Trapdoor Spider

ORIGINAL: YouTube

Trapdoor Spider

This is a video of the trapdoor spider taken from the BBC's Life in the Undergrowth documentary series.

Greenpeace calls for global REDD standards to reduce negative impacts of forest carbon projects

ORIGINAL: Mongabay

mongabay.com

June 26, 2012

Rainforest in Malaysia.

Greenpeace has launched a consultation process to establish global standards for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) projects.

Today the environmental group released a set of international safeguards to reduce the likelihood REDD+ projects result in social conflict, have adverse impacts on wildlife and forest biodiversity, fuel corruption, subsidize industrial logging of primary forests, or disenfranchise local communities. Greenpeace is seeking comment on the standards through September 2, 2012.

"Forest protection and emission reductions schemes are not going to work without guarantees that local people's rights are fully respected and that biodiversity is protected," said Susanne Breitkopf, Greenpeace International Senior Political Advisor for Forest Finance, in a press release.

"Without strong binding safeguards, we can end up with monoculture plantations instead of natural forests, or even see local communities evicted from project sites taken over by foreigners."

As a concept, REDD+ aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by paying tropical countries to protect their forests. While many of the details — including sources of finance, safeguards, and implementation protocols — are still being hammered out, a number of REDD+ projects are underway in countries ranging from Brazil to Cambodia. Some dodgy REDD+ projects, which have cheated local landowners or failed to seek approval from stakeholders, have shown that without standards, the sector could fail to move forward.

"Supporting strong, coherent safeguards really is in the interest of everyone involved, it's common sense," Breitkopf added. "We invite everyone to contribute to this effort and hope that governments and institutions who have been promoting and supporting REDD+ will adopt the final recommendations."

The Greenpeace report, titled Forests & People First [PDF] includes a comparative matrix showing the various standards that presently apply to REDD+ projects as well as the certifying bodies.

Read more: http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0626-forests-and-people-first.html#ixzz1yxeoigri

Up to 20,000 Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes Released in Australian Towns

ORIGINAL: Activistpos

Anthony Gucciardi

Do you remember how some scientists, researchers, and individuals like Bill Gates were trying to release genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment? Well, that endeavor isn’t quite over. Two towns in Northern Australia have recently been gifted with 10-20 thousand genetically engineered mosquitoes – almost completely replacing mosquitoes naturally occurring in the outdoors.

Different Genetically Engineered Mosquitoes?

Although the mosquitoes released are still GM, they aren’t exactly the same as the more well-known mosquitoes developed my Oxitec. Oxitec is a British company responsible for the creation of the genetically engineered mosquitoes containing a gene designed to kill themselves unless given an antibiotic known as tetracycline. The company created this internally manipulated insect to help control agricultural pests and reduce insect-borne diseases like dengue fever and malaria.

These new mosquitoes released in Australia, however, are developed with a slightly different strategy. A bacterium named Wolbackiapipientis infects numerous insects species, and harnesses the ability to alter it’s hosts reproductive ability. When this happens, entire populations become infected within generations, and when the bacterium infects mosquitoes, the mosquitoes’ ability to pass on the dengue virus vanishes.

Needless to say, numerous scientists, researchers, and many individuals have expressed concern regarding the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes. The first mosquito release by Oxitec took place in the Cayman Islands in the Caribbean in 2009, only for a second trial to occur in 2010, where 6,000 mosquitoes were released in Malaysia for further experiments. Now, 10-20 thousand mosquitoes were released in Australia, drilling the environment with even more genetically modified creations. As mentioned, many people are not happy about this.

Some individuals, such as Daniel Strickman, point out the obvious discomfort surrounding the possibility that the bacterium could become out of control once released – in a way that does not naturally occur in nature. In addition, mosquitoes less susceptible to dengue infection could in turn become more susceptible to other viruses.

Unfortunately, no peer-reviewed scientific proof of the safety of such biotechnologies can be offered. Long-term effects have not been at all measured, and once these insects are released, they can not be recalled.

Here are but a few of the questions and issues regarding GM mosquitoes (or any GM insect for that matter).

Will Oxitec need to acquire the free and informed consent of residents in Key West for the release of the GM mosquitoes? With the previous release of the mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands there was no public consultation taken on potential risks and informed consent was not given from locals.

What could happen to the ecosystem and local food chain with the major decrease in the Aedes aegypti mosquito population?

Tetracycline, the antibiotic Oxitec’s genetically engineered mosquitoes are supposed to have no contact with, is showing up in the environment. With tetracycline being present in the wild, these GE mosquitoes would survive and thrive.

Mosquitoes can develop resistance to the lethal gene inputted by Oxitec. In fact, 3.5 percent of the insects survived to adulthood in laboratory tests despite carrying the lethal gene, according to Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii.

0.5 percent of the released insects are female (the gender which bites humans); what happens to humans if bitten by the female mosquitoes?

Who regulates releases, and who will be responsible in the event of complications – to any degree? The truth is that we have no idea what the future holds for genetic modification and the potential impacts it has on the environment and public health. We know that the genetically engineered mosquitoes are equipped with a lethal gene designed to lower the mosquito population, but what does that really mean for humans? We simply do not know the potential outcomes that could arise from such creations.

This article first appeared at NaturalSociety.com. Click the banner below to Anthony Gucciardi's new book.

Aceite de palma: el ingrediente oculto que causa un desastre ecológico

ORIGINAL: TheEcologist

Ben Martin

14 de marzo 2012

El aceite de palma está en nuestros alimentos, productos de limpieza y combustible. Sin embargo, está destruyendo la selva tropical y contribuyendo al cambio climático. Se han establecido esquemas sostenibles de certificación , pero los activistas cuestionan cada vez más si realmente trabajan

Es imposible escapar del aceite de palma. En los últimos días lo ha consumido, frotado en la piel, puesto en su coche o alimentado a sus mascotas con él. Se encuentra en una asombrosa variedad de productos para el hogar, incluyendo alimentos procesados, cosméticos, jabones y champús, y es un ingrediente clave en los lubricantes, pinturas, pesticidas y los biocombustibles. Sin embargo, el aceite de palma también es responsable de algunas de la deforestaciones más destructivas de los tiempos actuales, y su producción está contribuyendo al cambio climático.

La demanda de aceite de palma se ha duplicado en la última década, y se prevé que vuelva a duplicarse para el año 2020, impulsada por la demanda de los consumidores para los productos alimenticios, cosméticos y combustibles derivados del lípido versátil. Sin embargo, para satisfacer esta demanda, inmensas áreas de selva tropical en Malasia e Indonesia están siendo taladas para dar paso a plantaciones de palma aceitera, a una velocidad de más de dos millones de hectáreas al año, según Amigos de la Tierra. Estos bosques son el último hábitat de los animales en peligro de extinción como el tigre de Sumatra, rinoceronte y el orangután. Es más, gran parte de este bosque se encuentra en tierra de turba - un sumidero de carbono natural que contiene grandes reservas de gases de efecto invernadero. Los productores de aceite de palma, por el arrasamiento del bosque y el drenaje del suelo de turba, sin querer liberar el carbono almacenado en la atmósfera. Greenpeace ha advertido de que la destrucción de las turberas de Indonesia en la provincia de Riau por sí sola podría liberar 14,6 gigatoneladas de carbono a la atmósfera - equivalente a las emisiones globales totales de un año. La demanda de aceite de palma está sólo acelerarando este proceso, y no muestra signos de detenerse.

Gran parte de esta demanda proviene de los productores de biocombustibles, para el cual el aceite de palma es la principal fuente de energía barata, renovable, y un potencial de sustitución de combustibles fósiles. Sin embargo, de acuerdo con Kenneth Richter, de Amigos de la Tierra, esto no toma en cuenta las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero derivadas de la deforestación. "Toda la investigación más reciente sugiere que los biocombustibles en general, a base de aceite de palma en realidad no reducen las emisiones en comparación con los combustibles fósiles." Peor aún, recientemente se filtró la evaluación del impacto que la UE encontró que cuando las emisiones derivadas de la deforestación se tienen en cuenta, el biodiesel producido a partir de aceite de palma en realidad emite más carbono que el petróleo crudo.

En los últimos años, la industria ha empezado a tratar de limpiar su acto y reducir la deforestación. La Mesa Redonda de Aceite de Palma Sostenible (RSPO) fue fundada en 2004, con el objetivo de fomentar la producción ambientalmente consciente por parte de las plantaciones verdes certificándolas como sostenibles. "El año pasado, el siete por ciento de la producción mundial total fue certificado como sostenible" certificación de expertos señala Bob Norman. "Creo que es un buen punto de partida. Es posible que haya cuestionamiento sobre el ritmo, pero no hay un grifo mágico que se puede activar para hacer el aceite de palma sostenible instantáneament".

Los minoristas y los supermercados también están empezando a despertar a los peligros de aceite de palma, a medida que explica Adam Harrison promotor de WWF y representante de RSPO. "En el Reino Unido, casi todos los grandes minoristas se han comprometido a utilizar el 100 por ciento de aceite de palma sostenible para sus propias marcas para el año 2015." El WWF publica un cuadro de mando  de sostenibilidad, donde los fabricantes y minoristas de productos a base de aceite de palma se han valorado en su compromiso con usar CSPO. Muchas de las grandes cadenas de supermercados obtuvieron las mejores notas en el informe de 2011. Pero queda trabajo por hacer. "Los supermercados no tratan con las marcas de terceros que venden", continúa Harrison. "Las compañías como Northern Foods, que son grandes proveedores de alimentos procesados y con la marca de Asda, Marks & Spencer, Morrisons, Sainsbury y Tesco, han realizado sorprendentemente poco - que simplemente no han puesto el trabajo de campo in"