Tag: global

Kittens and Climate Change

  • Climate change is making cats' breeding season longer, resulting in more kittens taken to shelters (Photo courtesy of the US Humane Society)

Every year between three to four million
dogs and cats in the US are euthanized in
shelters. That’s according to the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
That’s because no one will take them in. Kavitha
Cardoza reports the
warmer temperatures caused by climate change are
making the problem of too many cats worse:

Transcript

Every year between three to four million
dogs and cats in the US are euthanized in
shelters. That’s according to the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
That’s because no one will take them in. Kavitha
Cardoza reports the
warmer temperatures caused by climate change are
making the problem of too many cats worse:

It takes just one cc of sodium pentobarbital and a few seconds to turn this…

(sound of cat mewing)

into this…

(silence)

Each year about twice as many cats as dogs are killed.

(sound of dogs barking)

At the Washington Humane Society Shelter there’s a large whiteboard with instructions
scrawled on it. Kittens “Rice and Gravy” need socializing. The dog Clint Eastwood
does not like other dogs.

Some animals are put down because they have medical problems. Others because
they’re aggressive. But, the main reason is there are just too many of animals and not
enough homes willing to adopt them.

It’s a year round problem, but Spring – around April, begins what’s called the “kitten
season.” Michelle Otis, head of the shelter, says that’s been changing.

“We’re finding that starts earlier every year with the climate change. We’re starting to
see large litters come in as early as February now.”

That would start to slow down in September, but now with warmer winters, it’s
continuing until December.

Otis says on a busy day they get what she calls “an avalanche” of kittens – about 100 a
day – some weighing less than a pound with their eyes still closed.

No one at this shelter wants to euthanize more kittens or puppies.

The only solution they see is to get more people to spay or neuter their pets. But that’s
not easy.

(sound of Jeep stopping and door closing)

Paul Hibler is an animal control officer in Montgomery County Maryland. He’s
responding to a complaint call.

(knocking on door)

Officer: “Hi is victor home?”

Lady: “He’s working.”

Officer: “Does he still have dogs?”

While he waits to get the owner on the phone, Hibler walks to the backyard and points
out the 6 large pups crowded in a small space. They’ve all got “cherry eye” or a red
inflammation of the eyelid.

“This is typical of someone who doesn’t understand the importance of spaying and
neutering. I think he just assumed well if the dog became pregnant she’ll have a couple
of pups and ill be able to find homes for them. And lo and behold she had 10 times the
number he thought.”

Hibler says overpopulation could easily be controlled if people would spay and neuter
their pets.

There are many reasons why pet owners don’t get their pets ‘fixed’. Often it’s the cost.
Sometimes they don’t know where to go. But it’s also myths people believe, such as
“my pet will become fat” or “not as affectionate.”

There are some owners who come to the shelter again and again with litter after litter.
That’s despite offers to spay their pets for free. It’s a huge financial burden for shelters.
And it’s an emotional burden for the people who work there.

Diana Foley at the Washington Humane Society says no matter how many times she’s
been present when an animal is euthanized, it’s never gets easier.

“Each time that you’re faced with that decision, and you’re in that moment, and you’re
thinking how can you make him have a good end. And you’re petting them and holding
them and kissing them and touching them, talking to them and you’re saying how can
you make that animal’s last moments peaceful.”

And with climate change making the breeding season longer, the animal shelter workers
are finding their spending even more “last moments” with unwanted animals.

For The Environment Report, I’m Kavitha Cardoza.

Related Links

White House Bars Science

  • Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there's no way to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered wildlife, so don't going looking for one. (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Wildlife scientists in government
agencies have been ordered not to analyze
whether greenhouse gases affect endangered
animals. Lester Graham reports:

Memos from Bush political appointees are telling government scientists there’s no way
to make a connection between specific greenhouse gas emissions and endangered
wildlife, so don’t going looking for one.

In other words, that ice melting in the arctic causing polar bears so much difficulty?
Don’t try to use science to blame coal-burning power plants in the U.S.

Jeff Ruch is with Public Employees for Envrionemental Responsibility. He says this new
rule is the Bush administration’s way of making sure more coal-fired power plants can
be built.

“The Bush administration is doing everything they can to smooth a way to site an
additional 20 plants in the near term from their point of view, before they leave office.
And that’s an awful lot of greenhouse gases and that’s where the fight is.”

This ruling will likely be overturned in the courts, eventually – but probably not before the
coal-burning plants have been approved.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Climate Change and Wildfires

  • Jennifer Pierce and David Wilkins stand in front of a ponderosa pine forest just outside the city of Boise. They hope to study the relationship between fire and climate here and recreate a snapshot of ancient climate. They are both teach at Boise State University's Geosciences Department. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Twenty years ago this year, the
country watched its oldest national park
go up in flames. Looking back, scientists
believe the 1988 fires of Yellowstone
National Park were the signal fire of
climate change. Researchers have been
working ever since to understand this
relationship between climate and wildfire.
Sadie Babits reports on two scientists
searching for clues to ancient climates,
using trees as their guide:

Transcript

Twenty years ago this year, the
country watched its oldest national park
go up in flames. Looking back, scientists
believe the 1988 fires of Yellowstone
National Park were the signal fire of
climate change. Researchers have been
working ever since to understand this
relationship between climate and wildfire.
Sadie Babits reports on two scientists
searching for clues to ancient climates,
using trees as their guide:

Jennifer Pierce wears work boots as she plows down a steep slope in a
ponderosa pine forest.

(sound of walking, twigs breaking)

Her blonde hair is tucked up under her Boise State bronco cap, but it keeps
sneaking out. She has to keep brushing it back under. She and her
colleague David Wilkins are professors who work for Boise State
University’s Geosciences Department. They’re in the middle of tall pines in
a forest just outside of Boise, Idaho. Suddenly she’s crashing across the
brambles and heads for this tree.

“Oh that’s a great one! Wow! Sweet!”

She drops to her knees and shows me how this tree has been scarred by
fire.

“You see this little V shaped cat face here at the bottom of the tree that’s
blackened? So during a fire when the bark of the tree gets damaged that
preserves a record of the fire as a scar on the tree.”

Pierce says since the tree has annual growth rings, she can tell when the
tree got burned.

It’s one way Pierce and Wilkins reconstruct the fire history of this forest.
It’s a key to understanding how climate has affected forest fires in the past.

“I think as we move into a likely warmer and drier future, it’s going to be
increasingly important to understand the relationship between climate and
fire.”

She says climate is the primary control for wildfires. As the West warms,
there’s less control. Recently, that’s meant a lot more wildfires.

(popping sound) “There you go!” (sound of a drill bit going through the tree
with sound of birds and forest)

David Wilkins is twisting an auger into the tree.

“It’s a good upper body workout!” (laughs)

It’s a way to take a sample of the rings of this tree. Within a half-minute,
Wilkins’ auger is stuck. The tree is rotten inside. An eight-inch core is all he
gets.

(sound of drill bit coming out of the tree)

Jennifer Pierce takes a look at this sample Wilkins twisted out. The rings –
some light, some dark – reveal just how the tree has responded to moisture
and temperature.

“If you have a tree that kind of is at the edge of its comfort zone so to
speak, it will be more of a sensitive recorder of those environmental
stresses. See this one looks pretty good.”

Tree rings aren’t the only clue these scientists use to reconstruct historic
climates.

(scraping sound)

“I didn’t bring my big shovel. I kind of feel naked without it.”

Pierce scrapes away dirt and she finds bits of charcoal. She can sometimes
use charcoal for radio carbon dating. But these won’t do.

“But, um, I wouldn’t use them for dating because you want to make sure
that the charcoal is stratographicly in place and that you haven’t had
critters burrowing and mixing things up.”

Charcoal can be dated much further back than the tree rings. It helps
Pierce and Wilkins understand what happened here thousands of years
ago. With samples from other scientists, they’ll get a snapshot of ancient
climate and how it affects wildfire.

And possibly determine what climate change will mean for forests in the
future.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Can Cow Hormones Help the Environment?

  • One environmentalist is arguing that hormones in cows may actually be better for the environment (Photo by Kinna Ohman)

The cow hormone known as rBST or rBGH
has taken a beating in the environmental community.
Injecting the hormone into cows makes them produce
more milk. But some people are afraid the hormone
can find its way from the cow, to the cow’s milk,
and into our bodies. The government insists that’s
not the case. Shawn Allee says one researcher
wants to change the debate about rBST – and convince
environmentalists to support the hormone:

Transcript

The cow hormone known as rBST or rBGH
has taken a beating in the environmental community.
Injecting the hormone into cows makes them produce
more milk. But some people are afraid the hormone
can find its way from the cow, to the cow’s milk,
and into our bodies. The government insists that’s
not the case. Shawn Allee says one researcher
wants to change the debate about rBST – and convince
environmentalists to support the hormone:

Before I introduce you to the researcher who supports rbst or rbgh, I want
you to understand what she’s up against.

It’s well-meaning people like Steve Parkes.

Parkes co-owns New Leaf natural food store in Chicago. He decides what’s
on the shelves.

“A lot goes into making that decision. First and foremost, is it something
I would eat myself?”

And as for milk produced with rbgh, Parkes won’t sell it.

“People have been drinking milk for thousands of years from animals
that didn’t have have rgbh in them, so, I think I’m a little more
comfortable drinking milk from a cow that didn’t have rgbh than I am
from something that is a very, very new technology.”

A lot of people distrust rbgh, and that’s changed the milk market.
For example, some retailers like Starbucks won’t buy milk from dairies that
use it. More and more dairies are asking farmers to pledge not to use the
hormone.

The trend has frustrated researcher Judith Capper.

“People aren’t questioning the science basis of it.”

Capper is with Cornell University. She argues environmentalists and
consumers should take another look at the hormone, and see it as part of the
solution to global warming.

Capper recently co-wrote a study that began with a simple observation – in a
few decades, there will be many more Americans.

“The US population will have gone up from about 300 million people to
377 million people and we wanted to look at the environment impact of
producing enough milk to feed all those people.”

That scares Capper – because producing milk can make the global warming
problem worse.

That’s because feeding cows, and the cows themselves, lead to more
greenhouse gas emissions.

“Okay, there are six major inputs and outputs in terms of carbon.”

I won’t go through six, but here are a few.

First, there’s the feed that cows eat. Tractors have to plant grain. That burns
fossil fuels. Greenhouse gasses. Then feed is trucked to the dairy farm.
More greenhouse gasses. More cows, more greenhouse gasses.

So, you want as much milk as possible from each cow.

“If you give rbst to a cow, it will produce an extra ten pounds per day,
that’s quite an increase.”

And then there’s the other greenhouse gasses. From, um, the ugly end of the
cow equation.

The manure puts off other potent greenhouse gasses. And Cows belch
methane. Cows that use rbst poop and belch, spare the atmosphere even
more carbon.

All this leads Capper to a startling conclusion.

She says if farmers gave a million cows the hormone –

“Using rbst would be like taking about 400,000 cars off the road, or
planting three hundred million trees. Those are really big numbers.”

Judith Capper says she expects scientists will challenge her research – and
she welcomes a good debate about rbgh and rbst.

She says that’s better than this vague idea that the hormone might somehow
be bad without understanding the whole story.

“Choose organic, choose rbst-free, whatever, but base it on facts and
science, not on consumer perceptions that may not be factually correct.”

But, Capper’s got her work cut out for her.

Government statistics show consumer fear about rbgh has made farmers cut
the percentage of cows injected with the hormone.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Oceans Getting More Acidic

  • The research team collects several samples from each stop along the route to measure the chemical composition of the ocean water. (Photo by Ann Dornfeld)

We hear a lot about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But half of all man-made CO2 is stored in the world’s oceans. When CO2 mixes with water, it increases the oceans’ acidity. As Ann Dornfeld reports, that acidification is moving closer toward the oceans’ fragile coastal areas:

Transcript

We hear a lot about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But half of all man-made CO2 is stored in the world’s oceans. When CO2 mixes with water, it increases the oceans’ acidity. As Ann Dornfeld reports, that acidification is moving closer toward the oceans’ fragile coastal areas:


If you’ve ever wondered why sparkling water tastes tangy, instead of just bubbly – it’s because of carbonic acid. That’s what’s produced when carbon dioxide is added to water. Some of the CO2 in the world’s oceans is natural, from things like decaying algae. But the oceans also soak up CO2 produced by cars and factories. Once CO2 is absorbed into the ocean, it sinks to the coldest, deepest water for long-term storage.

Chemical oceanographers at Oregon State University are monitoring the chemical composition of the Pacific Ocean to see where the carbon is being stored. On a research vessel several miles off the coast, they lower a series of bottles down to the ocean floor on a winch.


(sound of winches)


Scientists have expected that upwellings would eventually bring some of that CO2 to the coastal zones that are home to a huge array of marine life. They thought it would take a century or more. But a recent study, published in the journal Science, found acidic water fewer than 20 miles off the Pacific Coast.

Grad student Rachel Holzer says that’s alarming.


“The ocean is normally at a very stable pH. It is a buffered system, which means it is not very easy for the pH to change. But recently there’s been evidence that ocean acidification is happening, meaning that the pH is dropping. And that can be very harmful to biological life of all different types.”


Corrosive water can dissolve the calcium carbonate shells of barnacles, mussels, oysters and clams. Coral reefs are also calcium carbonate. So are a lot of planktonic species, including terrapods. Those make up about half of the diet of young salmon.

Burke Hales co-authored the latest study. He’s an Associate Professor of Chemical Oceanography at Oregon State.


“The question is how are these organisms going to respond, you know? Do their shells dissolve, do they just not grow as quickly? If their shells are negatively impacted, are the organisms themselves negatively impacted? And if the organisms are negatively impacted, how does that cascade through the food web?”

Hales says stopping ocean acidification would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.


“There are people who have talked about going out in the ocean and spraying sodium carbonate pellets into the water, which would dissolve and neutralize some of the carbonic acid. Sort of like when you take a Tums, that’s the active ingredient in Tums is calcium carbonate. That’s one idea that’s been proposed. It’s really, really speculative that that would work.”


What’s more, Hales says the process of hauling all of that ocean antacid out to sea and dispersing it could produce as much CO2 as it would neutralize.


“It is depressing. We wish things weren’t this way and moving sort of irreversibly towards worse conditions. But we also know that the oceans do have a lot of ability to adapt. And what we don’t know yet is exactly how this is gonna play out.”


One thing scientists do know is that the acidification has just begun. The corrosive water they found right off the Pacific Coast was from carbon dioxide released about 50 years ago. And over the last half century, CO2 production has only increased.


For the Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

Hurricanes Getting More Powerful

A new study finds the worst hurricanes are

becoming more intense. Lester Graham reports the authors

speculate it might be because of climate change:

Transcript

A new study finds the worst hurricanes are becoming more intense. Lester Graham reports the authors speculate it might be because of climate change:


James Elsner is a climatologist at Florida State University. He and his team have been studying wind speeds in hurricanes…


“Well, we found the strongest tropical cyclones, globally, are increasing in intensity.”


Elsner says this is exactly what computer models suggested should happen as the oceans warmed due to climate change. The theory goes that warmer water gives the storms more energy…


“There’s a clean connection with the theory that I think allows us some speculation that as the seas continue to warm, the strongest storms should get stronger.”


And that could mean more damage to coastal areas, put more people at risk, and cause more damage and oil spills at offshore drilling platforms.


For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Arctic Summer of Fire and Ice

  • NOAA satellite image, June 30, 2004, showing wildfire smoke blanketing Alaska. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

The Arctic is melting this summer.
But, that melting is not as severe as it
could be. Lester Graham reports a haze
filters out some of the sun’s rays:

Transcript

The Arctic is melting this summer.
But, that melting is not as severe as it
could be. Lester Graham reports a haze
filters out some of the sun’s rays:

Every year there are forest fires in Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Most of them are
started by lightning strikes. The smoke from the forest can be carried by the winds
across the Arctic. It slows the melting of the ice just a bit.

Bob Stone works with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“It does act as a filter. It extinguishes some of the direct sunlight that would otherwise
impinge on the surface of the snow (and) ice.”

So the smoke shades the arctic from the sun. It’s still not really good news.

Yes, melting slows a bit – but scientists think as global warming continues, we’ll see
more forest fires. That means more of the greenhouse gas CO2 is released, and, fewer
trees soaking up CO2.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Polar Bear Rule for Oil

  • Oil companies are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:

Transcript

Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:

Oil companies can’t kill polar bears. That still brings a penalty. But they are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bruce Woods says oil exploration is not much to worry about.

“Believe me, you won’t find more concern for the polar bear anywhere than you will in this office, but we just don’t really believe that this activity at this level poses any significant threat. The threat to the polar bear is the loss of sea ice.”

Environmental groups are furious. They say the loss of sea ice from global warming is a threat to the polar bear, but they say we need to minimize other threats with a moratorium on oil exploration.

For The Environment Report, I’m Richie Duchon.

Related Links

Great Lakes Call for Help

  • Some feel the Great Lakes are being ignored by Congress (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)

The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:

Transcript

The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:

Washington D.C. is a long way from the Great Lakes. Most members of
Congress don’t live near the lakes. And many don’t understand just how big
they are.

Don Scavia used to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in Washington.

“I’ve spent 15 years inside the Beltway and I just know that the Great Lakes just don’t
have the same sense of urgency and importance inside the Beltway as some other places like the Chesapeake Bay and others have. Senators and
Congressmen don’t have boats on it like they do on the Chesapeake. I think
it’s a matter of if you haven’t been here, if you haven’t seen them, you
really don’t get it.”

These days, Don Scavia is a scientist at the University of Michigan. He’s a
co-author of a report on global warming and the Great Lakes. He says we
need to help the Great Lakes adapt to the changes that are already happening
because of global warming.

“The restoration strategy is put in place specifically to increase the
resiliency of the Lakes, increase the buffering capacity of the Lakes, to allow them
to adapt to this near-term climate change.”

Just about everyone around the Great Lakes has noticed that water levels are
dropping. Recreational boats can get stuck. Big cargo ships can’t get into
harbors. And they have to carry lighter loads when lake levels drop. That
means more trips, and, eventually, higher prices for all of us. And
climate change might make it worse.

On top of that, the Great Lakes are struggling with fisheries collapsing,
invasive species damaging the ecosystem, and pollution that’s never been
cleaned up.

Jeff Skelding is with the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition.

“When Great Lakes effort began, we had a lot on our plate to deal with and
then we looked at the science of global warming and its impacts on the Great
Lakes it kinda froze us in our tracks. Now we’ve got global warming to
contend with.”

So, what do the advocates want from Congress?

There’s a $20-billion price tag on Great Lakes restoration.

Bits and pieces of it have gone before Congress. And there’s been some
progress on money for things like restoring wetlands. But for the most
part, most of the time, the Great Lakes just haven’t been a priority in
Washington.

Rahm Emanuel is a Congressman from Illinois. He holds a leadership position
among the House Democrats. He says he hopes the money will be approved by
Congress sometime soon.

“I don’t want another study, I don’t want to pay for another analysis, I’m
over studied, over analysis-ed. We know what it takes to fix it, we know
what the pollutants are, now we’ve got to put our money where our mouth is.”

Politically, the time might not get any better for Great Lakes advocates.
There’s a Census coming up and new Congressional district lines will be
drawn. The Great Lakes region will lose representation in the US House.
That means the Great Lakes states will lose clout in Congress.

So, the region’s members of Congress need to get a Great Lakes restoration
package to the next President before that happens. Great Lakes advocates
are hoping the next President – whether it’s McCain, Obama or Clinton – will
give the Great Lakes more attention, and money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Today’s Signs of Warming Planet

  • The classic photograph of the Earth, taken by the Apollo 17 crew on December 7, 1972 traveling toward the moon (Photo courtesy of NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth)

Climate change is already affecting crops,
forests, water and wildlife. That’s according to
a new government report. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Climate change is already affecting crops,
forests, water and wildlife. That’s according to
a new government report. Lester Graham reports:

Climate change is not something that’s coming. It’s here, according to a report from the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Peter Backlund is one of the chief authors of the new report.

“What was really striking was just how many different changes have been documented
and how much is changing more rapidly than we would have expected ten or fifteen
years ago. And we’re seeing widespread impacts sooner than we expected.”

The report basically says for every good thing climate change brings, there’s something
bad.

Faster growing crops, but more crop failures. Warmer winters mean livestock
survive better, but then hotter summers will be harder on the animals. And there are already
more forest fires and more insects killing trees.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links