CONSERVATION SCIENCE INSTITUTE quality science for conservation. | home
May 2005
 The CSI Report, May 2005The monthly newsletter of the Conservation Science Institute
editor: Brian Petersen
Inside CSI
On April 22 many of us celebrated Earth Day. Are we making progress? Here are some statistics compiled by Todd Hymas.
3.7 billion -- world population in 19701
6.4 billion -- world population in 20051
1,535 billion -- kilowatt-hours of electricity used in the U.S. in 19702
3,837 billion -- kilowatt-hours of electricity expected to be used in the U.S. in 20053
6.0 -- percentage of electricity in U.S. consumed in 1970 produced from renewable sources4
6.7 -- percentage of electricity in U.S. expected to be consumed in 2005 produced from renewable sources3
14.7 million -- barrels of petroleum consumed per day in the U.S. in 19705
20.9 million -- barrels of petroleum expected to be consumed per day in the U.S. in 20053
10.4 million -- acres of wilderness preserved in the U.S. as of 19706
106.5 million -- acres of wilderness preserved in the U.S. as of 20057
3.3 -- pounds of municipal solid waste generated per person per day in the U.S. in 19708
4.4 -- pounds of municipal solid waste expected to be generated per person per day in the U.S. in 20059
1,500 -- square footage of average new U.S. single-family home in 197010
2,330 -- square footage of average new U.S. single-family home in 2003*10
89.2 million -- number of passenger cars in the U.S. in 197011
135.7 million -- number of passenger cars in the U.S. in 2003*11
1.7 million -- miles of paved roads in the U.S. in 197012
2.6 million -- miles of paved roads in the U.S. in 2003*12
0 -- percentage of U.S. soybean crop that was genetically modified in 1970 (by acreage)13
85 -- percentage of U.S. soybean crop that was genetically modified in 2004* (by acreage)14
36 -- percentage of world population living in cities in 197015
49 -- percentage of world population living in cities in 200515
* Sources:
1. "Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050," U.S. Census Bureau.
2. Statement of Energy Information Administration's Mary J. Hutzler, hearing on sources of energy and consumption before the Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, U.S. House of Representatives, May 3, 2001.
3. "Short Term Energy Outlook -- April 2005," Energy Information Administration.
4. "Energy Consumption by Source, 1949-2003," Energy Information Administration.
5. "Petroleum: An Energy Profile 1999", Energy Information Administration, pg 8, and "Petroleum Overview, 1949-2003," Energy Information Administration, Table 5.1.
6. "National Wilderness Preservation System and National Wild and Scenic River System, 1968-1999," Council on Environmental Quality, 1997 Environmental Quality report, Table 3.2.
7. "Wilderness Fast Facts" (data current as of Dec. 27, 2004), Wilderness.net.
8. Total municipal solid waste generated in U.S. in 1970: "EPA Municipal solid waste basic facts," and "Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures," Table ES-1, pg 2. 1970 U.S. population: "Demographic Trends in the 20th Century", November 2002.
9. Total municipal solid waste to be generated in 2005 in the U.S., projected: "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1998 Update". 2005 U.S. population, U.S. Census Bureau population clock.
10. "Housing Facts", National Association of Homebuilders, January 2005, pg 8.
11. "National Transportation Statistics 2004," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, January 2005, Table 1-11.
12. "National Transportation Statistics 2004," Bureau of Transportation Statistics, January 2005, Table 1-4.
13. "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.," Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
14. Genetically engineered (GE) soybean varieties by State and United States, 2000-2004, "Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.," Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
15. "World Urbanization Prospects, 2003", United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, Table II.1, pg 14. (2005 stats are projected.)
Bruce Wright
Executive Director
Featured CSI Fellow Report
David C. Bernvi, Vice President of the SES
  In Sweden there are 16 recorded shark species with seven regularly coming to our shores. The basking shark is one of the more common species to visit Swedish waters. Basking shark numbers have decreased substantially. Greenland sharks and porbeagles are also recorded with some regularity. The most common shark is the dogfish; this species is caught off the Swedish west coast in large quantities. The recent report of an oceanic white tip shark in Swedish waters (58 degrees north) was a surprise since this shark usually occurs in warm waters (18-24 degrees Celsius) and far offshore. This is the first record of an oceanic white tip shark in northern Europe waters.
The Swedish Elasmobranch Society (SES) board of directors found that the Swedish public lack conservation and educational insight about elasmobranches. In the spring of 2005 I started up a website for the SES.
The SES is educating organizations and institutions about the importance of sharks, rays, and chimeras, and SES serves to promote elasmobranch research in Sweden and internationally. SES is planning to become a member of the European Elasmobranch Association (EEA).
SES goals:
1) Promotion and increase of elasmobranch research.
2) Educate and inform the public about the role and importance of sharks, rays, and chimeras.
3) Serve conservation and sustainable development for elasmobranches and chimeras.
4) Cooperate with national and international organizations with similar goals and objectives.
Climate change threatens Monarch Butterflies
  If you've ever seen a flock of monarch butterflies, you're a lucky person. Fifty years from now, your memory might be all that's left of these flapping beauties.
Monarch butterflies travel thousands of miles to spend the winter in warm and dry places such as Mexico, Cuba, and California. Some 200 million butterflies make the trip every year. But within 50 years, a changing climate could make their winter refuge too wet and cool. According to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, climate models show that rainfall will increase significantly in the winter home of the monarchs as the planet warms during the next half-century. This increased rainfall,  combined with the persistent cold could cause a massive die-off of the colorful migrating butterflies. Scientists have also discovered that the oyamel fir trees of Mexico, on which the butterflies spend the winter, are vulnerable to climate changes.
Global warming is a threat to more than just monarchs; other butterflies are at risk. To keep pace with the shifting climatic zone, species of butterflies migrate further north. About 2/3 of European butterfly species with long observational records have shifted northward from 22 to 150 miles, consistent with temperature increases in Europe. The specked wood butterfly in the United Kingdom had moved north by over a hundred kilometers in the last sixty years. Monitoring the effects of climate change on monarchs may reveal some of the consequences that may affect people and other wildlife.
Salvage Logging and Aquatic Ecosystems
by Brian Petersen
 Over the past century US federal land agencies have practiced fire suppression as a means of limiting large wildfires. Shrouded in controversy for much of the last half of the previous century, scientific research has indicated that such practices promote rather than limit large fires. Although fire suppression is still practiced, federal agencies have begun allowing some fires to burn and have initiated using thinning and prescribed burns as new forestry tools.Just as the fire suppression controversy seems to be subsiding, a new one has arisen to take its place. Salvage logging, cutting down trees after they have burned, has turned into an intensely debated practice. Land managers have proposed huge salvage logging projects in areas of Oregon and Colorado among others that have had large wildfires in the past few years.
 Often done in the name of restoration, salvage logging has many adverse ecological consequences. The removal of burned trees eliminates potential habitat, removes shade that aids tree regeneration, and removes important organic material from the system. Salvage logging operations done with heavy machinery compacts the soil and exacerbates soil erosion and runoff. These practices also remove important organic material from the soil, leading to long-term consequences. The impacts of salvage logging to the forest system seem obvious and have received much attention. What has not received sufficient attention is the impact salvage logging has on aquatic ecosystems. Fires cause a short-term flux of sediments into streams, but road building and post fire logging increases topsoil erosion and decreases the water holding capacity of soils. This combination leads to increased sediment loads and has negative implications for aquatic biota, including salmonids, invertebrates, and plant life.
Past land management has degraded aquatic resources and salvage logging has the potential of inflicting more damage. Researchers at the University of Washington, Idaho State University, the University of Montana, Oregon State University, Pacific Rivers Council, and Planeto Azul Hydrologic Consultants, have developed ten recommendations with respect to logging burned forests that draws on years of ecological research that they propose as measures to protect aquatic ecosystems after forest fires.
 Because ecosystems have evolved with fire, the researchers promote natural recovery to human intervention. The retention of trees, particularly large, old ones, serves a host of ecological purposes, from providing shade and habitat to soil retention. They also suggest the protection of soils as a key to protecting terrestrial and aquatic resources.Fires occur in a variety of locations, including wilderness, riparian, and roadless areas. These sensitive areas often contain the most biodiversity and should receive special protection from salvage logging.
Additional recommendations include limiting reseeding and planting to allow native seed stocks to regenerate, eliminating road building and road reconstruction in burned areas, and refraining from placing large woody debris in streams. Although placing structures in streams for habitat regeneration has garnered much support, the authors argue that these methods do not provide benefits that outweigh the damage and costs of their installation.
 Finally, the authors suggest prioritizing pre-fire conservation and restoration, rather than focusing so much attention on post-fire activities. They also support a broad public education campaign, and continued research. Salvage logging has received federal support without the necessary monitoring to ensure it is meeting the desired ecological objectives.With fire season upon us, the issue of salvage logging will once again cause controversy. The recommendations put forth by these scientists would promote the conservation and restoration of forest and aquatic biodiversity and will hopefully find their way to the individuals whose decisions shape federal land policy.
BioScience November 2004 / Vol. 54. No. 11
Climate Change Perceptions and Science
by Brian Petersen
 As the research mounts indicating that human activities affect global climate, an MIT survey finds that Americans still do not clearly understand climate change. The Internet based survey asked 1200 people 17 questions related to the environment, including specific questions regarding global warming and new technologies aimed at staving off climate change.The MIT researchers who initiated the study work on a particular approach to climate change mitigation. Their plan to reduce global warming relies on capturing carbon dioxide from areas of large emissions and inserting it into the earth where it can be stored for long periods of time.
The survey asked respondents about this type of climate change mitigation. Not surprisingly, few respondents had heard about such an effort. More strikingly, many respondents indicated they had not heard about issues that have received substantial media coverage in the past year, including hydrogen fuel cells and alternative energy sources.
Global warming, the survey found, did not make it on the top of respondents list of critical environmental concerns. In fact, global warming came in sixth when listing the top ten environmental problems we currently face. The environment in general did not even make the top ten list of the most important issues we face.
 The complexity of climate change science accounts for some of the misunderstanding of the issue. But politicians and the media have also played a role. In claiming that no scientific consensus exists regarding climate change, the current US administration and other politicians have misled the public.In the December 3rd issue of Science, Naomi Oreskes addresses the issue of whether or not a scientific consensus does in fact exist with regards to climate change. Using a scientific journal database, she searched for the keywords “climate change” and identified 928 abstracts from articles published between 1993 and 2003 on the topic. All the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals.
Oreskes divided the articles into six categories and found that none of the papers argued that current climate change is occurring due to natural causes. Seventy five percent of the articles either endorsed the view that humans are impacting climate or implicitly supported that notion.
In addition to the individual scientists represented by these papers, many of the most prominent scientific institutions also publicly support the position that human activities have an impact on the earth's climate. These prestigious and revered scientific organizations include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union.
Although the general public remains uncertain about climate change, scientists have spoken with one voice. This consensus should empower politicians to move beyond the debate over whether credible science exists regarding climate change, and to start implementing policies to counteract it.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/print/climate-0316-print.html
Science, December 3, 2004, volume 306
|
