A fascinating BBC Radio Four programme (broadcast 27 August) and an accompanying article on the BBC website explore whether climate change has ‘hijacked’ the space available for consideration of environmental policy in politics, and whether environmental charities and NGOs are somewhat to blame. Richard Black, the BBC Environment Correspondent, explores why political leaders are neglecting the ‘bigger picture’ in favour of a focus on climate change.

The Global Environmental Outlook (Geo-4) report published in 2007, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and other studies into the state of the natural environment worldwide reveal an environment suffering from multiple stressors; from habitat and biodiversity loss, air and water pollution, to deforestation and environmental degradation, and yet politicians maintain a focus on climate change. Mike Hulme, former Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, suggests that climate change is a convenient political issue, one on which it is possible for politicians to defer action and yet retain credibility: “It’s very easy to pass responsibility for failure somewhere else… and in the process of doing that, one is able to keep one’s own credibility and record, with the appearance of being much more progressive and constructive.” It’s easy for countries to blame one another, and to continue to pass on blame while little progress is made.

Amongst those interviewed for the programme there is a perception that it’s extremely difficult to get other environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss, onto the agenda. Therefore NGOs focus their lobbying activities on those areas with political traction, such as climate change, reinforcing the cycle. Pavan Sukhdev, leader of the Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity (TEEB) review, says: “Climate change is already occupying mind space and heart space, and for biodiversity to occupy the same space is going to be a challenge.”

The BES and Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management are organising a reception in parliament on 27 October, aiming to raise the profile of biodiversity to policy-makers. For more information see the BES website.

See the original article and listen to the broadcast

A new report, released today by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, proposes, amongst other ideas, “synthetic trees” to tackle climate change. The devices collect carbon dioxide through their ‘leaves’ and convert it to a form that can be easily stored. The devices would be thousands of times more effective at removing CO2 from the atmosphere than real trees: 100,000 would be enough to capture all of the emissions from Britain’s homes, transport and light industry, whilst 5 million could service the whole world. It is estimated that each device would cost around £12,000. The synthetic trees could be located near depleted oil and gas reserves, allowing the carbon captured to be stored underground.

Other innovations explored include painting buildings in urban areas with white, ’smart’, paint which would reflect infra-red radiation without dazziling passers by, reducing the reliance on air-conditioners for cooling. The Institution also envisage the incorporation of ‘tubes of algae’ into the structure of buildings, providing fuel for photo bioreactors which can be used to power generators.

The Institution is lobbying Government to integrate geoengineering into plans to tackle climate change and for £10 million – £20 million to be pumped into geoengineering research.

See original article: Synthetic trees and algae can counter climate change, say engineers, Times, 27 August 2009

New research published today in the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Applied Ecology shows that without international protection the world’s largest species of fruit bat, Pteropus vampyrus or the ‘large flying fox’ could be driven to extinction in Peninsula Malaysia.

A study led by Dr Jonathan Epstein, Wildlife Trust, counted the numbers of P. vampyrus at eight sites in Peninsular Malaysia between 2003 and 2007. The data was compared with the number of hunting licenses issued by the Malaysian Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Based on the average number of licenses issued annually, 22,000 flying foxes per year were allowed to be killed. This rate was unsustainable, even at the most optimistic population estimate of 500,000, as calculated by the researchers’ computer model. At this level of hunting, P. vampyrus will be driven to extinction in between six and 81 years.

By fitting the bats with radio collars, the researchers also revealed that P. vampyrus travels large distances; to Thailand and Indonesia. The bats may travel for up to 60km a night in search of food. Understanding the extent of P. vampyrus’ range will help the co-ordination of international action to protect the bat populations.

Hunting pressure and habitat loss are the two greatest threats faced by P. vampyrus. Commenting on the study, Dr Epstein says: “Our study illustrates that bats, like other migratory species, require comprehensive protection by regional management plans across their range.”

New research presented at the American Chemical Society meeting in Washington this week (and reported in National Geographic) suggests that herbs and spices may offer an alternative to chemical pesticides. Oils from thyme, rosemary, mint and other herbs should repel or kill insect pests when sprayed onto crops.

Research indicates that the oils interfere with insects’ nervous systems and can also disrupt insects’ cellular membranes. Scientists think that insects may be less likely to develop resistance to plant-based compounds because they tend to be complex chemical mixtures.

However there are drawbacks to the potential widespread application of herbs and spices as pesticides. The compounds tend to evaporate quickly and degrade in sunlight; they must therefore be applied every few days, rather than every few weeks for conventional pesticides.

Other research presented at the same meeting indicates that plastics degrade far faster in water than previously thought. Scientists thought that plastics broke down only at very high temperatures and over hundreds of years. Now, new research by a team in Japan shows that polystyrene can degrade at temperatures of only 36 degrees celcius in the sea. As it degrades, the plastic is leaching toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A into the water. Bisphenol A has been shown to disrupt the reproductive systems of animals. The researchers suggest that plastic should be considered a new source of chemical pollution in the ocean.

An article on the website of New Scientist today highlights the plight faced by Kenya’s lion populations as drought, over-grazing by domestic livestock and human population growth bring rural people and lion prides into increasing conflict. The article explores the reasons for the decline, which include a lack of effective law enforcement against those found to have speared, poisoned or otherwise killed a lion, and suggests how the decline can be tackled. One suggestion is that prohibiting sport hunting in Kenya has removed the possibility for local people to profit from the wildlife around them. Reversing this ban and giving local people an economic stake in preserving wildlife, may help to secure the future of lion populations.

The article includes an interview with Nicholas Oguge of the Earthwatch Institute in Kenya. Dr Oguge is the President and a founding member of the Ecological Society of Eastern Africa. The ESEA was founded in 2007 with the help of the British Ecological Society, which provided funds under the (now closed) ‘Building Capacity for Ecology‘ scheme. Dr Oguge is a member of the International Scientific Committee helping the BES to plan the next INTECOL congress, to take place in London in 2013.

Articles in this week’s editions of Science and Nature explore the use of science by policy-makers in the Obama administration. An editorial piece in Nature contrasts the use of ‘common sense on scientific matters’ with the attitude shown by President George W Bush and advisors in the previous US Government.

Early August saw the first meeting of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), whilst White House advisor John Holdren and the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, signed a memorandum outlining the administration’s priorities in advance of budget requests for the 2011 financial year. The memorandum featured the key phrase, “sound science should inform policy decisions”, emphasising the role of science and technology in informing the Government’s priorities.

At the meeting of PCAST, Holdren said that the council’s speedy formation was a clear signal that Obama thinks science and technology are crucial in addressing global challenges. At the meeting, the members of the Committee outlined future priorities for scrutiny. Suggestions included influencing the research agenda of the as yet unfunded ‘National Institute for Food and Agriculture’, cancer research and national strategies for research into adaptation to climate change.

www.nature.com
www.sciencemag.org

A report on the Guardian website (Sunday, 16 August), suggests that electrified steel cages have had a dramatic effect on coral-reef building off the island of Vabbinfaru, Maldives. However, the researchers involved recognise that this is a local, small-scale solution to declining coral reefs and does little to address the well-documented widespread degradation of reefs.

Researchers have sunk a two-tonne steel cage on to the sea floor in Vabbinfaru. The cage is attached to a cable which supplies an electric current through the structure. The current triggers a chemical reaction which draws calcium carbonate out of the water and leads to deposition on the steel frame. Coral are attracted to the calcium-carbonate coated cage: coral growth on the structure is up to five times faster than on concrete structures implanted into the sea-floor. The coral surrounding the cage and concrete areas is largely dead, due to a mass-bleaching event in 1998.

The cage is not being used for widespread coral reef construction, instead providing a localised area of coral for observation by tourists on Vabbinfaru. It is possible however that this technique could be used to repair degrading reefs, abeit on a small scale.

See original article: Sunken steel cages could save coral reefs, Guardian online, 16 August 2009

A fascinating Special Report in Nature this week highlights the position of science at a European level. It notes that the EU has done much to support science, budgeting €50 billion for scientific research under the current 7th Framework Programme (FP), which runs from 2007-2013 and dictates which areas of research will get funding. There is also talk at the moment of creating a new position of Chief Scientific Adviser for Europe, to inform policy on contentious science-related issues.

Nonetheless, there are still concerns that scientists are not speaking with a sufficiently unanimous voice when dealing with the Commission, and thus having less of an impact than they should. When drawing up a new FP, the Commission has to accommodate a wide variety of competing views, including different national and political priorities as well as the wishes of scientists and industry. However, as there is no authoritative body through which scientists can speak with one voice, their input can get somewhat lost.

At present, the annual work programmes of the FP receive input from fourteen permanent science advisory groups, each covering a different research area. However, the remit and relevance of these groups varies hugely, with some genuinely influencing the direction of research and others feeling like they do little more than tick boxes. The main reason for this is that different sections of the Commission are more proactive in seeking advice than others. Particular bureaucratic cultures are also reflected in the fact that successive FPs have been dominated by ‘historical inertia’, with research programmes which have once been added in tending to stay in indefinitely.

One potential answer might be developing however. Last month a pilot forum brought together key EU and scientific and academic bodies, including the European Research Area Board (ERAB), a group of the heads of European research councils (EUROHORCs) and the European University Association amongst others. The forum discussed a vision for the European Research Area and the next FP, and there is strong support for making it a more permanent body. Europe’s many disparate science voices might therefore be able to come together as one single and more powerful voice.

For more information, please see Nature Vol. 460, 6 August 2009.

The Government today launched a consultation on what a secure food system in the UK should look like by 2030. After last year’s sudden jump in food and oil prices, as well as growing appreciation of the future impacts of climate change, food security has rocketed back onto the political agenda.

Interestingly, and perhaps not widely appreciated, is that the UK currently has a very good level of food security: we produce 60-65% of our own food, and import a further 20% from Europe. Britain is thus more food secure today than it was in the 1930s or 1950s.

Nevertheless, the Government argues that forward-planning is essential as the world will have another 3 billion people to feed by 2050, so preparations need to be made to produce more using less water and less oil. Livestock production in particular is a major source of global emissions, producing more emissions than the world transport sector.

As well as launching the consultation process, Defra has also published a scorecard-style assessment of the current state of the UK’s food supply. This food security assessment focuses on six areas, including global availability, UK food chain resilience and household food security, assessing the current situation and the likely situation in 5-10 years time. Whilst global fish stocks were assessed as “very unfavourable”, with little sign of improvement, areas such as the diversity of the UK’s suppliers of fresh fruit and vegetables was deemed “favourable” and set to improve even more.

For further details on the consultation, please click here.

The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has announced a new inquiry into setting funding priorities for scientific and technological research.

The Committee will investigate how Government and other public bodies responsible for the allocation of funding for science and technology research set priorities in the context of likely overall cuts in public spending. The inquiry will cover all aspects of science and technology, including the medical and engineering sciences.

The Committee will focus on how decisions are made to fund research to meet societal needs, the balance of funding between targeted and curiosity-driven research, and how research is commissioned in Government departments.

The Committee invites written evidence from any interested parties. The deadline for submission of written evidence is Friday 25 September 2009.

Visit the Committee’s website for a list of questions on which the Committee will seek evidence.