Category Archives: Environment

Arts, Environment, Nature, Photography

MD Photography: Eurasian Eagle-Owl…

Eurasian eagle-owl, south-west Scotland. Photograph: © Mark Dowe 2013: all rights reserved

ABOUT THE EURASIAN EAGLE-OWL

Eagle Owls occupy a variety of habitats, from coniferous forests to warm deserts. Rocky landscapes are often favoured. Adequate food supply and nesting sites seem to be the most important prerequisites.

Usually most active at dawn and dusk, the Eurasian eagle-owl has a powerful, fast flight, which is somewhat reminiscent of that of a buzzard. Hunting occurs from an open perch or in flight, and the owl may also search rock crevices for roosting birds, take both adult and young birds from nests, or even plunge into water to capture fish. The diet mainly consists of mammals, up to the size of adult hares or even young deer, as well as birds up to the size of herons and buzzards, and occasionally amphibians, reptiles, fish and insects.

The Eurasian eagle-owl usually begins breeding from late winter. The nest might be located on a sheltered cliff ledge, in a cave or crevice, in the old nest of another species (such as storks or large birds of prey), or occasionally in a tree hole or on the ground. The species has always been considered to be monogamous, but some cases of bigamy have been recorded recently. A breeding pair may use the same nest site over several years. Between one and five eggs are laid, and are incubated by the female for 34 to 36 days, during which time the male brings food to the nest. The young owls first leave the nest at around five weeks, but cannot fly until about seven weeks old, and remain dependent on the adults for a further three to four months, not generally starting to disperse until approximately 170 days old. The Eurasian eagle-owl reaches sexually maturity at 1 year, and may live up to 21 years or more in the wild, or to an impressive 60 years in captivity.

The Eurasian eagle-owl has one of the largest ranges of any eagle-owl, being found across much of Europe, through the Middle East, Russia and Asia, and as far east as China, Korea and Japan. Although generally absent from Britain and Ireland, small numbers are now beginning to breed in Britain.

This owl usually inhabits natural rocky areas with cliffs and ravines, as well as quarries and buildings, patches of woodland or scattered trees. It also occurs in open forest, taiga, wooded steppe, semi-desert, and farmland with suitable rocky areas, and can be found at elevations of up to about 2,000 metres in Europe and 4,500 metres in Central Asia and the Himalayas. More recently, this species has started to colonise urban habitats and is now breeding in several towns in Europe.

Standard
Britain, Environment, Government

Energy firms heavily criticised by MPs on the Energy and Climate Change Committee…

ENERGY FIRMS SLAMMED

A major report by MPs has warned that swingeing green stealth levies on energy bills are ‘perverse’ and should be scrapped.

MPs also call for middle-class pensioners to lose their winter fuel allowance, with the savings redirected to help low-income households insulate their homes.

They have also attacked the regulator OFGEM for failing to hold giant energy firms to account for soaring prices.

The findings were delivered in a report by the Commons energy and climate change committee, which warns that, based on Government estimates, green levies will add a third to electricity prices by 2020 – even before likely rises in wholesale prices are factored in.

The Government has been accused of using stealth taxes to fund the huge subsidies given to green energy firms. These are needed, ministers say, to meet controversial carbon reduction targets set by the last government.

But MPs on the Commons energy and climate committee have warned that most families have no idea that the green energy drive is costing them dear. Their report states:

… There is no widespread understanding by consumers of how much of their bills is made up of levies.

The average family pays £1,267 towards energy bills, with £112 comprising green taxes – £18 of which is directly spent on subsidising giant wind farms. By 2020 the contribution will have increased by more than 150 per cent, with each household estimated to pay £286 as part of their bills, according to the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

The committee’s report also says:

… Increasing use of levies on bills to fund energy and climate policies is problematic since it is likely to hit hardest those least able to pay.

MPs on the committee suggested that if the green subsidies are to continue they should be funded through the tax system which is more transparent and ‘less regressive than the levies’.

The report questions the repeated claims by ministers that families will see lower bills as a result of Government policies, which include measures to promote energy efficiency. The committee is calling on ministers to start an ‘honest conversation’ about the fact that energy bills are highly likely to continue to rise.

Since 2007, average prices of gas and electricity have increased by 41 per cent – 20 per cent in real terms – leaving millions of households in ‘fuel poverty’. MPs warned that the public’s ‘deep mistrust’ of energy providers will continue unless they show greater transparency and reassure households that high prices are not fuelling excessive profits.

The Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank, says there is little or nothing to be said in favour of energy bill levies. They hurt the poor most, they reduce competition in the energy markets and make supplier-switching less effective. The Energy Foundation says that because the levies camouflage government taxation they reduce democratic accountability.

Green taxes account for nearly 10 per cent of energy bills. They include an EU-imposed levy on industry and power generators for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, the cost of which is then passed on to consumers.

Customers also cover the cost of energy companies’ obligation to source more electricity from costly renewable sources – such as offshore wind farms and biofuel, to reduce fossil fuel use – and the requirement for suppliers to install free or subsidised heat saving measure, such as loft insulation or draught-proofing.

Whilst David Cameron has ruled out any change to the winter fuel allowance before the election in 2015, the report by MPs re-opens the debate over whether better-off pensioners should continue to receive the payment which is worth up to £300 a year. The cross-party committee is urging ministers to introduce ‘better targeting of the winter fuel allowance through means-testing’ and to consider ‘how savings could be used to boost investment in energy efficiency programmes’.

MPs also said they were ‘disappointed at OFGEM’s slow progress’ in forcing the energy giants to reveal how much they are making from household bills.

The regulator must ‘use its teeth’ and force energy firms to explain the reasons behind price rises, the report says.

Energy firms were also criticised for ‘falling far short of what is required to increase transparency’ as well as failing to improve consumer trust.

But Energy Secretary Ed Davey has rejected the suggestion that ministers were misleading the public over the impact of green measures on bills. He said:

… Our policies to support renewable energy and reduce energy waste are insulating consumers from the rising cost of fossil fuels.

… And by 2020, our analysis shows household energy bills will on average be £166 lower than they would if we did nothing.

COMMENT

After years of relentless price rises, families across Britain are already struggling to pay electric and gas bills which, on average, include £112 in green taxes and levies.

Yet, as Westminster’s climate and energy committee has warned, this crisis is to get much worse – with the value of these ‘perverse’ levies rocketing by 150 per cent between now and 2020.

On countless occasions, government ministers and supine regulators have promised they will force energy companies to introduce simplified, easily comparable tariffs and bills the public can readily understand.

Yet still the obfuscation goes on. As utility charges soar – along with profits for the Big Six – customers remain saddled with indecipherable bills that leave them dumbfounded over whether they are getting the best deal. Charitable organisations, including the Citizen’s Advisory Service, are receiving record numbers of calls from desperate households struggling with debts, after energy bills have rocketed by as much as 40 per cent in real terms since 2007.

And with yet more increases threatened on top of the 11 per cent so far this year, those on fixed low incomes will suffer the most. How much longer can the authorities stand by while this ruthless exploitation continues?

There are many things that could be done. For instance, minsters could scrap the posturing green taxes that already add £112 to average bills. This could be done at a stroke. The regulator, OFGEM, could also do far more by ensuring gas and electricity companies are more transparent and straightforward in their dealings.

Standard
Biotechnology, Britain, Environment, European Union, Government, Health, Research, Science, Technology

Genetically modified foods and technology – kick it into the long grass…

Despite deep public hostility in Britain, the UK Government is stepping up its campaign in favour of genetically modified foods. Masquerading as champions of progress and prosperity, ministers want European Union controls on GM produce to be drastically relaxed.

According to the Environment Secretary’s public relations spin, once these anachronistic restrictions are abolished and public scepticism and anxieties are overcome, then we will enter a brave new world of abundance.

The propaganda being put out by the UK Government remains hopelessly unconvincing. Far-fetched assertions and hyperbolic claims won’t feed the world, or protect our health. The hollowness of the ministerial case has been exposed with scientific argument as opposed to the Government’s flimsy, if not ridiculous claims, why the world needs genetically-modified foods. Owen Paterson’s assertions are nothing more than to promote the corporate profitability of elite biotech companies.

Paterson comes across as an ill-briefed, rather hysterical mouthpiece for the GM industry. He has tried to argue that science was on his side, yet he can only back up his arguments with outrageous emotional blackmail.

Melodramatic is one word that springs to mind. At one stage he argued that, without the acceptance of GM crops, young people in Asia ‘will go to bed blind and some will die’. Does Mr Paterson regard genetic modification as some kind of miracle cure?

Many will assume that Owen Paterson has resorted to such nonsense precisely because his case is so pitifully weak. GM technology is no panacea for the world’s ills. Even after almost two decades of its intensive use in large parts of the world, particularly the United States, there is scant evidence that it increases crop yields, assists global development or combats disease. The exact opposite is true.

There is now a growing amount of research demonstrating that genetic modification has the potential to cause serious health problems and widespread environmental degradation. Remaining sceptical is surely the right approach as we cannot be sure that GM food is safe to eat. Despite the scientific sophistication, genetic engineering remains a rather crude technique of manipulating biology.

The process involves moving genetic material across species barriers, which undoubtedly carries the risk of triggering unpredictable and irreversible changes in DNA, proteins and biochemical composition. It is radically different from all previous methods of improving plants and breeds.

The notion that such an approach can be completely safe is either dangerous wishful thinking, or a denial of reality motivated by vested commercial and political interests.

It is the pro-GM lobby who are seeking for the public to make a leap of faith. But as time has moved on, the case against genetic engineering becomes more persuasive.

Just this month, for instance, a report from Flinders University in Australia revealed that genetically modified food given to pigs may lead to severe stomach inflammations and far heavier uteruses, which can be an indicator of serious disease.

Some farmers claim that stomach inflammations and irritations can also lead to pigs becoming more aggressive. Farmers have reported that, for as long as GM crops have been in the food supply of animals, they have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in their livestock.

What is especially worrying is not that most of us eat pork, but that the digestive system of pigs is similar to that of humans.

The Australian report backs up other evidence about the health risks of GM technology. Studies on laboratory animals show that GM food can cause allergies and be toxic. Rats fed GM tomatoes, for instance, have developed stomach lesions, while new research from New Zealand has found that one GM wheat variety has the potential to cause liver disease.

Human health may also be threatened by the damage that genetic engineering inflicts on the balance of the environment’s delicate ecosystems. One of the most insidious aspects of genetic modification is that, contrary to the claims of being environmentally friendly, it actually encourages the aggressive use of herbicides.

The top-selling weedkiller glyphosate is marketed by the giant biotechnology company Monsanto as ‘Roundup’. This company is a leading campaigner for the relaxation of EU controls on genetic modification.

Monsanto has also developed a range of crops that are genetically resistant to glyphosate. This supposedly means that farmers can spray the herbicide over their land and kill all the weeds without damaging their crops.

Yet there is a real risk that the environment and the consumers could be the losers. Studies have shown that glyphosate leaves a dangerous residue on food, as well as leaching into the groundwater. Glyphosate exposure has been associated with birth defects, hormone imbalances, Parkinson’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.

What is more, the excessive use of glyphosate appears to have promoted the evolution of a destructive breed of ‘superweeds’. No fewer than 24 glyphosate-resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup-tolerant GM crops were introduced in 1996. Tampering with nature is leading to unforeseen consequences.

The arguments put forward by the GM-lobby even falter on increases to production. Their promises of even-higher yields are unfounded. What usually happens with genetic modification is an initial series of good harvests, followed by a dramatic decline. A study published just last week showed that for the production of maize, soy beans, oil seed rape and cotton, European non-GM crops have significantly outperformed American GM crops.

Far from representing exciting modernity, the irony is that genetic modification is unworkable, bankrupt technology. There are far better ways of driving progress in agriculture.

Scientists at Britain’s National Institute of Agricultural Botany, for example, have used a non-GM, natural process involving pollen from wild grass to produce a stronger, and more productive form of wheat. Early studies show that the yield could go up by 30 per cent.

Other organic, non-GM success stories include drought-resistant maize, blight-resistant potatoes, and a new variety of African rice which is four times as productive as traditional types.

This is where the future should lie. Non-GM technology has real promise, whereas genetic engineering has brought only failure and frustration.

Standard