The world’s mammals are in the grip of an extinction crisis, with almost one in four at risk of vanishing forever, according to the latest scientific assessment revealed at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s World Conservation Congress, which opened Sunday in Barcelona.

The new study conducted for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species for the first time assessed all of the 5,487 mammals on Earth and found that at least 1,141 of them are known to be threatened with extinction.

At least 76 mammals have become extinct since the year 1500.

The real situation could be much worse as 836 mammals are listed as Data Deficient. With better information, scientists may classify even more species as being in danger of extinction.

“Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live,” said Julia Marton-Lef�vre, IUCN director general.

“The reality is that the number of threatened mammals could be as high as 36 percent,” said Jan Schipper of Conservation International, lead author in a forthcoming article on the mammal assessment in the journal “Science.”

“This indicates that conservation action backed by research is a clear priority for the future, not only to improve the data so that we can evaluate threats to these poorly known species, but to investigate means to recover threatened species and populations,” said Schipper.

The project to assess the world’s mammals was conducted with help from more than 1,800 scientists from over 130 countries.

The assessment also indicates that conservation can bring species back from the brink of extinction, with five percent of currently threatened mammals showing signs of recovery in the wild.

“We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives,” said Marton-Lef�vre.

The results show 188 mammals are in the highest threat category of Critically Endangered, including the Iberian Lynx, Lynx pardinus, which has a population of between 84 and143 adults and has continued to decline due to a shortage of its primary prey, the European rabbit, Oryctolagus cuniculus. 

Two of the marine mammals teetering on the edge of extinction are found only in New Zealand - the Hector’s dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori, and the closely related Maui’s dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori ssp. maui. A mere 111 Maui’s dolphins remain, and the species is classified as Critically Endangered on the new Red List.

Gill netting and trawling are killing these dolphins faster than they can breed, says the conservation organization Care for the Wild International. Since the introduction of nylon filament gill nets in the 1970s, Hector’s dolphin numbers have dropped by two thirds from some 29,000 to below 8,000. The situation for Maui’s dolphins is worse as 90 percent have already been lost and fewer than 30 adult females survive.

These dolphins are falling victim to human economic activities, as are many of the most vulnerable mammals species.

CWI Chief Executive Dr. Barbara Maas, a former employee of New Zealand’s Department of Conservation, charged with the protection of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins, says, “In May, the government announced extensions to no-fishing zones and improved controls to further Hector’s and Maui’s dolphin protection. The decision followed years of research and extensive public consultation.”

“Fishing industry representatives participated in these discussions from the outset, but last month industry bodies announced that they will take the government to court over the new measures, arguing that jobs and businesses are at risk,” Maas said.

It may be too late to save the 29 species that have been flagged as Critically Endangered Possibly Extinct, including a rodent once found in Cuba, the Little Earth Hutia, Mesocapromys sanfelipensis, which has not been seen in nearly 40 years.

Nearly 450 mammals have been listed as Endangered, including the Tasmanian devil, Sarcophilus harrisii, which was moved from the category of Least Concern to Endangered after the global population declined by more than 60 percent in the last 10 years due to a fatal infectious facial cancer.

The fishing cat, Prionailurus viverrinus, found in Southeast Asia, moved from Vulnerable to Endangered due to habitat loss in wetlands.

The Caspian seal, Pusa caspica, moved from Vulnerable to Endangered. Its population has declined by 90 percent in the last 100 years due to unsustainable hunting and habitat degradation and is still decreasing.

Habitat loss and degradation affect 40 percent of the world’s mammals. It is most extreme in Central and South America, West, East and Central Africa, Madagascar, and in South and Southeast Asia. Over harvesting is wiping out larger mammals, especially in Southeast Asia, but also in parts of Africa and South America.

The grey-faced Sengi or elephant-shrew, Rhynchocyon udzungwensis, is only known from two forests in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania, both of which are fully protected but vulnerable to fires. The species was first described this year and has been placed in the Vulnerable category.

“This massive tabulation of the locations and often precarious situations of the Earth’s mammal species spotlights our need for an increased understanding of the regional changes that are the ultimate challenge to the survival of many of these incredible creatures,” says Dr. Thomas Skalak, vice president for research at the University of Virginia.

The assessment of the world’s mammals shows that species can recover with concerted conservation efforts. The black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes, moved from Extinct in the Wild to Endangered after a successful reintroduction by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into eight western states and Mexico from 1991-2008.

Similarly, the wild horse, Equus ferus, moved from Extinct in the Wild in 1996 to Critically Endangered this year after successful reintroductions started in Mongolia in the early 1990s.
Pere David’s Deer, Elaphurus davidianus, endemic to China, is listed as Extinct in the Wild. However, the captive and semi-captive populations have increased in recent years and the IUCN says it is possible that truly wild populations could be re-established soon.

The African elephant, Loxodonta africana, moved from Vulnerable to Near Threatened, although its status varies considerably across its range. The move reflects the recent and ongoing population increases in major populations in southern and eastern Africa. These increases are big enough to outweigh any decreases that may be taking place elsewhere.

“The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to prevent future extinctions,” says Dr. Jane Smart, Head of IUCN’s Species Programme. “We now know what species are threatened, what the threats are and where - we have no more excuses to watch from the sidelines.”

“No other tool is as valuable for conservation as the Red List, which provides scientists and decision makers with an important set of information, freely available to the public, to improve the effectiveness of our conservation efforts,” says Dr. Russell Mittermeier, chair of IUCN’s Primate Specialist Group and president of Conservation International.

The mammal assessment was made possible by the volunteer help of IUCN Species Survival Commission’s specialist groups and the collaborations between top institutions and universities, including Conservation International, Sapienza Universit� di Roma, Arizona State University, Texas A&M University, University of Virginia, and the Zoological Society of London.

“We are now emerging from the dark ages of conservation knowledge, when we relied on data from a highly restricted subset of species,” says Dr Jonathan Baillie, director of conservation programs at the Zoological Society of London. “In the future we will expand the scope of our species knowledge to include a far broader range of groups, thus informing and assisting policy makers in a hugely more objective and representative manner.”

This article was found in Greenzine Magazine.

September 2008 article from Ecobroker Magazine - By Ryan Moehring

With just about a month to go before one of the most anticipated presidential elections in U.S. history, we thought that you might appreciate a non-partisan snapshot on where the candidates stand on climate and energy issues.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Both candidates support a cap-and-trade system. For the uninitiated, this type of system is designed to cut overall emissions by a predetermined, legally enforced percentage. Every large-scale carbon emitter has to obtain a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide it emits into the atmosphere. Over time, the limits become stricter until the ultimate reduction goal is met. This is the cap. The trade results when companies who do not use all of their permits sell them to companies who cannot make their reductions. In this way, overall reductions are assured and more efficient companies are rewarded. Under Barack Obama’s plan, U.S. emissions would be cut by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. John McCain proposes reducing emissions by 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. While Obama would auction off 100 percent of emission credits, McCain would initially give away credits then eventually phase in a similar auction structure. McCain would also allow companies to buy carbon offsets instead of reducing their emissions, a policy Obama opposes.

Renewable Energy
John McCain recently unveiled his Lexicon Project, which is described on his web site as an “all of the above energy solution.” McCain supports renewable energy and concedes that “green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future,” but he has not offered a specific plan to date. He has said that he will “encourage the market for alternative, low carbon fuels such as wind, hydro, and solar power.” Obama supports a renewable portfolio standard. Under his plan, the U.S. would get 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2012. That number would increase to 25 percent by 2025. Over the next 10 years, Obama would invest $150 billion in renewables, biofuels, and efficiency, an endeavor he claims will create 5 million green jobs.

Nuclear Energy
John McCain is an ardent supporter of nuclear power and has pledged to build 45 new nuclear plants in the U.S. by 2030, eventually increasing that number to 100 new plants. Barack Obama has stated that nuclear power should “continue to be part of the energy mix,” but has also stated that it is “not a great option,” citing concerns with safety and storage of spent nuclear reactive fuel rods. Obama has opposed storage of such nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain storage facility.

Offshore Drilling
Both candidates have been accused of “flip-flopping” on the issue of offshore drilling. Historically, Barack Obama has opposed opening up our coastal waters to drilling. In August 2008, he conceded that he would consider “some” offshore drilling if doing so would ensure the passage of a comprehensive energy plan. John McCain also has strongly opposed domestic offshore drilling in the past. However, his stance has recently changed and he now supports drilling. According to his web site, “the current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production.”

Fuel Economy Standards
Both candidates have said that fuel economy standards for automobiles should be raised. While John McCain has not offered specific targets, he has said that he would more strictly enforce existing standards, as many auto manufacturers routinely ignore them and opt to pay a small fine for their noncompliance. Barack Obama has suggested spending $4 billion to help auto manufacturers update their plants to produce more efficient vehicles. He would also increase fuel efficiency standards by 4 percent, which equals roughly one mile per gallon, per year. Obama also supports putting one million plug-in hybrids on the road by 2012. McCain has pledged to give away a $300 million prize to the developer of a battery that significantly bolsters the storage capacity of plug-in and hybrid vehicles.

To learn more about the candidates’ positions on other critical energy and environmental issues, please visit the following websites:

http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech
_080308.pdf

http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

Descriptions of the candidates and their policies are not and should not be perceived as endorsements. EcoBroker does not endorse political candidates. However, we do hope that the preceding paragraphs provide you with enough information to spark your interest and encourage you to learn more about the issues. Voting is an important right you hold as an American and we sincerely hope that you will exercise that right this November

I read this article in Sundance Channel’s Greenzine today (9/16/08).  The title caught my attention, but read on, the title is deceptive!

Bush Officials Sued for Steering $350M to Forest Foundations....Posted September 15, 2008 02:00PM

SEATTLE, Washington, September 11, 2008 (ENS) - A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Bush administration alleging that federal officials diverted $350 million from the public treasury to forestry foundations “dominated by the timber industry.”

The suit alleges that the administration violated federal appropriations law when, in September 2006, without any public process or congressional approval, the administration steered $350 million from Canadian lawsuit settlement funds to the foundations.

The plaintiff organizations - the Forest Stewardship Council-US, Conservation Northwest, and the Center for Biological Diversity - say they filed the lawsuit because they are committed to promoting sustainable forestry in the United States.

The Washington Forest Law Center, a public interest law firm based in Seattle, filed the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs in federal court in Seattle.

The defendants are the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection.

“Once again the Bush administration has made up its own rules,” said Joe Scott, International Programs director of Washington-based Conservation Northwest.

“Here, the administration illegally gave away hundreds of millions of public dollars to organizations whose programs are not clearly established to advance the public interest,” said Scott.
An example of Georgia’s upland maritime
forest. (Photo courtesy U. of Georgia)

The groups are asking the court to declare that the Bush administration violated the law and asks the court to take reasonable and fair steps to ensure that the money is safeguarded until the administration follows the law.

One of the co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit, represents a forest certification system.

Corey Brinkema, president of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council-US, said the organization joined the lawsuit because, “FSC-US and our partners work tirelessly to develop and promote the highest standards for forest management, as well as provide the public the opportunity to reward responsible forestry through choosing FSC-labeled products. The administration’s action is a huge setback that, if left unchecked, could significantly lower the bar for what is represented as sustainable forestry.”

The suit alleges that money the Bush administration earmarked to the two timber industry-dominated organizations, the U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, Inc. and the American Forest Foundation, should instead have gone into the US Treasury.

“How this money is spent should have been up to Congress, not timber industry executives in a backroom deal with the administration,” said Bill Snape, senior attorney for the plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity.
Forested land in northern Idaho
(Photo by Terry Gray)

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities is a not-for-profit corporation established in September 2006, at the request of the governments of the United States and Canada in accordance with the terms of the Softwood Lumber Agreement between the two countries and endowed with $200 million. The Endowment is one of three entities designated to share in a one-time infusion of funds to support “meritorious initiatives” in the United States.

The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit organization that works with family forest owners. It was chartered in 1981 “to encourage the long-term sustainability of America’s forests, restore wildlife habitat, and develop quality environmental education programs.”

The AFF Board of Trustees includes officials of the National Audubon Society, the Aldo Leopold Foundation, and the American Bird Conservancy as well as packaging company MeadWestvaco and timber company Weyerhaeuser, as well as keyboardist Chuck Leavell, known for his work with The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and The Allman Brothers Band, among others.

The AFF adheres to the sustainability standards of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification PEFC, based in Geneva, Switzerland, a rival of the plaintiff Forest Stewardship Council.

Green Building Products are in the Big-Box game now.

Most spring Saturday mornings at The Home Depot, a steady stream of customers comes to peruse cabinets, countertops and showerheads; rose bushes, tomato plants and compost; barbecues, lawn chairs and weed whackers. Trying to be all things to all do-it-yourself-ers, The Home Depot introduced its Eco Options label in 2007 as a way to meet a growing demand from customers that had begun adding “energy-efficient,” “low-VOC,” and “organic” to their home improvement shopping lists.

Through a reportedly stringent process of elimination, the company pinpointed about 3,000 items ranging from compact fluorescent light fixtures (CFLs) to organic plants it deemed had less impact on the environment than their conventional counterparts. The campaign paid off. In 2007, Eco Options products sold as well or better than similar products, exceeding sales goals and reaching $3 billion.

With a goal of increasing the number of products in the Eco Options line to 6,000 by 2009, the company is scrambling to find products that fit the green mold. But not all manufacturers of green building products are viewing the big-box retailer or its largest competitor, Lowe’s as a silver bullet. 

As U.S. home sales and the value of the dollar continue to decline, market analysts are predicting more homeowners will opt to stay closer to home in 2008, spending more than $170 billion remodeling their homes. Even more, spending on home improvements is likely to increase 44 percent between 2005 and 2015, according to “State of the Nation’s Housing 2007,” published in June 2007 by the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. The center cites U.S. homeowners’ growing desire to invest in energy-efficient retrofits as a key factor driving such spending.

Despite an increasing number of environmental building supply stores opening up along the West Coast, most homeowners end up at big-box retailers to meet their home improvement needs. A 2007 survey conducted by Germantown, Tenn.–based Consumer Specialists showed customers slightly prefer shopping at Lowe’s. However, with a total of 2,234 retail stores worldwide, The Home Depot ranked significantly higher for its convenient locations, which was the strongest factor in determining where respondents chose to spend their money.

The world’s largest home improvement retailer, The Home Depot reported net earnings of $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2007. While a significant drop from its 2006 net earnings of $5.8 billion, the figure was almost double that of Lowe’s, which reported 2007 net earnings of $2.81 billion. Its buying power makes the retailer highly regarded by manufacturers vying for prominent shelf space, including companies serving the green building sector.

Perhaps the most pleasant economic savings can be derived from judicious and mindful planting of trees and shrubs. The value of traditional plantings serving as windbreaks is well known. Additionally, well-placed deciduous trees can shade a building during hot summer months yet allow warming sunshine to enter a building when warmth is needed in the winter. The summer shading feature of trees is particularly important for the following reason. Most homes are cooled with traditional window- or central- air conditioners using fractional horsepower single-phase electric motors and modern refrigerants (chlorofluorocarbons that are less potent greenhouse gases than their predecessors). The electro-mechanical efficiency of air conditioner components ranges from 35-50% based upon the electrical energy available at the plug. But that electricity is arriving at your building with an overall efficiency of about 30% based upon the energy content of the fuel going into the central electrical power plant. So, when the overall fuel cycle is considered, building air conditioning is about 10-20% efficient, on the basis of energy flow. Fortunately, humans feel a ‘cooling effect’ from simple air movement that increases evaporation from the skin. Most air conditioning rating systems incorporate this ‘cooling effect’, so their efficiency numbers do not appear quite so grim. However, when shade trees cool a house such that one unit of air conditioning energy is avoided, 5 to 10 units of primary energy are avoided at the power plant. This is not only an important economic savings to you, but also a very important environmental savings to the community.

Estimated Cost Savings:
Air conditioning in buildings represents 13-15% of your annual electricity budget, and a larger fraction during summer months. By reducing the amount of air conditioning required, shade trees directly affect your bottom line. The cost of quality shade trees ranges from a few dollars for a seedling to several hundred for a much larger tree. It�s a good idea to get at least an 8-10 foot high tree if possible. The sooner the tree grows shading capacity, the sooner you can enjoy savings. The amount of savings can vary widely due to local circumstances but typical savings are on the order of 10-20% of a summer electric bill. Similar savings from a windbreak will be realized in winter during the heating season.

Issues:
Consider planting several varieties of trees: some fast-growing species (such as ash or aspen) for quick shade and more durable, slower-growing and longer-lasting trees (such as maple or oak) that will eventually dominate. Shop around for the best warranty on trees. Many nurseries provide planting and care instructions and will offer a one-year replacement guarantee.

Regional Issues:
Plant varieties appropriate to your climate. Some species of trees grow more slowly than others so you need to get started as soon as planting season arrives.

Installation (Getting It Done):
Spring and fall are the best times to plant. Be sure to follow planting instructions and err on the side of digging too large a hole. Be sure to incorporate organic material in the planting soil and to stake trees to provide mechanical support. Mulch heavily and water thoroughly during summer dry spells.

Be sure to get bids from two or three (or more) nurseries and/or landscaping contractors if you choose not to plant the trees yourself. Multiple bids will allow you to gain immediate perspective on the true costs and value of trees in your area.

References:
Cooling Our Communities, A Guidebook on Tree Planting and Light-Colored Surfacing, US EPA 22P-2001, January, 1992.

More Information On This Topic:

U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: Landscaping

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resource Conservation Service: Windbreaks