Song for Jasmine

It’s hay-making season in the Pays-de-Gex. The farmers are out with their tractors cutting the grass, drying it, and baling it. But they’re not alone! If you look closely at the picture on the right, you’ll see the hawk passing overhead. Every time we see a field being cut, there are always hawks circling the field, looking for any unfortunate little critter that’s been forced to run for cover. The day they cut the grass is not a good day for small furry mammals and other creatures in the fields!

A short while ago, Dweezeljazz and I were lucky enough to pass by one field while it was being cut, and as expected, the hawks were very much in attendance. For some reason, they don’t just stay over the field where the action is, they also cruise over the nearby areas. We were lucky enough to get some rather good shots of them as they flew overhead.

Hmm, this one appears to be circling us, instead of the field!

Sometimes they seem to fly in formation, one following another. I don’t know if that’s just my imagination, or if they really do do that. I can imagine that something that might be startled by the first hawk passing over would be spotted by the second. Occasionally they swoop, and even though we haven’t seen one catch anything yet, they often seem to grab at the cut grass and fly away, taking their chances to see what they can get.

We moved on. It was one of those rare summer days when you could see Mont Blanc with some clarity, and the hawks were out over much of the countryside. Those small animals in the fields better stay alert and remain hidden, wherever they are. If they want my advice, they would do well to keep off the grass!

Next Monday, June 8th, is World Oceans Day. At the risk of turning this blog into a diary of global eco-events, I’d like to draw your attention to it.

The idea to have a world-day for the oceans came in 1992 from Canada, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It’s been celebrated every year since then, but this year marks the first time it has official U.N. recognition. Henceforth, World Oceans Day will be celebrated on June 8th, every year.

You might think that since I live near Geneva, about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get in Western Europe, I would not have much to say about the sea. If you think that, you must be new to this blog (welcome!), the sea is one thing I can talk about for hours. I grew up in England, closer to the coast than most people there. Nobody in England is more than 70 miles from the sea, I grew up much closer than that, about one mile away from the shore, on an island, no less. I spent many a childhood summer day freezing in the cold water, picking my way over the stony beaches, trying to see what I could through the opaque grey-green waters of the north Kent coast (not much, as it happens). I collected foraminifera (tiny shells, less than 1 mm across) and looked at them under a microscope. I remember the first time I saw sea-anemones, on the beaches of Jersey on a family holiday. I’ve seen octopus and nudibranchs on crowded Greek beaches, and sharks and dolphins in the Maldives. Oh yes, I can safely say I love the sea.

The oceans are huge. They cover almost three-quarters of the surface of the earth, and something like three fifths of the earth is over a mile below the surface of the sea. There is an awful lot of seawater out there. So why do we need a world-day event to draw attention to the oceans? Well, as it turns out, the seas and oceans of the world are not in good shape, and it’s our fault, again. You can find out more about the threats to the oceans on the Marine Conservation Society website, here are a few of the highlights.

Everyone knows about global warming, and the melting of the polar ice-caps. That’s bad news for penguins and polar bears, but also for people. A large fraction of humanity lives near the coast, making a substantial part of their living from what they can haul out of the sea. Rising seas and warming waters will change that. Not only will islands and low-lying regions be lost under the waves, the ecosystems at the coastal fringes will suffer too. Coral reefs, for example, provide living space and nurseries for a great many species, and are essential to the marine environment. Even creatures that don’t live on or in them directly often depend on the animals that do. Excessively warm water leads to ‘coral bleaching’, which can kill it if the water stays warm for long enough. Bleaching events are more common than they used to be, and are predicted to become much worse over time. Despite some research showing that some corals may adapt to warmer waters, there is strong reason to believe that most corals will be killed by warm seas by the end of this century unless we make big cuts in our emissions of greenhouse gasses. Scientists are working to find ways to help coral survive, but they’re racing against the clock.

Globally, there’s an even bigger threat, ocean-acidification. The oceans absorb a great deal of the excess carbon dioxide that we are pumping into the atmosphere, and this is slowly turning the seas more acidic. This slows coral growth because it is harder for the coral to form its chalky skeleton. Other creatures, many of which are right at the bottom of the marine food chain, will suffer the same fate. Acidification of the oceans is a global problem by its very nature. It will affect reefs and other ecosystems worldwide, not just those near to cities and industries.

Overfishing is another major problem for the oceans. By depleting stocks of even a few species, we change the way entire ecosystems behave, often seriously. Tuna have been fished almost to extinction in the Mediterranean sea, and there is little sign that common sense will prevail to reduce the pressure on them. Tuna are predators, high up in the food chain. When you remove top predators, often the result is that a few species lower down the food-chain start to dominate, out-competing other creatures. The ecosystem becomes unbalanced, and may change its nature completely. It may not be enough to simply stop hunting the predators, the ecosystem may no longer be able to recover on its own.

Floating garbage is another serious problem. On the tiny atoll of Midway in the Pacific ocean, albatross often mistake floating plastic garbage for food, which they then feed to their chicks. That kills many of them, not surprisingly. Albatross aren’t meant to digest golf-tees, toothbrushes, and lego blocks.

Even the efforts we go to to protect the oceans and their inhabitants can often be misguided. I’m sure we’ve all heard of dolphin-safe tuna, it even got a mention in Lethal Weapon 2, released some 20 years ago. I’m fond of dolphins, like many people, but I was shocked to learn about just how much damage dolphin-safe tuna-fishing can do. The methods used to catch tuna without harming dolphins have a much higher rate of bycatch than other methods. ‘Bycatch’ is another word for ‘collateral damage’, animals accidentally killed while hunting a specific species at sea. Much of the bycatch in dolphin-safe tuna is in itself seriously endangered, far more so than dolphins themselves. No, dolphin-safe tuna is not a good thing for the marine environment.

More and more people are becoming aware of and involved in environmental issues. They are paying attention to the environmental cost of the goods they purchase, insisting on packaging that can be recycled, lower power consumption from electrical goods, or higher mileage from their cars, for example. But what can you change in your daily activities to help the oceans, especially if you live far from the sea? The Marine Conservation Society have some advice, and there’s also a page of hints at The Ocean Project. One obvious thing is to be more informed and cautious in your seafood purchases, both sites have suggestions there. If you prefer to avoid seafood altogether, simply buying organic food is a good idea. That encourages farmers to produce more of it, which means less pesticide in use. Reduced pesticide use means less of it getting into our rivers and from there into the sea, finally ending up in marine mammals like that dolphin we were trying to save a moment ago.

You can find out more about World Ocean Day at the World Ocean Network site. Maybe one of the events that they list is taking place somewhere near you. If not, there are plenty of web-based resources available, like the 24 hours in the Ocean online event from the Musée Nausicaä. I’ll certainly be following that for some of the day.

If you live in the United States, HR 669 may eventually kill your beloved pet. Don’t get it confused with swine flu (H1N1) or avian flu (H5N1). No, HR 669 is not a virus, it’s a bill currently inching its way along the process to becoming law, one which could make it illegal for you to keep your pet.

So what’s HR 669 about? The supposed intent of the bill is sound, namely to prevent invasive species from establishing breeding populations in the US. This makes sense – though it’s coming a little late, Florida probably has more non-native species than anyone can count. Unfortunately, the bill is very ill-conceived. It will not solve the problem, and as many have pointed out it will in fact make matters worse.

I heard about HR 669 from GrrlScientist’s blog, she has been writing about it a lot recently. In “HR 669: The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act” she describes the main features of this bill. I won’t attempt to reproduce her comprehensive analysis here, you should read her post if you’re interested. And if you live in the United States and own a bird, lizard, hamster, fish, or practically any animal other than a cat or dog, you should definitely be interested!

The bill assumes that all non-native species are a threat to native American wildlife, and that they should be banned until proven to be harmless. The bill doesn’t distinguish different regions of the US, so an animal that has the potential to establish itself only in Hawaii, or Alaska, will be banned, even if it couldn’t survive anywhere else. The United States has a wide range of ecosystems, so practically any animal you can think of keeping as a pet could survive somewhere in the US, and is therefore likely to be banned under this bill, should it become law.

Animals which are banned will not be allowed to be imported or exported, traded, sold, or bred, and of course, not be allowed to be released into the wild. If you have one of these banned animals when the bill becomes law, you can keep it, but only if you can prove you had it before the bill is passed. Do you happen to have a receipt for that parrot you inherited from your grandmother 30 years ago?

HR 669 doesn’t stop there. Even if you can prove it, you will still be subject to all the above restrictions. Also, you will not be allowed to transport the animal across state boundaries. Forget about moving to get a better job unless you want your pet to be euthanised. No, you can’t give it to someone else, that’s not allowed either.

If this has you at all concerned, please read the above post on GrrlScientist’s blog, and consider following the link to take action to oppose this bill.

GrrlScientist has some follow-up posts that are worth reading too. In “World Parrot Trust Speaks out Against HR 669” she reproduces a letter from the Executive Director of the World Parrot Trust, in which he adds his voice to the opposition. I find it particularly poignant that parrots will suffer because of this bill. Those of you who know Jasmines’ Story will know that we tried to export her to the US, where we knew she could have lived in a healthier environment. We were unable to do so because the US was not accepting imports from our part of France, for fear of bird-flu, and in any case her exportation would have been a slow process because African Grey are on the CITES lists. Jasmine might have lived had it not been for that restriction, and if HR 669 becomes law, many other animals already living in the US are likely doomed to a similar fate.

We still have lots of snow on the ground here, and it’s frozen hard. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, the local wildlife is still very much in evidence. Today we had two hawks flying around nearby. I don’t know what type they are, if anyone does I’d be interested to find out.

At the same time, a fox came trotting through the nearby fields. We’ve seen this fox before in the distance, but this is the closest we have seen it come.

Less spectacular, but equally pretty, we have the occasional insect that invites itself indoors for the winter. This moth is one of two that have appeared recently. I hope they manage to survive the winter!

Climate-change and global-warming are among the main themes for this blog, and that is one subject certain to encourage the pessimism in a person. On the face of it, if you accept the scientific evidence for global warming and the rate at which climate-change is happening, it can seem hopeless to attempt do anything about it. Individual actions are just so small on the scale of the problem we all face, and actions of nations on the other side of the world can make everything you do seem irrelevant. Coral reefs are sufferring, the Arctic ice is disappearing fast, extreme weather events are on the increase, and major governments are waiting for someone else to take the first step. The world’s climate has already been changed by mankind, and further change is inevitable, no matter what we do next. Why bother to try to recycle, to save petrol or polar bears, or do anything at all when faced with such a challenge?

Despite this, I personally am optimistic about the future. It’s true that we face a challenge of immense proportions, but individual actions really can make a difference. We talk about “saving the planet”, but the planet is not in peril. It is us, our children, and the plants and animals we share this planet with which need saving. Solving the problem of climate-change means nothing if it is not about saving those lives, those species. The problems of climate-change and conservation of wildlife are closely related. Action is needed by governments, yes, but also by individuals. Governments won’t be able to solve this problem if we don’t want them to. Every level of society needs to be involved, from the UN down to you and me. We don’t need someone else to go first before we act, we can all start now and do something in our own corner. The more people act, the sooner they act, the more difference it makes.

Here are some of the things that happened last year that give me cause to be optimistic.

In Britain, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ran a campaign in 2008 asking people to do something in their gardens to help birds and the insects they depend upon. Some 25,000 homes responded, with all sorts of contributions. Even something as simple as choosing the right plants for your balcony can make a difference to your local birds by encouraging the right sorts of insects at difficult times.

In September last year, the European Parliament published the results of a survey of 30,000 people around europe to find out their attitudes to climate-change. It seems that 3 people out of every 5 have already taken some personal measure to reduce their carbon footprint. So the majority of europeans have already done something on their own, without waiting for their governments!

Interestingly, 1 person in 10 said that they did not know what they could do to reduce their carbon footprint. Simply talking to people and spreading information is therefore an important thing to do.

Another survey, this time by the BBC, asked 22,000 people worldwide what they know and think about the problems of climate-change. 9 out of every 10 people asked think something should be done, with 2 out of every 3 saying that drastic action is needed in the near future. Even the majority of the Chinese people (7 out of every 10) think that serious action is needed soon. The same picture emerged in almost all the nations included in the survey. Clearly, people accept the need to act when they are well informed.

On a different scale, the European Parliament recently introduced tougher controls on pesticides, such as banning arial spraying, protecting water-resources with buffer-zones, requiring the use of safer alternatives where they are available, and reducing pesticide use in parks, playgrounds, and other public areas.

Perhaps the most optimistic event of 2008 in this respect has to come from the United States. President-elect Obama has chosen real scientists to take key posts in his administration, including a Nobel laureate. Maybe now more governments will stop looking at each other and start looking at themselves.

None of these things is going to “save the planet” on their own, but each of them together may mean that there will be more of the planet left tomorrow, and the day after. Simply knowing that people do care to act once they know the truth is, to me, very encouraging. It’s a beautiful world, and it always will be. Just how beautiful is up to us.

I wish you a happy and peaceful new year.