Climate 'could hit Canadian GDP'

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
29 September 2011 Last updated at 23:19 GMT Current federal estimates say climate change will cost Canada about $5bn a year by 2020 Negative effects of climate change could cost Canada the equivalent of 1% of its GDP by 2050 and 2.5% by 2075, a government-backed report has said.

Damage could reach C$41bn ($20bn; ￡27bn), estimates say, depending on global emissions, the economy and population growth.

Higher temperatures could kill forests, flood low-lying coastal areas and spread disease, the report said.

The panel denied that Canada would gain from global warming.

"Climate change presents a growing, long-term economic burden for Canada," said Canada's National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).

'Strong, stable, responsible'

In a 162-page report, measures proposed included enhanced forest fire protection, pest control and an effort to foster the growth of climate-resilient trees.

The panel also recommended limiting construction in in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to flooding, and developing technologies to limit pollution and slow ozone accumulation.

It said climate-related costs to Canada could increase from C$5bn in 2020 to between C$21bn and C$43bn by 2050.

These figures depended on co-ordinated global action to limit warming to 2C by 2050, the report said.

The findings of the panel were seized on by opposition politicians who believe the Conservative government should be doing more to confront the threat of global warming.

"Our coastal communities, our forestry industry, and the health of Canadians will all suffer unless we take action right now," said Laurin Liu, of the New Democrats, Canada's main opposition party.

"This out-of-touch government has produced no plan to deal with the impact of climate change," he added.

But Environment Minister Peter Kent said Canada needs "a strong, stable, environmentally responsible ... government to take care of the environment, and that is exactly what we are doing".

The report also said Canada had much to gain from an international, Kyoto-style treaty focussing on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2012.

View the original article here

Fungi could protect rice against climate change, researchers say that

A farmer working in a rice field plantation. Photography: Guang Niu/Getty Images

Inoculár are seeds of rice with mushrooms is more tolerant of salt, drought and cold plants, which may become more common as changes in climate, according to researchers.

Researchers obtained two types of fungi is known, that have symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationships with plants. One was coastal dunegrass and the other of a variety of Strawberry that thrives on soils geothermal even in winter below freezing temperatures.

When two varieties of commercial rice seeds were inoculated with the mushrooms, the resulting plants, cultivated in greenhouses, growth and grain production has increased and were more tolerant of drought.

In addition, plant inoculadas fungi of coastal plants thrived under saline conditions and host fungi from wild strawberries grew well at low temperatures, according to research published this (July 5 month) in PLoS One.

"The fungus makes it all work," said Russell j. Rodríguez, co-author of the research and a microbiologist with the geological inspection. "In 24 hours, we have seen the benefits." "[Inoculated] plants grew to five times faster".

Technique does not change the genetic material of plant rice, his DNA, he said. "But changes the expression [switching on and off] genes and the plant now has the ability to resist environmental stress," he told SciDev.Net.

Researchers do not understand the mechanism, but they suggest that fungi could produce a substance that regulates the growth of plants.

In its symbiotic relationship with the plants, fungi confer tolerance to stress by nutrients, a phenomenon known as 'symbiogenics' because a symbiotic partner influences the expression of other genes.

The technique should work for different varieties of rice and other crops, like corn and peas, said Rodriguez, adding that researchers are trying to now make rice plants heat too tolerant.

Glenn Gregory, who studies plants tolerant to stress at the International Institute for research of rice in the Philippines, said the experiment on salt tolerance was "impressive and very promising".

But more experiments are needed to see if the rice thrives under field conditions, he said, because the fungi often require specific habitats, such as geothermal soils, to survive.

"In field conditions, the soil and the overall environment [are] ' contaminated' with other agencies, which can also interact with the plant and, in essence, to compete with the fungus," said Gregory.

RODRIGUEZ said his team has been working with Korean and African scientists to test the findings in the field.

View the original article here

Conservative, white men most likely climate change skeptics, study shows

Conservative, white men are more likely to be those who deny climate change, say the researchers. Photograph: Getty

"The more that you think you know more I think you're right," is an old saying. Now comes a study of sex, skin colour or political ideology which suggests that almost sums up how some white male conservatives in the United States respond to climate change.

"Even casual observers" who argue that climate change is not a serious problem "is likely to see an obvious pattern," Aaron M. McCright of the Michigan State University in East Lansing and Riley e. Dunlap, of the State University of Oklahoma at Stillwater instead write environmental Global: "the most prominent denialists are conservative white men" - of media Rush Limbaugh expert politicians as Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. But the pair wondered: "is there a similar pattern in the American public?"

Namely, the researchers analyzed ten annual surveys on environmental issues carried out by the Gallup Organization from 2001 to 2010. Together, they include responses from more than 10,000 adults. After cut and break up the numbers, the trends are clear: "conservative white men are significantly more likely than other Americans to endorse denialist views", write. And "these differences are even greater for the conservative white men it Autoinforme global understanding of global warming very well".

In general, while 29.6% of conservative white males (CWMs) believes that the effects of global warming "will never happen", only 7.4% of all adults shared that view. Similarly, 58.5 per cent of CWMs, but only 31.5% of all adults, denied that the recent increases in temperature are primarily caused by human activities. The pattern shows that CWMs "are more likely to change for other adults to reject the scientific consensus on climate change", the authors point out. As well, "not surprisingly," 58.8% of CWMs "deny the existence of scientific consensus," compared with 35.5 per cent of other adults.

CWMs also were over twice as likely than other adults to say that the media exaggerated the seriousness of climate change (65.1% to 29.9%). Finally, 39.1% of conservative white males, but only 14.4% of all adults: not worried at all about global warming, he said.

In particular, the researchers say CWMs also used to assert a stronger global warming than other adult understanding - and who says they understand better were more likely to be the strongest deniers. "This, certainly seems untenable self-appraisal," the authors write, "as conservative white men are more likely than other adults to reject the current scientific consensus."

However, previous research, can help to explain the pattern, they speculate. Psychologists and scientists have suggested that WCMs often identify themselves as more risk tolerant and less willing to support ideas that challenge the existing economic, social and political hierarchies.

"The intersection of conservative, 'male' and 'white' is important to explain the distribution of the denial of climate change in the American public," the authors conclude. But "denialism is sufficiently diffuse in the American public that obviously cannot be attributed solely to conservative white men," they say. "What is more serious, especially by the scientific community and the climate change communicators, is the denial of climate change has increased public U.S. between 2001 and 2010, although mainly due to a significant increase in the past two years which may be abnormal in the long term." - David Malakoff

View the original article here

Suspending the scientist in the Arctic that exposed climate threat to polar bears

Charles Monnett co-paper about the dangers of polar bears drowned due to the melting of Arctic sea ice galvanized activists concerned about climate change. Photography: Subhankar Banerjee/AP

It was seen as one of the most painful effects of the climate registered: polar bears die of exhaustion after being stranded between patches of melting of sea ice in the Arctic.

But now the scientist of the Government that first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming of the Arctic has been suspended and their work placed under formal investigation for possible scientific misconduct.

Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work of the Agency of the Government, which has been considering drilling in the Arctic. It managed about $ 50 million (￡ 30. 5 m) in research projects.

Some question by what Monnett, employed by the US Office of ocean energy, regulation and enforcement, management has been suspended at this time. The Obama administration has been accused of sniff the scientist, so it can open the fragile region of drilling by Shell and other big oil companies.

"" It must be asked: is the uncle of the science in the Arctic and is being suspended now as an arm of the Department of interior is preparing its decision on drilling costa out in the Arctic seas, "said Jeff Ruch, Chairman of the public employees for environmental responsibility.""This is a precaution with a deeply chilling message for any federal scientist who dares to publish a research pioneer on conditions in the Arctic".

The Group submitted an official complaint on behalf of the Monnett Thursday, accusing the Government pursue the scientific (PDF) and interfere with his work. He seeks reinstatement and a public apology.

Monnett was on a flight of monitoring whale research, in 2004, when he and his colleagues saw four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. Scientists completed the bears, though normally strong swimmers, grew exhausted and drowning due to the long distance between patches of solid ice. It was the first time scientists had established a link between melting of sea ice in the Arctic and a threat to the survival of the bears.

Two years later, Monnett and a colleague published an article in the magazine scientific Polar biology, writing: "Drowning deaths of polar bears may increase in future if it continues the observed trend of regression of ice or over open water sessions."

Quickly, the ledger public concern about the polar bear. Al Gore, citing the document, used footage of polar bears in his film inconvenient truth. Activists focused on the bears to push George Bush to act on climate change, and in 2008, the Government appointed the animal an endangered species.

It was the first animal to be classified as a victim of climate change.

In 2010, the administration of Obama began an investigation on his work. The scientist was suspended with pay on July 18. It is said that under a gag order and banned from communicating with his colleagues. The employee group complaint alleges that research is a barely veiled attempt to disrupt the scientific work in the Arctic.

Oil companies, who want to deepen in the pristine environment of the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea, have been complaining about delays caused by environmental effects. This month Obama issued an order to expedite the Arctic drilling permits.

A spokesman for the Office of energy ocean management of regulation and compliance (Boemre) said that the Government will continue to carry out research on the potential impacts of drilling in the Arctic, despite the suspension of the Monnett.

"All science contracts previously managed by Mr Monnett are managed by highly skilled Boemre, scientists" Melissa Schwartz said in an e-mail. He pointed out that research was being monitored by the inspector-general, which is independent, and carried out in accordance with the new guidelines on scientific integrity in the Administration Obama.

However, Peer argues that exercise intended to discredit the brief article of Monnett on the polar bear.

Other organizations also accused the Government agency of a long history of meddling in science. A report of 2009 by the Government Accountability Office found huge gaps in the research of the Boemre on the impact of drilling in the Arctic. And the natural areas of Alaska League declared: "Alaska Boemre has continued to ignore the science and traditional knowledge in decision-making on development of oil and gas".

Documents on the Web site of the League include a transcript of a conversation between researchers and Jeffrey Gleason, another Government Scientist in the trip of 2004. Gleason, who works for the Government, in the Gulf of Mexico, said that does not necessarily share the conclusions of Monnett polar bears were killed as a result of climate change. "It is something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic," he was quoted as saying.

View the original article here