Although the plan is a step in the right direction, Canada’s largest environmental organizations fear the it is too lenient and not bold enough to save the country’s Boreal Woodland Caribou herds. The Implementation Plan admits that caribou loss is due in part to habitat loss and industrial development, but specifics on how it will reverse the animal’s decline are vague at best.

Three years ago, 500,000 hectares of caribou herd range was made exempt from construction for a five-year review period. Although this provides the caribou some protection, it is only a temporary measure protecting half of British Columbia’s caribou herds. Groups like the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) blame oil and gas exploration for the deterioration of caribou habitat. In fact, 75 percent of Canadian caribou rangeland is also part of petroleum exploration projects. Moreover, 3.5 million hectares of protected land promised by the BC government will continue to allow oil exploration, with some restrictions.

CPAWS hopes leaders will create concrete plans to protect British Columbia’s three caribou populations, the Boreal, Northern Mountain and Southern Mountain. If possible, they would like to create a new national park to protect these creatures.

With the birds are away, the spiders have come out to play. So how was it that multiple bird species just disappeared from the country? It all started with the brown tree snake. Native to coastal areas in Australia, Papua New Guinea and the islands in northwestern Melanesia, the nocturnal brown tree snake is believed to have entered Guam by way of hitching a ride inside cargo planes sometime in the 1940s. Once on the island, brown tree snakes met no natural predators and over time began to take over.

In no time many bird species began to die off because of the snakes, and after only five decades all but two of the island’s dozen native bird species had been wiped out. Never before had research been conducted that looked at the implications caused by an invasive species in an entire forest. By studying this situation in Guam, this team was able to get a first-hand look at the effects an invasive species has on a whole island environment.

“There isn’t any other place in the world that has lost all of its insect-eating birds,” said Haldre Rogers, a Huxley Fellow in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Rice University and the lead author of the study. “There’s no other place you can look to see what happens when birds are removed over an entire landscape.”

Without the birds, the jungle grew eerily quiet and the spiders quickly got to work. In no time, webs accumulated over the jungle canopy—filling in all opens spaces, leaving anyone choosing to walk through unable to do so without the aid of a stick to help clear a path. The problem has gotten so severe that all steps are taken to ensure that brown tree snakes do not leave the island. Every year the United States spends over $1 million to search airplanes flying out of Guam to ensure the snake does not leave.

Yet, even with these measures in place, the average traveler will have a hard time locating the nocturnal reptiles. It is partially for this reason that the problem of eradicating the snakes has become so difficult. And now that the snakes have moved on to preying on lizards, one wonders what effects this new shift will have in the future. Researchers can be sure that their work here is nowhere near finished.

According to Rogers, these results “show that birds have a strong effect on spiders. Anytime you have a reduction in insectivorous birds, the system will probably respond with an increase in spiders.” The study shows that the environment is a fragile interconnected device with precise and individually working functions. When something is out of sync another will falter and then another and another until the whole finds a different way of equalizing. But what exactly be the result of such a correction can hardly be imagined.  Sometimes the adjustment can be subtle; other times, however, spiders may take over.

Photo Credit: sofia.usgs.gov/virtual_tour/pgfernforest.html

The land, which is considered by many to be a “critical habitat” for the large cat species, has been an area of growing concern for conservationists over the years. As the jaguars have been pushed further and further away and into an area that is only a fraction of the size its original territory, it was almost certain that current populations would not be able to keep up and remain sustainable.

“Jaguars once roamed across the United States, from California to Louisiana, but have been virtually extinct here since the 1950s,” explained Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Over the last 20 years, the CBD has spent a considerable amount of time working to bring back dwindling populations of the cat. With this decision, all the work has been well worth the wait. “Today’s habitat proposal will ensure North America’s largest cat returns to the wild mountains and deserts of the Southwest. Jaguars are a spectacular part of our natural heritage and belong to every American—just as surely as bald eagles, wolves and grizzly bears,” said Suckling.

Like other declining animal species in the U.S., jaguars have been pushed from their original stomping grounds by predator-killing programs implemented the federal government. (The gray wolf has also been affected in much of the same way.) Therefore, anytime an animal was deemed a serious threat permission was given for that animal to be killed. Thus it was that the jaguar slipped further and further off the map, and in 1997 the animal was formally listed as an “endangered species”. Only in the past two decades have the animals been able to reclaim areas of Arizona and New Mexico.

With this new proposal, the American jaguar is expected to increase its numbers to a sustainable level. Within a year, the plans should be finalized and areas of Pima, Santa Cruz and Cochise counties in Arizona, and parts of Hidalgo County in New Mexico will be under federal protection. “You can’t protect endangered species without protecting the places they live. Species with protected critical habitat recover twice as fast as those without it,” explained Suckling. “This wild expanse of habitat is a huge boost to the return of jaguars to the American Southwest.” 

Because of the combined determination of conservationists and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the American jaguar may soon see a growth in population. Such effort should not go unnoticed. To express gratitude to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its decision to dedicate land to the protection of the American jaguar, please sign the petition here.

Photo Credit: fws.gov/international/education-zone/meet-the-species.html

There is no known cure for the rodent-borne hantavirus which spreads through contact (or from breathing in air that has come into contact) with the urine, saliva, or droppings of infected animals. Upon entering the body, the hantavirus can lead to fatal diseases like the hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS), a disease all eight of the visitors are known to have contracted. The disease is characterized by a high fatality rate–an estimated 38% of people who contract the disease will eventually die from it.

Because deer mice are a common carrier of the disease, the California Department of Public Health conducted a test in 2010, to estimate how prevalent the disease was in the park. They found that 18 percent of the mice tested from the park carried the virus. Even so, it is rare that humans will become infected with the disease; however if conditions allow, than the transmission is possible. Such was the case at Yosemite’s Curry Village area and High Sierra camps, where the infected persons were known to have camped. Scott Gediman, a Yosemite spokesperson maintains that the camps in question have since undergone a deep cleaning, and the risk is once again minimal.

But that might not be enough according to visitors. Despite the park contacting past guests about the issue, many fear that the park service handled the situation “irresponsibly,” and that sites that were known to have been infected should have been dealt with before additional campers were allowed access.  The biggest issue revolves around whether those camps and tents where the disease was present should have been off-limits to other campers before they were cleaned. For example, visitor Chris Reid, 61, visited Curry Village on August 16—the same day the park learned of the disease—and was not informed about the possible danger during her visit. Reid stated that had she known about the risk she would have left the camp.

“I can’t tell you how reckless I feel this is,” said a psychiatrist from California, another camper who visited the park this summer with his 5-month-old son. “If you have an amusement-park ride where people are dying, you don’t keep the ride open while you fix it.”

According to park officials, everything that could have and should have been done has been taken into account. “We feel that we took the most transparent approach possible,” explained Gediman. “As new information became available, we took the most appropriate.” Despite the disagreement, what can be certain is that the park must take better steps to alerting patrons of similar situations in the future. To petition the regional director of the National Park Service to develop a better emergency response plans for future crises such as this, sign the petition here.

Photo Credit: cnr07.llnl.gov/

“There are many reasons Shell wasn’t able to drill this year, but the big culprit is Shell’s own lack of preparedness. From not meeting its Clean Air permits to a damaged oil spill containment dome, Shell showed that it just couldn’t drill safely,” says the Sierra Club. It is clear “that the unpredictability of the Arctic environment, from sea ice to storms, makes the Arctic one of the most challenging places to work in the world.”

Shell has admitted that it is not prepared to drill in the Arctic. While testing a containment dome that would collect oil in the event of a spill, the dome malfunctioned. One of the company’s oil containment barges has not been able to obtain certification from the United States Coast Guard, due to fluid leaks and problems with safety systems and onboard stowage.

“Company officials said they will continue to drill “top holes” off the Alaskan coast through the end of this season’s drilling window, but will not attempt to reach any oil deposits this year,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

While top holes are not deep enough to reach underground oil, they can be further drilled and expanded to become oil wells in the future. Drilling in the Arctic is hazardous due to harsh and unpredictable environmental conditions, and could have massive negative effects on the environment and wildlife – including polar bears – if a spill were to occur. Additionally, Greenpeace found deep-sea soft corals in the drilling area of the Chukchi Sea this summer, but Shell has denied that its drilling operations would significantly and permanently harm the corals.

Amidst halting its oil drilling operations, Shell Oil, whose global headquarters are in the Netherlands, sued Greenpeace International (also based in the Netherlands) last week over protests by the environmental organization. Shell claims that protests conducted by Greenpeace supporters and activists have gone too far, citing a recent event in which protesters obstructed more than 70 of the company’s gas stations in the Netherlands. Shell is seeking a six-month restraining order against Greenpeace that would require all of the organization’s protests to be held more than 500 meters (1,640 feet) away from Shell’s properties or face a $1.3 million fine. The pending lawsuit will be settled soon in Dutch courts and will only apply to protests held in the Netherlands.

Environmental organizations – including the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Credo Action – have all pressured the federal government to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic. The federal government has expressed support for Shell and for domestic oil production recently, but if the United States wants to play a leading role in stopping climate change, becoming less reliant on foreign oil – or, better, oil in general – and developing forward-thinking ways of responsibly using natural resources as forms of energy, the federal government must take action and invest in cleaner energy. To express your approval for Shell’s actions in halting its drilling plans for this year, and to urge the federal government to prohibit further drilling and environmental damage in the Arctic, sign the Sierra Club’s petition and encourage your friends and family to add their names as well. 

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/gsfc/7348953774/

And it all comes down to the sea otter diet: Sea urchins, a delicacy most preferred by the otters, feed voraciously off of live kelp forests. Because sea otters help to keep populations of sea urchins at bay, kelp is given a greater chance to thrive. In order to get a better idea about the impact sea otters have on kelp forests, researchers from UCSC took a look at 40 years of data concerning otter activity and kelp blooms in an area spanning from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Canada’s Vancouver Island.

After examining the date, the researchers found that where sea otters were most populous sea urchins were less prevalent and kelp was better able to bloom. Although it is an indirect effect, it is important one nonetheless. Kelp forests where sea otters frequent are able to absorb up to 12 times more carbon dioxide then in areas with less of the furry animals. What is more, researchers also discovered that CO2 absorbed in otter-kelp areas could be worth anywhere between $205 million and $408 million on the European Carbon Exchange.

Funded by both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the full scientific report has been published in the newest (September 7) edition of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Chris Wilmers, an assistant professor at UCSC believes that, without a doubt, this information is significant “because it shows that animals can have a big influence on the carbon cycle.” While researchers acknowledge the largeness of this finding, it is still very safe to say that sea otters will not singlehandedly balance the atmosphere’s oxygen to carbon dioxide ratio. But knowing that animals like the sea otter have a way of affecting the greater environment can lead to greater protection of animal species around the world. “If ecologists can get a better handle on what these impacts are, there might be opportunities for win-win conservation scenarios, whereby animal species are protected or enhanced, and carbon gets sequestered,” said Wilmers.

The days of global warming speculation are over; now, the knowledge that CO2 levels are becoming much too high is a pressing issue all around the world. This new information has provided us with a new way at looking at the problem and into ways to help battle it. “Right now, all the climate change models and proposed methods of sequestering carbon ignore animals,” explained Wilmers. Climate change can no longer be ignored; and the animals that are affected by it can no longer either.

Photo Credit: soundwaves.usgs.gov/2006/02/research.html

In the past, researchers have dived fully into the topic of elephant communication to try and “crack the code” behind the sounds. While looking into the topic, elephant researcher Joyce Poole found that elephants use more than 70 types of vocal sounds to express themselves to their clan. Add these are just the noises that we humans are able to hear. As it turns out, much of elephant communication is carried out on a sound frequency too low for humans to hear, between one and 20 Hertz per second. These incredibly low-pitched vocalizations are known as infrasounds and can travel for miles.

With this information already largely considered, a new set of studies went underway to try and discovery how these low-registering sounds were produced. Were the infasounds produced by a set of quick muscle contractions like that of a cat purring, or were the sounds coming from air being pushed through the vocal chords like that of a human voice? After the unfortunate but natural passing of an elephant at a Berlin zoo, researchers were granted the chance to study the vocal mechanism—the larynx—firsthand.

Christian Herbst of the University of Vienna, along with his colleagues, began their process by removing the elephant’s larynx and freezing it within hours of the animal’s passing. The organ was then taken to the larynx laboratory at the University of Vienna’s Department of Cognitive Biology, where Tecumseh Fitch joined the team and authored the project. It was this collaboration between voice scientists and biologists that set the research on the correct path.

In order to test the larynx out, Herbst and researchers began to mimic the animal’s lung by blowing humid air through the larynx. The vocal folds were adjusted to “vocal ready” positions and the infrasounds were successfully produced. Because the scientists were able to replicate these sounds almost effortlessly, this shows that elephants utilize a myoelastic-aerodynamic method of communication—or, in the same way as humans. From this, the team inferred that many animal sounds off the grid from human perception are caused in the same manner.

Additionally, another (nonlinear) phenomenon became even clearer. These “nonlinear phenomena” are present when it seems that a note on the human scale of hearing is hit—remember that screaming baby on an airplane? That one. Elephants, it turns out, are able to hit these notes as well. “If I scream, it’s no longer a periodic vibration. It becomes chaotic and you can hear a certain degree of roughness,” Herbst explained. “This can also be observed in young elephants, in situations of high excitement.”

Photo Credit: news.science360.gov/obj/pic-day/ef37d299-6d7c-4319-ab34-4e71114d36fe/elephant-family

A clean environment, what an idea. While the Senate bill was not a proposed miracle, it certainly would have been a start. Let’s face it, styrofoam is just about everywhere, and not just because it is cheap and convenient (although it most certainly is). Piled high or buried deep, this cheap and harmful material is imbedded just about everywhere—along highways and streams, coastlines, and mountain areas. Certainly it has proven that what is most convenient is oftentimes the most destructive, and not just because it’s everywhere but because convenient habits are also the hardest to break.

Cosponsored by both Clean Water Action and the Surfrider Foundation, SB-568 “would prohibit the distribution and use of eps [expanded polystyrene] foam containers by food vendors and prepared food. It includes definitions for customers, food vendors, polystyrene food containers, and prepared food.” With plenty of backing, SB-568 passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the Assembly on Natural Resources, and the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. But on the last day of the session the Assembly Floor failed to pass the legislation.

And that is where it stands as of now: an undeniable setback. For those opposed to the bill, the issue seems to come from a fear that by getting rid of the product, those whose livelihoods depend on its production will be out of a job. And while there is no doubt that this should be a concern, it does not have to be. If and when styrofoam is banned, there is also going to have to be an alternative product to take its place. This will still need to be marketed and still need to be sold. Switching from one to another may not be easy but important things are often not.

Even with the breaks put on the bill, many California communities have taken matters into their own hands. More than 60 cities and counties have already established their own bans on the material; and with more and more businesses and companies committing to a styrofoam-free agenda, the number is expected to increase.

Famed French explorer and environmentalist Jean-Michel Cousteau explains that a cleaner future is one that does not (and cannot) involve styrofoam products:

 “…to successfully and unconditionally prevent the degradation of our environment, we as a people, as a society, must change our ways. Specifically, we must recognize the harm caused by discarding styrofoam, and stop it…if styrofoam is banned—if styrofoam is not available to litter and end up in our landfills—we are all better off…In other words, in our efforts to preserve and protect our planet, let’s use all realistic and obvious capabilities. Banning styrofoam is one of those capabilities.”

In the end, California is better off without expanded polystyrene foam. With government backing, the transition away from this harmful material to a more environmentally-friendly alternative will be much smoother. And as big a state as California is, the change could be enough to spark positive change on the larger scale. California may have just passed on a great opportunity, but with Governor Jerry Brown’s backing it has another chance at approval. To urge California Governor Jerry Brown to ban expanded polystyrene foam containers in California, please sign the petition here.

Photo Credit: zev.lacounty.gov/news/environment/county-may-say-so-long-to-styrofoam

Particulate pollution, also known as soot, is an airborne contaminant, and one of the most dangerous ones at that. Soot is made of microscopic bits of matter and that matter can penetrate people’s lungs and infiltrate their bloodstream. Soot is proven to contribute to heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks, bronchitis, and in some cases ultimately death. Strokes are the third largest cause of death in the United States, with about 700,000 new or recurrent cases each year. This costs around 30 billion dollars annually. All of which could be reduced if the Environmental Protection agency strengthens it standards of soot pollution.

There is also an environmental toll from soot, not just the negative effects on human health. Particulate pollution has serious environmental impacts such as impairing the visibility of national parks like the Great Smoky Mountains. They may be called Smoky, but it is soot that prevents them from being seen. Soot also will contaminate water and plant life in regions it is found. In particular it depletes nutrients from the soil and erodes landscapes. Particulate pollution is also related to acid rain.

The Environmental Protection Agency understands these affects, but is long overdue proposing changes to the standards for fine particulate pollution, which includes soot. The new proposal would strengthen health standards and lead to local environmental benefits like cleaner air for everyone. The new standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency in May of 2012 would save thousands of lives each year and ensure healthier, longer lives for millions of Americans.

Epidemiologists have studied populations over time and have been able to tease out that people living in areas with higher soot pollution are more likely to die earlier than people living in areas that have lower soot pollution. Soot pollution especially affects the young and the elderly, who are more susceptible to inhalation because of weak immune systems. Another study recently was concluded and determined that this is true by watching populations in six cities for a total of eight thousand participants over thirty years. It studied the annual, chronic level of soot exposure to each of these 8000 people. The Six Cities Study shows that soot pollution shortens lives even at levels considered safe by the Environmental Protection Agency’s standards. The study therefore suggests that soot pollution kills people at all level of pollution. To support the Environmental Protection Agency’s strengthening of standards please sign this petition at The Environmental Defense Fund.

Photo credit: blog.epa.gov/administrator/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/industry_021.jpg

Arctic sea ice measured 3,118 cubic miles in the summer of 2004, but had dropped to just 1,679 cubic miles by this summer. The ice melted by 77,220 square miles in only three days at the beginning of last month. This summer, 97 percent of arctic ice in Greenland has begun to melt on its surface, and the ice on the Eastern Siberian Sea is melting rapidly as well; only the ice off of the northeastern coast of Greenland has remained at a normal level (levels measured between 1979 and 2000). Overall, 30 percent of Arctic ice has been lost since 1979, when levels were first recorded via satellite.

Implications of Arctic sea ice melting can be felt around the world as ocean levels rise and coastal communities continue to be threatened with flooding. Although it is difficult for scientists to pinpoint the exact culprit of the Arctic sea ice’s decline, it is likely caused in part by the increased temperatures that climate change brings, but also by natural fluctuations in weather patterns. It is possible that melting ice leads to a loss of more ice as the melted ice absorbs more heat, but scientists consider this an unlikely explanation for how rapidly the ice has declined this year.

The NSIDC is a research-based group that studies the Arctic environment, glaciers, snow, ice, and frozen ground, and publishes data regarding the state of the Arctic. Environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, 350.org, and the Sierra Club have drafted a petition to reach out to the general public and gain support for reducing carbon pollution. The petition is aimed at the EPA, which the groups want to enforce science-based regulations on carbon pollution in order to preserve the environment and mitigate the effects of climate change. The petition’s supporters are urging the EPA to use the Clean Air Act to cut pollution by restricting the concentration of carbon in the air to 350 parts per million (ppm) (down from the current concentration of 392 ppm), a move that would drastically reduce the effects of pollution and global warming.

“While carbon dioxide isn’t the only global warming pollutant we need to control, it’s the number-one contributor to climate change,” the petition says. “For four decades, the Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe through a proven, successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits exceeding its costs by many times. It’s time to fully use one of our strongest existing tools for reducing greenhouse gas pollution: the Clean Air Act.”

Add your name to the petition and tell your friends and family to support these environmental conservation efforts today.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/gsfc/6151061573/