martes, enero 31, 2006

Huracanes y humanos cambian la Naturaleza del Golfo de México

Tema: Cambio Climático

Lo dice bien clarito el comienzo de este artículo: "Allá donde miren los científicos, ven patrones alterados en y a lo largo del Golfo de México....".

Hurricanes and humans changing Gulf's nature

Oceanographer: 'Nothing's been like this'

CNN
Saturday, January 28, 2006; Posted: 7:55 p.m. EST (00:55 GMT)

OVER THE NORTHERN GULF COAST (AP) -- Last year's record hurricane season didn't just change life for humans. It changed nature, too.

Everywhere scientists look, they see disrupted patterns in and along the Gulf of Mexico. Coral reefs, flocks of sea birds, crab- and shrimp-filled meadows and dune-crowned beaches were wrapped up in -- and altered by -- the force of hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Dennis.

"Nothing's been like this," said Abby Sallenger, a U.S. Geological Survey oceanographer, during a recent flight over the northern Gulf Coast to study shoreline changes.

For him, the changes are mind-boggling: Some barrier islands are nearly gone; on others, beaches are scattered like bags of dropped flour.

Hurricanes have been kneading the Gulf Coast like putty for eons, carving out inlets and bays, creating beaches and altering plant and animal life -- but up to now, the natural world has largely been able to rebound. Trees, marine life and shoreline features tourists and anglers enjoyed in recent years were largely the same types as those 17th century buccaneers and explorers encountered.

But scientists say the future could be different. Nature might not be able to rebound so quickly. The reason: the human factor.

"Natural systems are resilient and bounce back," said Susan Cutter, a geographer with the University of South Carolina. "The problem is when we try to control nature, rather than letting her do what she does."

The seas are rising, the planet is getting hotter and commercial and residential development is snowballing. Add those factors to a predicted increase in nasty hurricanes and what results is a recipe for potentially serious natural degradation, some say.

"It may bring about a situation (in which) the change is so rapid, it's something that's very different from what the ecosystem experienced over the last three, four thousand years," said Kam-biu Liu, a Louisiana State University professor and hurricane paleoscientist. "We may be losing part of our beaches, we may lose our coastal wetlands, and our coastal forests may change permanently to a different kind of ecosystem."

Between 2004 and 2005, "we've basically demolished our coastline from Galveston (Texas) to Panama City, Florida," said Barry Keim, the state climatologist in Louisiana. "It's getting to the point that we might have to rethink what our coastal map looks like."

The Gulf, scientists say, won't turn into an environmental wasteland, but it could be less rich in flora and fauna.

Surveys of the washed out Chandeleur Islands, an arc of barrier islands off the coast of Louisiana, found nesting grounds for brown pelicans, royal terns, sandwich terns and black skimmers gone.

"Hopefully the birds will be resilient enough to move to other areas," said Tom Hess, a biologist with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. "We will have to see."

Salt water spread by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita killed marsh grasses across the Louisiana coast, leaving little left to eat for Louisiana's most hunted bird -- the duck.

"Most of the marsh where that salt water sat for a long time looks dead. It looks like it is does extremely late in the winter and you've had several extreme frosts," said Robert Helm, a state waterfowl biologist. "Where we found birds, they seemed to be concentrated in the habitat that was not impacted by the storm."

Duck hunters ask themselves: If Louisiana's abundant wetlands keep getting knocked out, will the ducks head to greener fields?

"You don't go to the restaurant, find it empty, and hang around," said Charlie Smith, a duck hunter.

Katrina and Rita didn't only kill plants. They annihilated more than 100 square miles (256 square kilometers) of wetlands in Louisiana alone, scattering huge chunks of soft marshy earth.

"The hurricanes may have changed habitat in ways that we have not even begun to assess," said Harriet Perry, a fishery expert with the University of Southern Mississippi.

A lot of things are happening under the water, too.

With their towering waves -- well over 50 feet (15 meters) high during Katrina -- hurricanes move huge volumes of mud and sediment on the ocean bottom, burying clam and oyster beds and seagrass meadows where crabs, shrimps and fish hide and feed. Can the sea plants spring back?

"It depends on the light penetration, how deep they are buried, and factors like that," said John Dindo, a marine scientist and assistant director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama.

Farther out, where the continental shelf drops off, the wild seas kicked up by the hurricanes damaged the Gulf's coral reefs.

After Rita's 30-plus-foot (9-plus-meter) waves, surveys of the coral at the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary 100 miles (160 kilometers) off the coast of Louisiana and Texas showed damage to about 5 percent of the reef. Brain and star coral was toppled and smashed into other coral heads. About 3 feet (one meter) of sand was dispersed on sand flats in the reef where trigger fish and queen conch burrow and nest.

Also, a large plume of contaminated runoff from the mainland's towns and industries befouled the reef for a couple of days, said G.P. Schmahl, the sanctuary's manager.

Coral reefs are resilient, for the most part, but like much else in nature along the Gulf Coast they could be devastated by an onslaught of powerful hurricanes and warming seas. A coral reef near Jamaica, for example, was wiped out by Hurricane Allen in 1980, Schmahl said.

"If they're hit continually with a whole variety of stressors they may not be able to recover, and that's the big concern right now," he said.

Among fish, species shift locations when runoff from towns, septic systems and farms causes algae blooms or storms change salinity levels in coastal bays and channels. Still, not all changes are detrimental: When Gulf commercial and recreational fishermen are knocked out of the water in storms, overfished species like the red snapper get some breathing room.

Nor are the effects confined to the water or the shoreline. Go inland, and millions of trees -- cypress, gum, pine, oak -- were snapped like toothpicks. Wild fires fueled by fallen timber break out and kill even more trees. And plant diseases like citrus canker and soybean rust can be spread by hurricanes from one region to the next.

The Gulf is in the midst of flux -- heavily developed, heavily fished and buffeted by climate change and storms. It's becoming a perfect place for oceanographers, marine biologists, geologists and geographers to study, said Steven F. DiMarco, an ocean researcher Texas A&M University.

"I think," he said, "people are looking to the Gulf of Mexico ever more as a microcosm of the world."

sábado, enero 28, 2006

Experto en Cambio Climático de la NASA denuncia censuras por parte de la administración Bush

Tema: Cambio Climático

January 29, 2006

Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at the space agency, said there was no effort to silence Dr. Hansen. "That's not the way we operate here at NASA," he said. "We promote openness and we speak with the facts."

Mr. Acosta said the restrictions on Dr. Hansen applied to all National Aeronautics and Space Administration personnel whom the public could perceive as speaking for the agency. He added that government scientists were free to discuss scientific findings, but that policy statements should be left to policy makers and appointed spokesmen.

Dr. Hansen, 63, a physicist who joined the space agency in 1967, is a leading authority on the earth's climate system. He directs efforts to simulate the global climate on computers at the Goddard Institute on Morningside Heights in Manhattan.

Since 1988, he has been issuing public warnings about the long-term threat from heat-trapping emissions, dominated by carbon dioxide, that are an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels. He has had run-ins with politicians or their appointees in various administrations, including budget watchers in the first Bush administration and Vice President Al Gore.

In 2001, Dr. Hansen was invited twice to brief Vice President Dick Cheney and other cabinet members on climate change. White House officials were interested in his findings showing that cleaning up soot, which also warms the atmosphere, was an effective and far easier first step than curbing carbon dioxide.

He fell out of favor with the White House in 2004 after giving a speech at the University of Iowa before the presidential election, in which he complained that government climate scientists were being muzzled, and said he planned to vote for Senator John Kerry.

But Dr. Hansen said that nothing in 30 years equaled the push made since early December to keep him from publicly discussing what he says are clear-cut dangers from further delay in curbing carbon dioxide.

In several interviews with The New York Times in recent days, Dr. Hansen said it would be irresponsible not to speak out, particularly because NASA's mission statement includes the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet."

He said he was particularly incensed that the directives affecting his statements had come through informal telephone conversations and not through formal channels, leaving no significant trails of documents.

Dr. Hansen's supervisor, Franco Einaudi, said there had been no official "order or pressure to say shut Jim up." But Dr. Einaudi added, "That doesn't mean I like this kind of pressure being applied."

The fresh efforts to quiet him, Dr. Hansen said, began in a series of calls after a lecture he gave on Dec. 6 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. In the talk, he said that significant emission cuts could be achieved with existing technologies, particularly in the case of motor vehicles, and that without leadership by the United States, climate change would eventually leave the earth "a different planet." The administration's policy is to use voluntary measures to slow, but not reverse, the growth of emissions.

After that speech and the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews.

Among the restrictions, according to Dr. Hansen and an internal draft memorandum he provided to The Times, was that his supervisors could stand in for him in any news media interviews.

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute.

Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.

But she added: "I'm a career civil servant and Jim Hansen is a scientist. That's not our job. That's not our mission. The inference was that Hansen was disloyal." Normally, Ms. McCarthy would not be free to describe such conversations to the news media, but she agreed to an interview after Mr. Acosta, in NASA headquarters, told The Times that she would not face any retribution for doing so.

Mr. Acosta, Mr. Deutsch's supervisor, said that when Mr. Deutsch was asked about the conversations he flatly denied saying anything of the sort. Mr. Deutsch referred all interview requests to Mr. Acosta.

Ms. McCarthy, when told of the response, said: "Why am I going to go out of my way to make this up and back up Jim Hansen? I don't have a dog is this race. And what does Hansen have to gain?"

Mr. Acosta said that for the moment he had no way of judging who was telling the truth. Several colleagues of both Ms. McCarthy and Dr. Hansen said Ms. McCarthy's statements were consistent with what she told them when the conversations occurred.

"He's not trying to create a war over this," said Larry D. Travis, an astronomer who is Dr. Hansen's deputy at Goddard, "but really feels very strongly that this is an obligation we have as federal scientists, to inform the public, and this kind of attempted muzzling of the science community is really rather dangerous. If we just accept it, then we're contributing to the problem."

Dr. Travis said he walked into Ms. McCarthy's office in mid-December at the end of one of the calls from Mr. Deutsch demanding that Dr. Hansen be better controlled.

In an interview on Friday, Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and the president of the National Academy of Sciences, the nation's leading independent scientific body, praised Dr. Hansen's scientific contributions and said he had always seemed to describe his public statements clearly as his personal views.

"He really is one of the most productive and creative scientists in the world," Dr. Cicerone said. "I've heard Hansen speak many times and I've read many of his papers, starting in the late 70's. Every single time, in writing or when I've heard him speak, he's always clear that he's speaking for himself, not for NASA or the administration, whichever administration it's been."

The fight between Dr. Hansen and administration officials echoes other recent disputes. At climate laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only if the interview is approved by administration officials in Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is present or on the phone.

Where scientists' points of view on climate policy align with those of the administration, however, there are few signs of restrictions on extracurricular lectures or writing.

One example is Indur M. Goklany, assistant director of science and technology policy in the policy office of the Interior Department. For years, Dr. Goklany, an electrical engineer by training, has written in papers and books that it may be better not to force cuts in greenhouse gases because the added prosperity from unfettered economic activity would allow countries to exploit benefits of warming and adapt to problems.

In an e-mail exchange on Friday, Dr. Goklany said that in the Clinton administration he was shifted to nonclimate-related work, but added that he had never had to stop his outside writing, as long as he identifies the views as his own.

"One reason why I still continue to do the extracurricular stuff is because one doesn't have to get clearance for what I plan on saying or writing," he wrote.

Many people who work with Dr. Hansen said that politics was not a factor in his dispute with the Bush administration.

"The thing that has always struck me about him is I don't think he's political at all," said Mark R. Hess, director of public affairs for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., a position that also covers the Goddard Institute in New York.

"He really is not about concerning himself with whose administration is in charge, whether it's Republicans, Democrats or whatever," Mr. Hess said. "He's a pretty down-the-road conservative independent-minded person.

"What he cares deeply about is being a scientist, his research, and I think he feels a true obligation to be able to talk about that in whatever fora are offered to him."

miércoles, enero 25, 2006

El año 2005 fue el más caluroso desde que se tienen registros

Tema: Cambio Climático

EFE - NASA

AUMENTO DE 0,6 GRADOS DESDE LOS 70


WASHINGTON.- El año 2005 fue el más caluroso en la Tierra desde finales del siglo XIX, cuando se comenzó a registrar la temperatura de la superficie del planeta, según ha informado la NASA.

El pasado año logró sobrepasar la marca de temperatura registrada en 1998, debido a que la zona ártica registró más calor de lo normal, según ha afirmado la NASA, en un comunicado, que apunta que el resultado viene a confirmar "la fuerte tendencia subyacente de calentamiento" de la Tierra.

Desde mediados de la década de 1970, la temperatura del planeta se ha elevado en 0,6 grados centígrados, mientras que en todo el siglo XX la subida fue de 0,8 grados.

Los datos de la NASA muestran que el calentamiento se acentúa. "Cinco de los años más calurosos en el último siglo han ocurrido en los últimos ocho", ha afirmado James Hansen, director del Instituto Goddard de Estudios Espaciales (GISS, en inglés) de la NASA, con sede en Nueva York. Lidera la lista 2005, seguido de 1998, 2002, 2003 y 2004.

En 1998 tuvo lugar el fenómeno atmosférico de 'El Niño', que consiste en un calentamiento de las aguas del Pacífico, lo que elevó la temperatura en todo el globo.

Preocupación

Sin embargo, 2005 superó los niveles de ese año incluso sin la aparición de ese fenómeno, lo que preocupa a los científicos. El calentamiento actual se produce en todo el planeta, pero está más acentuado en las altas latitudes del hemisferio norte.

En los últimos 50 años, los mayores calentamientos medidos por año y por verano se han producido en Alaska y Siberia, aunque también en la península Antártica, según los datos presentados.

Dado que estas regiones están lejos de ciudades grandes, los expertos de la NASA "tienen claro" que el calentamiento no se debe a la influencia de la contaminación de los centros urbanos.

La mayoría de los científicos cree que este fenómeno es debido a la emisión de gases que producen el llamado 'efecto invernadero', como dióxido de carbono, metano y ozono.

La NASA mantiene registros fiables de las temperaturas de la superficie desde finales del siglo XIX, que actualmente obtiene gracias a mediciones de laboratorios en tierra y cálculos desde satélites de las condiciones en el mar.


martes, enero 24, 2006

España, a la cola de los países ricos en protección del medio ambiente

Tema: Gestión Medioambiental

El índice internacional ambiental critica el consumo excesivo de agua en el Mediterráneo

RAFAEL MÉNDEZ - Madrid
EL PAÍS - Sociedad - 24-01-2006

España vuelve a sacar mala nota en medio ambiente. El índice de gestión ambiental, referencia internacional en la materia, le sitúa en el puesto 20º de los 29 países más desarrollados. El informe señala el consumo excesivo de agua y la contaminación del aire como principales problemas ambientales en España. Nueva Zelanda y Suecia aparecen como los mejores en gestión del medio ambiente. En último lugar aparecen los países pobres. El director del informe afirma que "España ha elegido un mal camino: crecer económicamente a costa del medio ambiente, algo que a la larga pasa factura".

El índice internacional de gestión ambiental es un ambicioso informe para calificar la gestión del medio ambiente. Las universidades de Yale y Columbia (Estados Unidos), la Comisión Europea y el Foro Económico Mundial han analizado 16 indicadores de 133 países. El informe, de 359 páginas, analiza la calidad del aire, la contaminación por nitratos, el consumo de agua, las áreas protegidas, entre otros factores. El informe se presentará en la reunión anual del Foro Económico Mundial, en Davos (Suiza).

El resultado es, según el director del estudio, el profesor de la Universidad de Yale Daniel Esty, el mejor parámetro para comparar políticas ambientales. El resultado es que, en general, los países ricos se preocupan más por el medio ambiente. "Hay una visión ingenua de que los países pobres tienen una naturaleza cuidada, pero lo cierto es que tienen problemas de contaminación de agua, de aire y malas condiciones, especialmente en los países muy poblados", señala a EL PAÍS Esty, director del centro para política ambiental de Yale.

En esa lista, España ocupa el lugar 23 de los 133 países, con una nota de 79,2 puntos sobre 100. A primera vista es una posición notable, pero según Esty, a los países hay que compararlos con sus iguales.

El informe compara a España con los países de la OCDE. "El resultado es que está en los peores puestos", añade el director del informe. España ocupa el puesto 20 de los 29 países ricos analizados. En Europa, Eslovaquia, Holanda, Hungría, Polonia y Bélgica están por detrás. El informe se puede consultar en la página web www.yale.edu/epi.

Los autores del estudio crean un valor ideal de 100 para los 16 indicadores. España se aleja especialmente en sobreexplotación de la pesca (obtiene 16,7 puntos), protección y conservación de la naturaleza (18,5) concentración de ozono en el aire (20 puntos) y consumo y gestión del agua (32,3).

España obtiene buena nota en calidad del agua del grifo y depuración de aguas (100 puntos sobre 100) o mortalidad infantil (99). La inclusión de estos indicadores, con gran peso en la nota final, hace que los países ricos aparezcan en los primeros lugares. El último informe, publicado en enero de 2005, que medía la sostenibilidad a largo plazo no daba tanta importancia a estos apartados. Por eso España aparecía en el puesto 76 de 146 países. En este informe, los países ricos copan los primeros puestos. Por eso los autores insisten en que los dos estudios no son comparables.

Situación contradictoria

Esty señaló que los datos reflejan una situación contradictoria: "España se precia de ser una de las economías más dinámicas de Europa, pero está creciendo a costa del medio ambiente, con gran participación de la construcción. Y eso, a la larga tiene un coste". Esty destaca la tensión por el abuso del agua que vive España y explica que, aunque el crecimiento de las ciudades empeora la calidad del aire, hay formas para atajarla si se actúa con decisión.

El Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Ecologistas en Acción denuncian que las ciudades españolas superan los límites de contaminación fijados por la Unión Europea, por lo que el ministerio prepara una ley.

El director del informe señala que esta política no es inevitable. "El Reino Unido saca mejor nota que Bélgica y esto es porque ha establecido una mejor política a favor del medio ambiente. Lo mismo podría hacer España".

Los autores del estudio afirman que los países pobres también deberían tener interés en cuidar el medio ambiente. Su argumento es que no es rentable destrozar el medio ambiente para crecer económicamente para luego recuperarlo. Además, añadió que la contaminación del agua tiene incidencia directa sobre la salud de las personas, no sólo sobre la naturaleza

sábado, enero 21, 2006

Una nueva generación de centrales nucleares viene de camino en el Reino Unido

Tema: Fuentes de Energía

Next generation of nuclear reactors may be fast tracked


David Adam, environment correspondent
Saturday January 21, 2006
The Guardian


The nuclear industry is pushing ministers to approve sweeping changes to the way atomic power stations are approved in an attempt to fast-track a new generation of reactors.

Documents obtained under freedom of information laws show that British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) wants to restrict the scope of local planning inquiries. Instead it proposes effectively discussing issues such as safety, security and environmental impact behind closed doors.

The move comes as the government is to launch a review of its energy policies on Monday, which is widely expected to recommend restarting Britain's controversial civil nuclear programme.

In the documents, BNFL warns that the only way to guarantee new power stations open on schedule is to fast-track the planning process by pre-licensing reactors before sites are selected. It says: "Investment in this phase has immense leverage over subsequent phases. For example, it should enable a public inquiry to be assured that all safety and environmental issues have been satisfactorily addressed, enabling it to focus on local issues."

Existing regulations require these issues to be discussed at local public inquiries set up into the siting of individual nuclear power stations. BNFL is worried this will cause severe delays; the public inquiry into Sizewell B in Suffolk lasted six years. The document says: "Inadequate preparation could extend the programme from 10 years to up to 16 years."

Nuclear power has risen towards the top of the political agenda as ministers and officials scramble to address an impending energy crisis. Britain's existing nuclear power stations supply about 20% of UK electricity and all but one are scheduled to close by 2023.

Prominent figures such as Sir David King, the government's chief scientific adviser, have said replacing them is the only realistic way to satisfy growing energy demand while meeting demanding greenhouse gas targets. Uncertainties about the security of future gas supplies, especially after this month's crisis in Ukraine, have also helped to convince Tony Blair and senior figures at the Department for Trade and Industry that new nuclear power stations are needed.

Anti-nuclear campaigners claimed BNFL's proposed changes to the planning and consent process would allow the nuclear industry to steamroller local opposition. Jean McSorley of Greenpeace, which obtained the documents, said: "The process would be closed to public input, which means issues that local authorities and the public would expect to be examined at a public inquiry would be dealt with behind closed doors."

Hugh Richards, head of the Welsh Anti Nuclear Alliance, said: "Pre-licensing is a trojan horse. It sounds innocent but the objective is clear. It would shield consideration of nuclear safety from public scrutiny and that is extremely worrying."

BNFL said: "We are committed to an open and transparent process. The pre-licensing process ensures that national issues are discussed at a national level and local issues discussed at a local level."

A poll carried out by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Mori showed 54% of people would accept the building of nuclear stations if it helped to tackle climate change. But 72% said this should only be considered as a last resort.

lunes, enero 16, 2006

Osos Polares: caminando sobre la fina capa de hielo

Tema: Cambio Climático

Los osos polares están bajo ataque. El calentamiento Global y la polución química afectan sus patrones de cría y alimentación tan severamente que las grandes bestias del Ártico podrían estar extinguidas muy pronto.


Fuentes: The Independient & Terra

EFE.-
Los osos polares han sufrido cambios hormonales y en el sistema inmunitario como consecuencia de la contaminación de residuos químicos y pesticidas, alertó hoy la organización de defensa del medio ambiente Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza (WWF).

Tres estudios científicos divulgados recientemente consideran que esos cambios biológicos se vinculan con la presencia de productos tóxicos contaminantes en su organismo y confirman también otros análisis similares efectuados en los últimos cuatro años.

Esta nueva amenaza se suma a los efectos del "cambio climático y la pérdida de su hábitat" natural que sufren los 22.000 osos del Artico, subrayó el WWF.

En sus conclusiones, los citados informes destacan que entre las sustancias contaminantes halladas en los cuerpos de los osos polares figuran los PCB (bicenilos policlorados) y pesticidas.

Las sustancias contaminantes se encuentran en el Artico al haber sido transportadas a través de la atmósfera y de las corrientes marinas.

Asimismo indicaron que esas sustancias están presentes en los organismos de determinado tipo de peces y focas que luego son ingeridos por los osos.

"La mayor parte de los osos polares tienen probablemente cientos de productos químicos en su organismo y no han podido desarrollar nunca mecanismos para afrontarlos", señaló el doctor Andrew Derocher, autor de varios estudios sobre ese asunto.

Entre las conclusiones a que llegan los científicos es que "cuanto mayor es el nivel de PCB y de varios pesticidas en los osos polares de Canadá y de la isla noruega de Svalbard, menor es el nivel de anticuerpos en su sangre", indicó el WWF en un comunicado.

Asimismo se indicó que "los niveles reducidos de anticuerpos induce a los osos a ser más susceptibles a contraer infecciones" y se subraya que la alteración del nivel hormonal puede tener consecuencias una "amplia variedad de consecuencias negativas para la salud tales como problemas de desarrollo, conducta y reproducción".

El WWF indicó también que a pesar de que los contaminantes tóxicos examinados ya no se utilizan ni en la industria ni en la agricultura todavía "pueden permanecer durante varios años en el agua, el hielo o el suelo" del Polo Norte.

Asimismo, la experta en cuestiones de contaminación del programa del Artico del WWF, Brettania Walker, advirtió que "otros contaminantes con efectos similares continúan siendo utilizados habitualmente en la industria en todo el mundo".

Walker abogó por tomar medidas para evitar la acumulación de esos nuevos productos químicos en el medio ambiente

Environment in crisis: 'We are past the point of no return'

Tema: Cambio Climático


Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again.

The Independient
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor

Published: 16 January 2006

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life.

In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late.

The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."

In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.

This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).

It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.

He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month.

The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress.

Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago.

He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point.

Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations.

Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still.

Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today.

In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold."

And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..."

He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords."

Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry.

This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards.

One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse.

Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases.

Rough guide to a planet in jeopardy

Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth.

Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer.

The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again.


La 'imparable' catástrofe climática

Tema: Cambio Climático

ANDREW BROWN (The Guardian / EL MUNDO)
lunes 09/01/2006 12:27

LONDRES.- James Lovelock, el científico que revolucionó las ciencias medioambientales cuando dio a conocer su hipótesis Gaia -una teoría en la que asegura que la Tierra y toda su materia viva constituyen un sistema autorregulado que busca un entorno óptimo para la vida- ha logrado soliviantar a los ecologistas de todo el mundo tras prestar su apoyo a la utilización de energía nuclear.

Pero en lo que se refiere al cambio climático, está convencido de que el desastre es inevitable, aunque en su opinión, dicha catástrofe puede llegar a resultar muy útil.

Nos encontramos con Lovelock -cuya biografía, Homenaje a Gaia, se acaba de publicar en España (ed. Laetoli)- cómodamente sentado en su estudio a orillas del río Devon, en el suroeste de Inglaterra, mientras se dedica a la contemplación de un universo que camina inexorablemente hacia su ruina.

Enfrente de él, y sobre un gran monitor plano que conforma un amplio panel, se puede contemplar un mapa climático del hemisferio norte que se actualiza constantemente y que muestra pruebas inequívocas de la existencia de un severo cambio climático. Por ejemplo, en el mapa se puede apreciar, claramente, que el agua aún no se ha helado por completo alrededor de Groenlandia, aunque (en el momento de realizar la entrevista) ya nos encontráramos a principios de diciembre.

La habitación en que se encuentra Lovelock está absolutamente repleta de libros e instrumentos, algunos de los cuales los ha construido él mismo. Detrás del monitor, sobre el alféizar de una ventana, hay algo que parece ser un pequeño modelo, hecho en aluminio, de un insecto con antenas. Sin embargo, éste es su instrumento más famoso, un detector para la captura de electrones, un artilugio extraordinariamente sensible del que Lovelock se sirvió, en los años 60, para demostrar que la atmósfera estaba llena de residuos de pesticidas.

Posteriormente, ya durante la década de los 70 y también por medio de ese mismo aparato, Lovelock demostraría, asimismo, que la atmósfera estaba, también, repleta de partículas CFC (clorofluorocarbonos). Ambos descubrimientos fueron de una enorme importancia para todos los movimientos verdes.

Extinciones masivas

Sin embargo, para dichas organizaciones, más importante aún, incluso, que los anteriores descubrimientos fue la aparición de la hipótesis Gaia de Lovelock. Esta es una teoría según la cual la Tierra y todas las formas de vida que en ella existentes constituyen, en su conjunto, un sistema autorregulado que se ha venido manteniendo a sí mismo durante más de 3.000 millones de años.

La hipótesis Gaia parece ofrecer una base racional para ese espíritu religioso que tanto alienta e inspira a muchos medioambientalistas. Sin embargo, en este caso no se trataría de ninguna clase de deidad de peluche por la que se pueda sentir un cierto afecto. La mayor parte de las formas de vida existentes -para muchos de los partidarios de la hipótesis Gaia, serían todas ellas- han sido anteriormente bacterias. Y la historia de las extinciones masivas habidas a lo largo del tiempo nos viene a sugerir que la existencia vital incluso de algo mucho mayor que una simple bacteria será, siempre, muy precaria también.

«Si se produjera una guerra nuclear, y la Humanidad entera llegara a desaparecer, la Tierra respiraría con alivio. Y eso sería así porque a la Tierra le trae sin cuidado la existencia de radiaciones. Desde el punto de vista del Planeta, éste podría exclamar algo así como 'la existencia de los humanos ha sido un experimento muy desagradable. Me alegro de que haya finalizado'», asegura el científico.

"Si una guerra nuclear eliminara a toda la Humanidad, la Tierra respiraría con alivio"


Sin embargo, el decidido apoyo de Lovelock a la energía nuclear le convirtió en un auténtico hereje a los ojos de muchos militantes verdes. La energía nuclear, asegura Lovelock, es mucho más segura que cualquier otra alternativa existente en la actualidad y la necesitamos desesperadamente para que nos ayude a sobrevivir a los efectos del calentamiento global. «Para poder salvarnos, necesitamos disponer de un programa nuclear apropiado. Los verdes no parecen entender que, sin electricidad, se produciría un colapso de toda nuestra civilización actual».

«Imagínese qué podría ocurrir si en Londres no hubiera electricidad. Al cabo de tres semanas se habría convertido en una ciudad parecida a Darfur». Lovelock dice no disponer de tiempo suficiente como para entretenerse en toda esa serie de argumentos, a largo plazo, sobre residuos nucleares y seguridad, porque cuando se produce una situación de crisis, uno hace lo que necesita hacer para lograr sobrevivir. «Para el Planeta, debemos ser como una especie de paramédicos. Lo que tenemos que hacer es estabilizar el sistema».

Lovelock cree que es una presunción ridícula suponer que podemos salvar el mundo. El que se produzca un cambio climatológico muy serio es, en estos momentos, algo absolutamente inevitable, hagamos lo que hagamos. Hacia mediados del presente siglo, afirma Lovelock, la capa de hielo del Ártico habrá desaparecido por completo.

Hacia finales del mismo, las selvas tropicales habrán desaparecido también y se habrán visto reemplazadas por la mayor de las desolaciones. La temperatura de la Tierra se habrá elevado en ocho grados centígrados, el mismo nivel de temperatura que tuvo en tiempos remotos, y probablemente se mantendrá así durante otros 200.000 años.

«En cierto sentido, y dado que formamos parte de un sistema, lo que sí podemos decir es que nosotros somos la conciencia del Planeta. Formamos parte de él y nunca deberíamos considerarnos como algo aparte. Resulta verdaderamente grotesco pensar que podemos llegar a ser sus administradores. Lo que tenemos que hacer es luchar contra él. Y somos nosotros quienes habremos de hacer las paces mientras aún estemos en una posición lo suficientemente fuerte como para poder imponer ciertas condiciones y no hacer demagogia con el tema. Yo veo Kioto de la misma manera que veo Múnich. Es un simple intento de ganar tiempo antes de que comience la verdadera batalla».

Todos esos artilugios e instrumentos que pueden verse colocados a todo lo largo y ancho de las cuatro paredes del estudio de Lovelock resultan esenciales a la hora de intentar descifrar los procesos mentales de este científico. Y es que, en su trabajo, y desde que él mismo puede recordar, Lovelock siempre ha venido empleando las manos tanto como la mente.

Lovelock hace un ademán, señalando hacia el mapa climático del monitor que se encuentra justo enfrente de él. «Con bastante frecuencia, imagino que el consciente es algo así como la pantalla de un monitor. El auténtico procesamiento de los datos está produciéndose en cualquier otro lugar. Ahora, imagínese a alguien tratando, por ejemplo, de poner un cuadro de Vermeer en la pantalla de un teléfono móvil. Si no utiliza las manos en lo que está haciendo, eso nunca llegará hasta el inconsciente de la forma más apropiada».

Apetito por la vida

«La ciencia resulta mucho más costosa de lo que debería ser porque la mayoría de los científicos no fabrican sus propios instrumentos. Podrían hacerlo, pero no lo hacen, y por eso no tienen ni la menor idea de cómo funcionan esos instrumentos comerciales, mientras que si el aparato lo has construido por ti mismo tienes, necesariamente, que entenderlo».

El apetito que James Lovelock siente por la vida sigue siendo pantagruélico. «Una de las cosas más desagradables con las que me encuentro en la actualidad es con el hecho de que la gente joven viene a verme para preguntarme si existe alguna esperanza. Y por supuesto que hay esperanzas. En estos momentos, nos estamos dedicando simplemente a esperar, tal como si nos encontráramos en los años 30, cuando todo el mundo sabía que la guerra se iba a producir pero nadie sabía qué hacer al respecto».

«Pero en el momento mismo en que estalló la guerra, todos nos pudimos dar cuenta de que las perspectivas que se nos abrían eran sumamente desoladoras. Aun así, se produjo en todos nosotros un maravilloso sentimiento de buenos propósitos. No había bienes de consumo y todos los alimentos estaban estrictamente racionados. Sin embargo, nunca consideramos que aquellos fueran unos tiempos de total y absoluta desesperación. Cuando el cambio climático empeore aún más, entonces se producirá un verdadero desastre, pero eso estimulará un cambio de actitud que será positivo para cambiar las cosas de verdad».