Impacts of wildfires on wildlife

The wildfires in Australia have been making headline news this week as they sweep through the outback with up to 40 people dead. But what about the huge death toll among the wildlife population of the region? There are estimates that the death toll among animals will be in the millions, with wildlife workers trying to rescue as many animals as possible from the inferno.

But, while it seems terrible, wildfires are a natural phenomenon and have been occurring throughout history irrelevant of human intervention. We have to remember that the effects of fires are really only temporary and can play an important role in managing the environment. Many animals are capable of effectively escaping from fires and while individuals may be killed the wildlife populations in the region will recover. Similarly the vegetation destroyed by fire will provide opportunities for new growth to develop which can in turn provide favourable conditions for some species.

So while the spectacle of wildfire may appear catastrophic it's important to remember that it has happened many time before and will again. In reality it is probably the more systemic destruction caused by human activities that will result in long term impacts to ecosystems.

An aerial solution to deforestation

I just came across an article on the new scientist website that provides a nice balance to the blog entry last week on tree deaths doubling due to climate change. A British company is developing technology which will allow for forests to be re-planted from the air. The technique allows a helicopter to deploy around 200 trees in a single trip, with the benefits of speeding up replanting and allowing it to take place in inaccessible areas.

It's good to know that people are still coming up with new and innovative solutions to combat some of the environmental issues that need to be addressed. Hopefully tests will prove the method to be successful and it can play a role in reforesting regions around the world.

Water, water, everywhere? Not if we're not careful...

There's so much news about climate change and carbon emissions that other environmental issues often slip to the background. The importance of conserving water is one of those, yet it's every bit as vital to us as the climate, if not more so. Not to mention that if the climate does change problems with water supplies are a possible consequence. So the best thing we can do is get in to good habits now and solve the problem before it happens. Conserving water isn't difficult, it just takes a tiny bit of thought and effort. And it's amazing how easy it is to waste huge amounts of water on day to day tasks.

A friend working in Malaysia sent me the picture below of water saving tips and how much you can save by following them. Obviously not all of them apply to everyone, but they'll definitely get you thinking.

For loads more water saving tips you can also check out http://www.water-guide.org.uk/tips.html or this A-Z of tips from the BBC.

Beauties or beasts: The reintroduction of native species

I've noticed several articles recently on the reintroduction of once native species back in to Britain. There's a number of species that are being, or have been, considered for reintroduction including wild boar, beavers, wolves, lynx and even bears. It's no real surprise that controversy surrounds the issue, particularly with animals such as wolves that have played such an important role in stories and folklore for hundreds of years - from majestic creatures running in the moonlight to fearsome beasts hidden by the night. But what really are the benefits and problems that would be associated with these once common species returning to our shores?

Lets start with wolves. The area that's being looked at here is the Scottish highlands, our biggest remaining area of wilderness. Discussion has been going on for several years now as to whether wolves should be reintroduced here and has generated a lot of debate on both sides. So why are people worried about them returning? Well, firstly there are the farmers who keep livestock in the region. They have worries that wolves would prey on their livestock and become a major pest, eventually needing culling to keep down numbers. Then there are some walking groups and others who use these areas for recreation who worry that the reintroduction of species would conflict with the right to roam, with areas being set aside as reserves. Then there is just the general fear of predatory creatures. It's not something we're used to in Britain these days and fears that wolves could spread well beyond the areas they're introduced to is a big worry to many people.

But what about the benefits? Firstly all of the creatures being considered for reintroduction were once native species and were hunted to extinction by man, so there is a moral argument that it is right for us to bring them back. On a more pragmatic note wolves could play an important role in bringing balance to our eco-systems, and in particular red deer populations. Currently there are many more red deer than their habitats can sustainably support and so tens of thousands are culled each year to stop them from causing long term damage. The reintroduction of wolves, for whom deer would provide a major food source, would reduce these numbers and do so in the way that is best for the deer populations, by killing of the weak and elderly that make for easiest pickings. This would leave stronger deer populations and in more manageable numbers. Finally there is the economic benefits that come from the tourism wolves would bring.

The concerns and benefits vary slightly with each species, with worries that wild boar may spread diseases and beavers cause habitat damage to balance benefits that they may bring to the ecosystem and the responsibility that we have to see them back in Britain.

Trials are already approved for trial reintroductions of beavers in Scotland, which are due to take place this spring. It's always going to be an individual choice as to whether we think the benefits outweigh the risks, but in the end the only way to find out is going to be to carry out trials like this and see what happens.

Tree deaths doubling due to climate change

We tend to think of climate change as something that could happen if we don't change our ways, but something that can still be prevented if we act soon. Then something comes along that suddenly brings home the fact that climate change is happening now, and we need to act immediately if we hope to avoid the risk of catastrophic changes.

A recent study has suggested that climate change could be responsible for a doubling in the mortality rate of trees in the western US in recent decades. The study, published in Science, looked at data from 76 forest plots from 1955 onwards and identified that mortality rates significantly increased over the time period in 87% of the plots while there was no significant increase in the number of new trees being established.

The study looked at a wide spectrum of tree species over a range of latitudes and altitudes and noticed that increased mortality rates were present in all conditions. They also ruled out effects such as increasing forest density, changing management techniques or the age of trees as being the likely cause. Instead they think that changing climate resulting in less snowfall, and therefore less snow melt runoff as well as a longer summer drought is the most likely reason for the change.

This is even more significant as it is possible that similar changes are happening all over the world. With forests providing a significant carbon sink a decrease in the number of trees globally could result in feedback effects changing the climate even more.

It's a worrying thought that changes of this kind are already happening. If we needed any more of an incentive to change our lifestyles then this is it.

What is eco-living? The ideas behind being green.

Eco-living and green-living have become common phrases, so much so that it's often easy to forget that it's not always obvious what exactly we mean by them. So now seems like as good a time as any to sit down and think, well, what do they mean?

First of all the two terms seem to be essentially interchangeable - I've never really heard anyone draw a clear distinction between the two (which makes life a little simpler!). Eco-living has the clue right there in it's name. Eco, derived from ecological, suggests that it's based on living in tune with the ecology and eco-systems around us - plant, animals and the environment we all live in. And that really is what eco and green living are about in a nutshell: trying to live in balance with the world around us.

A key concept that links in with eco-living is that of sustainability. Living sustainably, again as the name implies, refers to living in a way which can be kept up indefinitely. This means not relying heavily on fossil fuels, which will eventually run out, not farming so intensively that the soil becomes infertile and not causing any catastrophic changes to the environment that will irrevocably change the world we live in.

The ways of doing this are many and varied (check out these guides for some ideas) but all result in us trying to reduce the impact that we have on the world around us in one way or another, whether it's by buying local food instead of food transported thousands of miles or whether it's reusing shopping bags to reduce the amount of plastics we use. It's really very simple to take the first steps towards a greener, more eco-friendly lifestyle!

heathrow runway 3: the way not to?

One minute it seems like things are heading in the right direction with plans for eco-towns, the next minute it's all about the plans to build a new runway at the UK's biggest airport. Clearly increasing air traffic is hardly the greenest direction to take transport; worries about the impacts of emissions from flights on climate change are well known. So how exactly does this tie in with the governments apparent commitments to go green and tackle climate change?



As with anything there are arguments both ways. The problem is that where the environment's concerned there are no arguments for. Any benefits that are likely to come from are economic, while the best that anyone can say environmentally is that there's a chance that the impact of a new runway on carbon emissions will be relatively insignificant in the scheme of things. There's two problems with that 1) this only may be the case. The jury is still out on precisely how large the impact is from air traffic on climate change. It is estimated that the new runway would increase the number of flights from 480,000 per year to over 700,000 which seems a pretty significant increase by any one's standards; and 2) nearly all steps we take to reduce carbon emissions have a minimal effect by themselves, it's when you look at the over all picture that they add up to significant reductions.

So what are the arguments in favour of the new runway? Well, first of all the development is estimated to generate £5 billion for the British economy, although this figure will be spread over the next 70 years. There is also the argument that Heathrow will no longer be able to compete as an international airport - it already runs at 99% capacity, leading to huge delays as soon as anything goes wrong.

But there are also other arguments against the runway as well as the environmental ones. Some argue that it's not only the airport that is at capacity bu the roads and other infrastructure surrounding it. For a new runway to be effective it will also be necessary to improve roads and other transport networks to cope with it. Also those of us who don't live in the south east are often obliged to spend time and money commuting to Heathrow as many international flights, especially long haul, operate from there. If there is to be expansion of Britain's airports then perhaps it's not Heathrow that needs to be focused on. Finally there are a number of factors which may impact on air travel in the future, in particular fuel taxes and carbon taxes which may be introduced in order to try and cut carbon emissions. These will have the effect of increasing ticket prices and could potentially reduce the demand for air travel anyway.

So what's happening now? Well, approval for the project has only recently been granted so nothing is certain yet. Many environmental groups are already mounting campaigns against it, in particular Greenpeace who have bought up a plot of land on the proposed site to try and prevent the plans going ahead as well as mounting a campaign called Airplot to raise awareness of the situation. If you want to get involved you can visit their website.

Whatever your point of view on the development it's hard to see how the government can reconcile such a potentially huge increase in air traffic with their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. It's early days yet, and only time will tell what the final outcome will be.

eco-towns: the way to go?

I recently came across the site http://ecotownsyoursay.direct.gov.uk/ outlining plans for the development of a number of new 'eco-towns' across the UK. I was quite suprised I hadn't come across the proposals before, given the scale and significance of such a project.

There are currently 12 sites shortlisted for the development of eco-towns, due to be narrowed down further some time in 2009. Each town will have 5000-10000 homes and aim to exemplify what can be achieved in ters of greener societies. Needless to say the prospect is quite exciting, having the potential to set a benchmark for the development of communities in the UK and even globally.

What did worry me slightly was that it seems not many other people are aware of the project either. This is based on the figures for the 'my eco-town' section of the site, probably one of the most interesting sections, which allows visitors to choose what standards they feel would be most important in the dvelopment of eco-towns. So far there have only been 409 responses, and it's probably fair to assume some people may have had more than one go. It doesn't seem an awful lot for such a potentially important project.

Still, it should be interesting to see what the outcome is. It would be great if the project was a success and we could develop a blueprint for greener communities in the future. Whatever happens I guess the deveopers should take heart that they can't do much worse than urban tower blocks, probably the last major attempt at innovation in housing in the UK...