The whales, the nature and us.

[Luis Antonio]

I was reading BBC news today, (I guess this specific news is from yesterday edition) and this called my attention:


Arctic orcas highly contaminated
By Paddy Clark
BBC News

Orca, AP
Killer whales suffer because they are at the top of the food chain
Killer whales have become the most contaminated mammals in the Arctic, new research indicates.

Norwegian scientists have found that killer whales - or orcas, as they are sometimes known - have overtaken polar bears at the head of the toxic table.

No other arctic mammals have ingested such a high concentration of hazardous man-made chemicals.

The Norwegian Polar Institute tested blubber samples taken from creatures in Tysfjord in the Norwegian Arctic.

The chemicals they found included pesticides, flame retardants and PCBs - which used to be used in many industrial processes.

Chemical sink

Animals at the top of the food chain are particularly affected, and whales - like polar bears - can reflect the health of the marine environment.

The researchers are particularly worried about the flame retardants, because unlike many other harmful chemicals, some are still legal.

The international environmental group, WWF, says the Arctic has become a chemical sink.

It says the findings dramatically underline the need for European Union ministers to decide on strong legislation when they meet this week.

However, WWF says it fears pressure from the chemicals industry could lead to any new laws being so watered down that they will protect neither the environment nor human health.

The Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/...re/4520104.stm

While many people I know dont give a damn about whales, or penguins or anything that aint flying right under their nose I do. One of the things they teach us in economy is that the signs of danger are everywhere, and if we dont take care of the micro signs everywhere things tend to turn into a massive collapse of the system, sooner or later.

But this also brings me to thinking about the effectiveness of the, for example, Kioto treaty. Or any treaty regarding nature. We cant effectivelly measure polution reduction on countries. We cant allow developing countries *coughBrazilcough* to grow polluting, but will those countries be able to grow without generating extra pollution at first? What do you think about US's position of never signing a treaty but creating his own rules, always indulging its internal industries?

Opinion? Rants? Mild spam on topic?

[dj_venom]

Well, the Kyoto trreaty will not work, seeing as America never signed it (and because we are an extension of them neither did we) and they are the major producer of these problems.

But I recently had to do a whole debate about the topic of the environment, (and faced the difficult side of saying we were doing ok as it was) and of course Kyoto came up, but I had found some interesting research. That, as you sort of mention, the treaty is much more linient on developing countries. Now here in Australia, we are major users of coal and pollution, because we simply haven't had the technology to advance far enough, signing this treaty will seriously cripple us economically.

Now, I'm not sure how much this is the same in America, but Japan however already created a lot less gas, because they were technologically superiour, and as such, this treaty is not as draining on them. For these economic reasons, the treaty would never have convinced key nations.

Anyway, yes, we should try to help the environment. But what we must realise, is that to get the help, we don't want to damage anything, and especially not economies, which are the lifeblood of countries. So we need to develop measures that help, which is why perhaps when we become more techonolically greater, we will be able to reduce emissions.

Until then, let's hope the environment can still receive help.

[Hill-Shatar]

Quote:

But this also brings me to thinking about the effectiveness of the, for example, Kioto treaty. Or any treaty regarding nature. We cant effectivelly measure polution reduction on countries. We cant allow developing countries *coughBrazilcough* to grow polluting, but will those countries be able to grow without generating extra pollution at first? What do you think about US's position of never signing a treaty but creating his own rules, always indulging its internal industries?

I have seen some of the cities in Brazil. I am quite surprised by the expansion capable by your people, Luis. I thought it impossible that so many apartment and business buildings could be created in such a short time in Sao Paulo... it even puts the buildings in Vancouver to shame quite easily!

The US never signed the Kyoto treaty... and currently, are very POd that the current Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, decided to make a comment that the US should be more aware of something called International Conscious, which, needless to say, did not go over well with the government.

The US also asked us not to include them in the election process. Funny, considering that already one of the major planks in the platform of many parties regards the blatant side stepping of the Softwood Lumbar industry in Canada. Not only that, but a little bit of a minor plank is to attempt to push the American's into joining it as well. Like it or not, the US effects us enough that anything we do will effect them. Even if the Bloic comes into power.

It does not surprise me that Killer Whales are the largest these days... Polar Bears have begun scavenging in neighbourhoods, and eating from other sources than seal meat, so less water bourne toxins are making it to them. Obviously, the killer whales, not only an inhabitant of those waters but a major predator in them, can most likely consume vast quantities of these poisions daily.

On Japan, not only do they use gas, but less cars, originally. Many people in Japan use bikes in more remote areas, and I hear that the Japanese are taking great strides in promoting public transit and fuel efficient cars, among creating other products that are revamped to use different types of energy.

Quote:

But I recently had to do a whole debate about the topic of the environment, (and faced the difficult side of saying we were doing ok as it was) and of course Kyoto came up, but I had found some interesting research. That, as you sort of mention, the treaty is much more linient on developing countries. Now here in Australia, we are major users of coal and pollution, because we simply haven't had the technology to advance far enough, signing this treaty will seriously cripple us economically.

Canada is one of the world's leading suppliers of coal. In fact, we have enough currently out of the ground to survive off of for the next 300 years ourselves. 98% of the energy I use right now is probably from some sort of non renewable fuel, although that is most likely because I am living out west.

For us, it would cripple us greatly... hydroelectric damns and solar energy do not make as much as people think, although it is enough to supply Canadians about 6 or 7 percent of our energy.

Currently in Canada we have had a series of commercials regarding the One Tonne (that means one thousand kilograms, not a measly one thousand pounds ) Challenge, which means that every Canadian who signs up must try to cut own one tonne of pollution, or a quarter of our pollution, through the use of renewable sources and flourescent lightbulbs, ect, ect...

[dj_venom]

Aaah, it's good to see Australia isn't the only one with metric .

Us Aussies are packed full of coal, it's our primary export, with some 17 million Australian dollars worth being exported each year. And then, most of our industry relies on it, which is what I said before.

I've always been a fan of killer whales though. They always looked cool, and the fact that they are the only whales that eat big things (rather than plankton) and that in my eyes makes them good .

[Dottie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis Antonio We cant allow developing countries *coughBrazilcough* to grow polluting, but will those countries be able to grow without generating extra pollution at first? What do you think about US's position of never signing a treaty but creating his own rules, always indulging its internal industries? Opinion? Rants? Mild spam on topic?

I think you can look at it in a different way, sure there is a cost associated with moving to cleaner power sources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so forth, but while poorer nations may not be able to afford this the industry that does the most polluting is the same in the rich and the poor world, and they have the money.

There might be some costs for the nations as well, and principally I think they should be covered by richer nations.

The fact that the industry is multinational creates the need for international coordinated action imo. As long as some important nations refuses to participate it gets a lot more expensive for the nations that does, and therefore they will be much more reluctant to go far in limiting pollution.

[Dottie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill-Shatar For us, it would cripple us greatly... hydroelectric damns and solar energy do not make as much as people think, although it is enough to supply Canadians about 6 or 7 percent of our energy.

hydroelectric damns can make quite a lot I believe, almost half of sweden's electricity production is from hydroelectric damns.

Solar energy is a different matter thought.

[Ravager]

Well, there's also Wind Power and Tidal Farms I think. Though the main alternative seems to be nuclear. That doesn't pollute and is renewable unlike fossil fuels. Of course, there is that ever-present danger of meltdowns to consider.
Wind Turbines are the kind of thing people agree are a good idea until they get placed near where they live in most cases.

[Fiona]

Nuclear doesn't pollute? How so?

[Ravager]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia Like renewables (except biomass), nuclear generation does not produce carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other pollutants associated with the combustion of fossil fuels (pollution from fossil fuels causes many times more deaths each year in the US alone [49]). <snip> However, just like any power source (including renewables like wind and solar energy), the facilities to produce and distribute the electricity require energy to build. Nuclear fuel must also be collected and processed to extract it from ore. The collection, construction, and transportation equipment used in these processes are either directly powered by diesel and gasoline engines, or draw electricity from the power grid, which in most countries is fed mostly by fossil fuel-powered generators.

Though of course, the nuclear waste isn't too good. Many countries see nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels though.

[Fiona]

Nuclear waste is the worst possible pollutant, or so I thought. Is it not the main reason for opposing nuclear power? Or have there been new developments about how to get rid of it, which I have missed?

[Hill-Shatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dottie hydroelectric damns can make quite a lot I believe, almost half of sweden's electricity production is from hydroelectric damns. Solar energy is a different matter thought.

Got to remember the sheer size of Canada in comparison to the amount of places for dams. We sahre our largest source with the states... which puts quite a strain on Canada.

@ Fiona: It is the cleanest for the air at the moment. Safer nuclear methods are in development and testing, but none are infallible. It also produces less waste in the whole then most other types of energy sources. I do believe that at the moment, Geothermal leads with the cleanest source (unless you hit gas pockets) however, leads to some minor enviromental damage as a result of the drilling process.

Above all, it is also the cheapest. The needs of the enviroment seem to swirl around the economy that wants the enviroment to survive.

[Dottie]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill-Shatar Got to remember the sheer size of Canada in comparison to the amount of places for dams. We sahre our largest source with the states... which puts quite a strain on Canada.

Yes, obviously you must have the geography for it. It is also quite disruptive for the wildlife, but at least the damage is local.

[Hill-Shatar]

Sorry, my error. However, much of our energy is shared with the US... we may be able to make the most, but little stays within our country. We currently use alternate means... usually through such sources as oil and coal.

Quote:

Canada is the world’s largest producer of hydroelectricity, generating over 315.5 Bkwh from the source in 2002. Quebec’s La Grange plant is one of the world’s largest hydroelectric facilities, with an installed capacity of 15,000 MW. Quebec has the largest share of Canada’s hydroelectric production, followed by British Columbia. It is estimated that Canada still has 180,000 MW of hydroelectricity potential remaining, though only 34,000 MW is currently deemed economically feasible.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canada.html -How much of that is needed to support our people? Too little, if I remember correctly. In fact, very little of what I use today is from this source of energy... very little at all, considering my location. However, if I remember correctly, the community of Niagra* is fueled mostly from a hydro electric dam, and, if I remember correctly (yes, I have said that a lot... there seems to be no links at all) are the only community currently gaining power from that source (primary).

Otherwise, this is all in Canada, and not worldwide, except that we are the world's largest creator's of it...

* We do, however, send a lot of energy as far south as Buffalo... but very little goes Northward or Westward for Canada.