might prove to be somewhat controversial…

coral08

A coral reef in the Caribbean dominated by macroalgal cover

Whilst phase shifts were indeed more common in the Caribbean than elsewhere, very few of the worlds reefs fell into either a stable ‘coral reef dominated’ or a ‘macroalgal dominated’ category. Furthermore, the ‘severity’ of phase shifts at a regional level was much less severe than the classic examples of macroalgal dominance, such as the Jamaican coral decline story. The data also suggested that there was no trend (>1995) towards macroalgal dominance in the Florida Keys or Indo-Pacific. Coral cover during this period (1996 – 2006) did decline (primarily due to crown of thorns starfish plagues), but their was no corresponding increase in macroalgal cover at all during this time.

Bruno et al argue that the apparent mismatch between the local scale descriptions of macroalgal dominance and regional scale patterns was caused by a gross generalisation of a relatively small number of ‘atypical’ case studies. This in itself is no small finding, and may go along way to altering the way we manage coral reefs. These findings may be somewhat controversial, it’s hard to disagree with the data. In what’s bound to throw the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons, the authors conclude:

“Since the Jamaica story was an anomaly, it makes a poor foundation for general models of reef ecology (e.g., Knowlton 1992, Bellwood et al. 2004 ). The current paradigm of reef management and ‘‘resilience’’ is based in large part on the perception that most of the world’s reefs are being overrun by seaweed (Szmant 2001, Precht and Aronson 2006, Knowlton 2008). This belief led to the argument that reef managers should focus primarily  on conserving herbivores or water quality (Szmant 2002, Pandolfi et al. 2003, Bellwood et al. 2004 ). While these are clearly important objectives of management, our analysis suggests that the macroalgae problem has been exaggerated.

Overfishing and poor land use practices may trigger widespread coral to macroalgal phase shifts in the future, but to date, the principal form of coral reef degradation has been the loss of reef-building corals, with only limited and localized increases in macroalgae. Therefore, the primary goal for reef managers and policy makers should be the conservation of coral populations, without which the entire system would collapse.”

Ocean acidification an ‘underwater catastrophe’

Posted on by
2

iot

‘Climate change is turning our seas acidic, academies warn’ – Reuters News, May 31st 2009

Climate change is turning the oceans more acid in a trend that could endanger everything from clams to coral and be irreversible for thousands of years, national science academies said on Monday.

Seventy academies from around the world urged governments meeting in Bonn for climate talks from June 1-12 to take more account of risks to the oceans in a new U.N. treaty for fighting global warming due to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.

“To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of carbon dioxide emissions of at least 50 percent (below 1990 levels) by 2050, and much more thereafter, are needed,” the academies said in a joint statement.

The academies said rising amounts of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas emitted mainly by human use of fossil fuels, were being absorbed by the oceans and making it harder for creatures to build protective body parts.

The shift disrupts ocean chemistry and attacks the “building blocks needed by many marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to produce their skeletons, shells and other hard structures”, it said.

On some projections, levels of acidification in 80 percent of Arctic seas would be corrosive to clams that are vital to the food web by 2060, it said.

And “coral reefs may be dissolving globally,” it said, if atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide were to rise to 550 parts per million (ppm) from a current 387 ppm. Corals are home to many species of fish.

“These changes in ocean chemistry are irreversible for many thousands of years, and the biological consequences could last much longer,” it said.

The warning was issued by the Inter-Academy Panel, representing science academies of countries from Albania to Zimbabwe and including those of Australia, Britain, France, Japan and the United States.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, the British science academy, said there may be an “underwater catastrophe”.

“The effects will be seen worldwide, threatening food security, reducing coastal protection and damaging the local economies that may be least able to tolerate it,” he said.

The academies’ statement said that, if current rates of carbon emissions continue until 2050, computer models indicate that “the oceans will be more acidic than they have been for tens of millions of years”.

It also urged actions to reduce other pressures on the oceans, such as pollution and over-fishing.

How common is dishonesty and misconduct in science?

Posted on by
Reply

In the media recently was a revealling story on ‘dubious’ practices in research, describing how the well-known science publisher Elsevier had published a series of  ‘fake’ journals that were dedicated entirely to publishing results from drug company research (such as the ‘Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine‘, dedicated to Merck). On similair lines, a classic paper came out a few years ago showing  that ~1% of papers submitted to  The Journal of Cell Biology had digital images that had been ‘improperly manipulated’ prior to publication. Combine with this with the now infamous case of the ‘fake’ human stem cell lines from the Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk. and it does little to re-assure the public that scientists are keeping science ‘honest’.

To find out how common these habits really are, a recent publication in the journal PLoS ONE attempted to exam the proportion of scientists who  fabricate and falsify research. The results, based upon a meta-analysis of anonymous surveys from scientists from many disciplines, are surprising to say the least. An average of 1.97% of scientists admit to have fabricated, falsified or modified their results on at least one occasion, and upto 33.7% admitted to other ‘questionable’ research practices.

Intriguingly, when scientists were asked about their colleagues, the numbers increased dramatically – upto 14.2% for falsification, and upto 72% for other ‘questionable’ research practices. What seems slightly more alarming is that misconduct was apparently reported more frequently by medical & pharmacological researchers than other fields!Reassured yet? The article concludes with the following

‘Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct,’

‘It is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.'”

Click here to read the article in full at PloS ONE.

Coral almost as genetically complex as humans’

Posted on by
Reply

corals

CNN News, May 29th 2009:

Advances in the study of coral in the last few years has led a group of scientists to conclude that corals almost rival humans in their genetic complexity and their relationship to algae is key to their survival.

“We’ve known for some time the general functioning of corals and the problems they are facing from climate change,” said Virginia Weis, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University and an author of a report published in the journal Science.

“But until just recently, much less has been known about their fundamental biology, genome structure and internal communication. Only when we really understand how their physiology works will we know if they can adapt to climate changes, or ways that we might help.”

The study found that corals have sophisticated systems of biological communication that are being stressed by global change. Disruptions to these communication systems, particularly between coral and the algae that live within their bodies are the underlying cause of the coral bleaching and collapse of coral reef ecosystems around the world, say the report’s authors. (Read the full story at CNN News)

Climate ‘whitewash’ to the rescue

Posted on by
Reply

untitled-2

You might think that this idea sounds a little crazy but I urge you to read on.   Here’s the idea:  Everyone paints the roof of their house white and the rate of global warming will be radically reduced!

Insane?  Well, this idea does have some sense and logic to it.  I recently discussed this with my friend Ken Caldeira at Stanford University.  Over some monstrously huge American sandwiches, our discussions eventually came round to the amazing impact that losing the reflectivity of Arctic summer ice would have on the rate of global warming.  A few back of the envelope calculations by Ken soon convinced the people around the lunch table that changing the reflectivity of an even 1% of the Earth’s surface could have a major impact on the amount of trapped radiation solar.  Flip side?  Essentially, losing the albedo of the Artic sea ice is like piling massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.  

Back at Ken’s lab, discussions with Long Cao (one of Ken’s postdoctoral fellows) turned to whether or not one could influence this effect by manipulating the reflectivity of the earth through other means – What about doing a Christo? What about covering large areas with white chalk or mirrors?  What about inventing a highly reflective plant that would spread out across arid areas and change the reflectivity of desert regions?   Interestingly, the quick search of the literature revealed that this latter idea is being actively explored by scientists:

Andy Ridgwell and colleagues at the University of Bristol in England have another idea, one they call bio-geoengineering. Rather than developing infrastructure to help cool the planet, they propose using an existing one: agriculture. Their calculations, published in Current Biology, suggest that by planting crop varieties that reflect more sunlight, summertime cooling of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit could be obtained across central North America and a wide band of Europe and Asia. Plants reflect slightly different amounts of light depending on factors like how waxy the leaves are. Even differences in growth patterns between two varieties of a crop — the way leaves are arranged — can affect reflectivity.  (Read More)

Now, Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, has proposed that we seriously explore this idea.  Rather than use the rather challenging (from all aspects!) idea of engineering plants, Steven would like to whitewash the world – to initiate a global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sun?

As a weapon against global warming, it sounds so simple and low-tech that it could not possibly work. But the idea of using millions of buckets of whitewash to avert climate catastrophe has won the backing of one of the world’s most influential scientists.

Steven Chu, the Nobel prize-winning physicist appointed by President Obama as Energy Secretary, wants to paint the world white. A global initiative to change the colour of roofs, roads and pavements so that they reflect more sunlight and heat could play a big part in containing global warming, he said yesterday. By lightening paved surfaces and roofs to the colour of cement, it would be possible to cut carbon emissions by as much as taking all the world’s cars off the roads for 11 years, he said. (Read More)

Not a bad idea at all – and one that would be achievable in a short-period of time. It would work like this: basically, governments would institute the painting of the tops of roofs and buildings (traditionally black tar, slate, or grey colours) white, this would alter the albedo (surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation), effectively reducing the amount of heat trapped by the Earth’s surface to offset projected increases from global warming.

As a weapon against global warming, this idea sounds so simple and low-tech that it just might work.  It could be used to reduce warming associated risks and buy some important time as we struggle to bring emissions down. As with all of these ideas, however, we must also be cautious not to use them as an excuse for not dealing with the problem of rising atmospheric CO2.  These measures will only offset part of the problem and certainly will be exceeded in time. And, clearly, reducing global temperature in this way will do nothing for problems like those assoociated with ocean acidification.