Posted by: Mark Mann
on 13 Dec, 2011
Michael Duffy in the Sydney Morning Herald urges us to give up the fight against invasive introduced species. Instead, he says, conservationists should concentrate on creating "novel" but viable ecosystems that integrate introduced species with native ones.
Duffy, a contrarian environmentalist who likes to challenge mainstream green positions, points out there hasn't been untouched wilderness in Australia since Aboriginal people arrived 50,000 or so years ago and wiped out the megafauna. That's a generally accepted view, popularised by Tim Flannery in his book the Future Eaters.
Duffy argues that untouched nature isn't necessarily "better" than modified ecosystems. I think that goes too far: if we define "better" as an ecosystem with more stability, biodiversity and biomass, I think nature does a better job if left alone.
The problem, of course, is nature hasn't been left alone and Duffy is surely right to say we now have no chance of restoring Australia (or anywhere else) to a pre-colonial, or pre-human, state. We can't bring back the megafauna and we won't get rid of introduced species. Cats, rabbits, foxes, rats, mice, goats, camels, wild horses, buffalo, feral pigs, cane toads, carp, tilapia and the rest are here to stay. Foreign plant species now make up around half of Australia's flora, according to this study. Weeds such as Paterson's curse, blackberry, willows, bridal creeper, gorse, lantana and soursob are rampant.
So what is the goal of landcare, bushcare, national park management plans and other conservation strategies?
Some conservationists now propose we focus on enhancing the resilience of ecosystems, even if that means using introduced species to fill ecological niches and/or recreate a balanced ecosystem. In an essay in Nature in June, US ecologist Mark Davis and others argued many invasive species are harmless, and we shouldn't waste time trying to eradicate them.
And while it's hard to argue feral cats or foxes are harmless, trying to hold back the tide of invasive species is as futile as King Canute. Yet attempts to re-engineer ecosystems can backfire badly - think of cane toads. There's no easy answer, but it's a serious question.
It's worth reading Duffy's article, which is here.
Posted by: sustainadelic
on 30 Aug, 2011
Here's the deal. Ecuador is a poor country and needs money for development. A rich supply of oil under its eastern lowlands is an obvious source of that money, and in recent years, Ecuador has derived 40 per cent of its national income from oil revenues.
Now oil companies have identified a vast supply of oil beneath the Yasuni National Park. Jackpot! Well, yes and no. The problem is Yasuni is one of the most biodiverse spots on earth. Maybe THE most biodiverse. This is the upper Amazon, a place where cool moist cloudforest tumbles down the eastern slopes of the Andes into steaming rainforest.
Posted by: sustainadelic
on 03 Aug, 2011
A recent study published in Science magazine examines the impact of the decline of top predators. We're talking animals such as sharks, big cats and wolves.
Posted by: sustainadelic
on 28 Oct, 2010
A WWF report estimates that biodiversity - the number of species of animals and plants on earth - has plummeted 30 per cent since 1970. We are, apparently, losing 200 species a day. And research by London's Natural History Museum and Kew Gardens estimates that a fifth of those species that remain are facing extinction.
Posted by: sustainadelic
on 22 Oct, 2010
The fury aroused by proposed cuts to water allocations in the Murray Darling is understandable - and illustrates why the river is in a mess in the first place.
Opponents of water cuts argue for a "balance" between the needs of the environment, business and community. But this represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the relationship between economics and the environment.
A sustainable economy depends on a healthy environment - you can't trade one for the other. We can get away with environmental damage only by passing the cost onto future generations - a debilitating "ecological debt" for our grandchildren.
Put simply: we have to fix the river then built industries around sustainable water extraction.
The same applies to the planet.
The United Nations Environment Program' (UNEP) recently published The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report. Described as the "Stern Report of Biodiversity" it tries to put a price on the massive loss of biodiversity Earth is now experiencing.
(This article on the BBC website summaries the report.)
The key concept here is "natural services" - a term for how nature delivers resources and services we need, such as clean water or protection from the elements. For instance, coral reefs, mangrove swamps and coastal dunes reduce damage to coastal communities from storms, cyclones and hurricanes. Without them we'd have to spend billions on massive artificial sea defences.
For the record, the TEEB calculates that price as between $2tn and $4.5tn a year.
In reality the price is infinite, because the loss of these natural services is felt forever (as in: $4.5tn x infinity) or at least for however long humans are likely to be around.
But the TEEB report at least draws attention to the damage we are doing to the planet's ecosystems - and underlines how our economic wellbeing depends on a healthy environment.
Unlikely as it seems, the Tasmanian forestry industry could be a beacon of hope in all this darkness. After decades of forestry wars, a historic truce is in the offing to end logging in native forest. Up to 60 per cent of forestry contractors could leave the industry, with funding for reskilling, relocation and alternative job creation.
The same sort of thinking could save the Murray Darling. And, just possibly, the planet.
Posted by: John McGuinness
on 25 Sep, 2009
Bees are disappearing /dying in record numbers. This is serious business and very personal. Guys, no bees = NO COFFEE. Ladies, no bees = NO CHOCOLATE. These are just 2 of the many many fruits, nuts and veggies we will no longer see on our tables if bees continue to decline.
Posted by: sustainadelic
on 04 Sep, 2009
Bees are disappearing. Maybe it's due to toxins in chemical pesticides. Maybe it's stress caused by commercial bee-keeping techniques, maybe it's disease.
Posted by:
on 06 Aug, 2009
A US television reporter has labelled Kevin Rudd a “serial killer” over Australia’s culling of feral camels.
