|

Tuesdays with Turtles – Climate change and nesting patterns

Byoliveridley

Turns out that in Guyana, nesting patterns are changing. Different types of sea turtles are showing up, and earlier than they used to. The earlier part can be explained by climate change, but the species distribution? I am sure there are other factors involved including habitat loss, poaching, etc. Anyway, interesting story.

Stabroek News

The changing nesting patterns of endangered sea turtles in Guyana, is alerting environmentalists to the impact of climate change on these marine animals.

The shell beaches in Region One have hosted thousands of nesting turtles over the years, and conservationists have been endeavouring to protect the turtles from heavy domestic use and from being traded.

Project Coordinator of the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society (GMTCS) Michelle Kalamandeen told Stabroek News recently that climate change is affecting the sea turtle population.

According to Kalamandeen, in the 1960s the Hawksbill (critically endangered) and the Olive-Ridley (endangered) were our main nesting turtles, now the green turtles (endangered) and the leatherbacks (critically endangered) are mostly coming to nest on Guyana’s shores. The Pacific Leatherback is said to be now extinct and the Atlantic Leatherback is facing extinction.

The change in the time period for nesting in Guyana, she said, may also be a significant sign.

Usually sea turtles nest in Guyana from March to August every year. However, for the last three to four years, says Kalamandeen, the nesting pattern has shifted from mid-January to mid-July. This may have a significant impact on the hatchlings as food availability may be an issue for them.

Similar Posts

  • Movement on Texas Coal Fired Power Plants.

    Byoliveridley

    There’s been some progress on the coal fired power plants I had railed on about recently.
    In Big Buyout, Utility to Limit New Coal Plants – New York Times

    Under a proposed $45 billion buyout by a team of private equity firms, the TXU Corporation, a Texas utility that has long been the bane of environmental groups, will abandon plans to build 8 of 11 coal plants and commit to a broad menu of environmental measures, according to people involved in the negotiations. The roster of commitments came through an unusual process in which the equity firms asked two prominent environmental groups what measures could be taken to win their support. The result is an about-face from the company’s earlier approach to climate-change issues, and includes a goal of returning the carbon-dioxide emissions by TXU to 1990 levels by 2020. Environmental groups said yesterday that they had never known of a financial deal with such an ambitious built-in environmental component.

    Better than nothing. This is good news for sure. But as I mentioned previously, the Sanders (Good ol’ socialist!) Bill calls for an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. This is required to cap CO2 levels at 450 ppm and avoid the worst effects of global warming. So, while reducing CO2 to 1990 levels sounds impressive in a breathlessly written NY Times article. It is not nearly enough. This is exactly what I was afraid of when I mentioned the moratorium word! In the absence of regulation, or a clear policy, private equity companies, power plants, and other plutocrats are setting the US global warming agenda. They are establishing the floor plan, meaning, we’ll set the bar near the floor and not budge. Yes, I know, the NRDC and Environmental Defense were involved, and this part is definitely good…

    TXU will discard plans to build eight of 11 proposed new coal plants, which would have been major new sources of emissions. Those plants — which would have added more than 9,000 megawatts of new capacity, the equivalent of 3.5 percent of the nation’s current coal-fired power — had been part of a planned $10 billion expansion of coal-fired electricity.

    TXU, which is based in Dallas, also intends to expand the renewable energy portion of its portfolio and reduce or offset its emissions significantly, said people who were familiar with the plans.

    All very good, but as I talked about previously (man, way too much self reference, not a good thing!), a book called Reality Check just out assesses voluntary actions by various companies in the US, Europe and Japan and comes to the following conclusion:

    Most of the programs it studies have positive results, but they are
    small compared with business-as-usual trends and the impact of other
    forces–such as higher energy prices. Importantly, potential gains may
    be quickly exhausted as the “low-hanging fruit” is picked up by
    voluntary programs.

    Now tell me that this agreement does not fit this frame!

  • |

    Arsenic a rising risk?

    Byoliveridley

    This is new information? Tell that to the millions of Bangladeshis and Indians suffering from Arsenic for many years now.

    As groundwater use increases due to population pressure and overexploitation of freshwater, expect this problem to get worse.

    Arsenic in Drinking Water Said to Be Rising Risk – New York Times

    Naturally occurring arsenic in drinking water poses a growing global health risk as large numbers of people unknowingly consume unsafe levels, researchers said on Wednesday.

    The problem is bigger than scientists had thought, and it affects nearly 140 million people in more than 70 countries, according to new research presented at the annual Royal Geographical Society meeting in London.

  • | |

    Green Scolding and Media Victim Blaming

    Byoliveridley


    Dracula Lurks in Your Set-Top Box – NYTimes.com

    Most Americans are guilty of a similar if less costly squandering of
    energy when it comes to their cable or satellite TV boxes. A new study
    released on Tuesday by the National Resources Defense Council shows that
    set-top boxes in the United States consume nearly as much energy when
    not in use as when they are on, costing a cumulative $2 billion a year.

    Dear media, let’s break down the choices consumers have with regards to set top boxes:

    1. Not get one, and hence lose access to encrypted channels, digital cable, etc, which are now de rigueur
    2. Get one, and unplug it every time, which means reaching behind (as you kindly mention), unplugging, and waiting for restart, etc. My Telus box usually takes a couple of minutes at least to reinitialize, and behaves a bit weirdly for another minute afterwards. So how many people will do this?
    3. Be scolded by you for not being environmentally friendly.

    Now, let’s see what would happen in a real, and properly regulated market.

    1. There would be little connection between the set top box and the content. You would get a box, or use your computer, and just put in a card from your cable company for decryption. While cablecards kinda exist, the reason you haven’t heard of them is because cable companies want you captured by their expensive hardware. separate the two, box manufacturers are free to sell you fancy boxes like this one that can manage all your media, have a friendly interface, cost less, look cool, and consume less energy, and can use all these as marketing points.
    2. There would be sensible regulation on ALL electric devices to include standby mode, with automatic sleep mode. So, if something is not in use, it shuts off in 15 minutes. Seems difficult? Computers do this all the time, routinely. A set top box is just an underpowered computer.

    So, let’s not blame the consumer here, shall we? If anyone is guilty, it is media and telecommunication oligopolies that don’t let us actually have free choice, while simultaneously claiming that any regulation is anti-  free market.

  • | |

    The Pump handle and Diacetyl

    Byoliveridley

    The Pump Handle looks at the response of various government agencies (notionally charged with protecting American people) to increasing information about the danger of diacetyl exposure, certainly to workers in the flavoring industry, and recently, to consumers of microwave popcorn. An excellent post, deserves wider reading!


    Popcorn Lung Coming to Your Kitchen? The FDA Doesn’t Want to Know « The Pump Handle

    The CDC, FDA, OSHA, EPA – federal agencies charged with protecting public health – each received a letter in July alerting them to the possible serious respiratory hazard to consumers who breathe in fumes from their artificially butter-flavored microwave popcorn. The warning should have resulted in some action by these agencies, but instead, they’ve done virtually nothing.

    It appears that the Bush Administration’s efforts to destroy the regulatory system are succeeding; the agencies seem unable to mount a response to information that a well-functioning regulatory system would immediately pursue. The agencies aren’t even trying to connect the dots.

    Read on. I moved to the US in 1997 and I’ve noticed a stark difference in the performance of the government agencies named here. I have no doubt that the agencies will eventually bounce back under the right circumstances, but it is disheartening how far agencies such as the EPA, once regarded as models of well run government (at least to a developing country!) have fallen.

  • NY Times uses football columnist to diss Al Gore on global warming

    Byoliveridley

    Ok, I exaggerate a wee bit, he’s also a scholar at Brookings.

    Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution – New York Times
    Shorter Gregg Easterbrook

    1. Al Gore is a big fat phony, so let’s not listen to him
    2. China and India will emit a lot of greenhouse gases, so it is useless for the US to control itself

    This guy should stick to writing about football, simple fact, the country that is the so called “leader of the free world” and that is currently the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has to take the lead, or at least participate in the discussion.

    As my favorite economist Dean Baker points out, he even gets his facts misleading on China’s GDP using gross unadjusted GDP instead of numbers adjusted for purchasing power parity.

    To be fair, he makes the valid point that a lot of gains are to be had by investing in India and China to make processes more efficient and hence reduce energy needs and emissions, but it’s not an either-or scenario. Even if India and China pass the U.S in emissions at some point in time, that still makes the U.S the third largest emitter, and if you look at both per-capita and aggregate consumption together, the U.S has to take major steps in addition to helping China and India with offsets and tech transfers. But you have to play the game!

    Is Easterbrook saying the U.S can’t walk and chew gum at the same time? C’Mon!