Saving endangered species - do choices have to be made?

White Tiger Cub

A question which often arises with ecology and the protection of endangered species is whether it's actually possible to save all the species now at risk or rather only focus on those where there is a better than even chance of success of preservation. It is only since 2004 that the full extent of the potential level of extinctions has been quantified with the figure of 15,589 total of plants, birds and mammals (a quarter of all the existing mammal species) being ascertained at risk by major environmental and science organisations. This is an extraordinary figure and it's almost certainly impossible to determine the number of species for whom conservation and protection will succeed. Despite international agreement on the importance and value of conservation and mechanisms such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the stark reality is that the very existence of human activity (loss of habitat, mining, agriculture, economic development and so on) is driving extinction despite the best efforts of governments, communities and scientists. The uncomfortable option therefore may now be one of selecting which endangered species has the best chances of survival. This is an almost unthinkable proposition for many in the environmental movement but time is not on anyones' side.

How hot will the Earth become with Climate Change ?

Various models of climate change provide an indication of what the actual temperature of the planet may reach however, as observed in a number of studies,including those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) not all factors are included. For example, the impact of melting of permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere and the subsequent release of methane gas is not included yet this may and probably will have a significant impact. The concept of 'hyper-warming' is becoming more of a mentioned consequence which could include a warming of 10 degrees Celsius across the globe. Hyper warming would occur not only due to the release of additional GHG emissions through melting but also would be an effect of the continuous burning of fossil fuels which still continues well above all possible CO2 reduction targets.  The tipping point for climate change remains the magical figure above 2 degrees C yet this will occur regardless so hyper warming may be the end result.

Nuclear energy - a much vexed question

Source: World Nuclear Association

The question of the use of nuclear power continues to be a central issue of debate particularly given the increasing share of power generation which the sector continues to grow and the need to reduce and finally remove reliance on fossil fuel consumption (oil and coal).

The industry points out that clean electricity from 'new renewables' (viz solar, wind, biomass and geothermal power) has the capacity to produce electricity in the decades ahead only in  limited amount. The International Energy Agency projects that, even with continued subsidy and research support, these new renewables can only provide around 6% of world electricity by 2030. That is actually a questionable figure and quotation as currently, in some economies, 6% or close to it has already been reached.

Further the industry argues that while environmentalists have played a valuable role in warning that catastrophic climate change is a real and imminent danger, it is also crucially important that they be equally realistic about solutions. Even with maximum conservation - and a landscape covered by solar panels and windmills - the world's community would still need large-scale source of around-the-clock electricity to meet much of the world's energy needs. Nuclear power, it is argued - like wind, hydro and solar energy - can generate electricity with no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas emissions. The critical difference is that nuclear energy is the only proven option with the capacity to produce vastly expanded supplies of clean electricity on a global scale. 

However this position while on a superficial basis appears accurate, it overlooks a variety of related issues which impact on the nuclear power generation. The cost of waste management and disposal of highly dangerous radioactive waste is not presented nor accounted. The actual cost of power generation per kilowatt is actually more expensive than the dirty coal fired generators and of the different nuclear technologies, only one has a modicum of safety over the long term.

Source: World Nuclear Assocation

The melting of the permafrost - another risk of climate change

Percolating through seawater

Among the multitude of impacts of climate change, rising temperatures and increased CO2 emissions, one of the other lesser known results is the release of methane from the permafrost regions of the Northern hemisphere. Research in 2010 in the East Siberian Artic Shelf identified methane concentrations eight times higher than the rest of the Artic Ocean and almost a hundred locations of higher methane release. The unlocking of methane in the permafrost, should it occur at a higher rate due to higher temperatures would lead to a warming in the atmosphere which would be impossible to stop.

Are wind turbines the answer for renewable energy?

Wind Turbine Farm, Bungendore, New South Wales, Australia

An article from New Scientist has raised an interesting question surrounding possible limitations on renewable energy sources other than solar and actually going backward rather than solving one of the critical energy issues.

Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, says that efforts to satisfy a large proportion of our energy needs from the wind and waves will sap a significant proportion of the usable energy available from the sun. In effect, he says, we will be depleting green energy sources. His logic rests on the laws of thermodynamics, which point inescapably to the fact that only a fraction of the solar energy reaching Earth can be exploited to generate energy we can use.When energy from the sun reaches our atmosphere, some of it drives the winds and ocean currents, and evaporates water from the ground, raising it high into the air. Much of the rest is dissipated as heat, which we cannot harness.

At present, humans use only about 1 part in 10,000 of the total energy that comes to Earth from the sun. But this ratio is misleading, Kleidon says. Instead, we should be looking at how much useful energy - called "free" energy in the parlance of thermodynamics - is available from the global system, and our impact on that.

Humans currently use energy at the rate of 47 terawatts (TW) or trillions of watts, mostly by burning fossil fuels and harvesting farmed plants according to Kleidon's calculations. This corresponds to roughly 5 to 10 per cent of the free energy generated by the global system.

"It's hard to put a precise number on the fraction," he says, "but we certainly use more of the free energy than [is used by] all geological processes." In other words, we have a greater effect on Earth's energy balance than all the earthquakes, volcanoes and tectonic plate movements put together.

Like so much of the current research into energy and environmental alternatives, considerable additional data needs to be gathered, but if correct, this model poses a considerable barrier to be overcome if fossil fuel reliance is to be fully replaced by alternative renewable energy sources.

Executive salaries - where greed is not good

With the continuing and argueably expected poor economic conditions worldwide, the focus again has come onto the issue of executive and Board pay given its' scale and magnitude. The various rounds of Annual General Meetings of listed companies means that share/stockholders are presented with remuneration reports detailing the various levels of base pay, bonuses and share options.  A snapshot from Annual Reports reveals the data for CEOs of major Australian Corporations:

• ANZ Bank: $10.86M
• BHP Billiton: $10.84M
• Commonwealth Bank: $8.64M
• Crown: $7.71M
• Macquarie Group: $8.69M
• National Australia Bank: $7.73M
• Rio Tinto: $12.75M
• Westpac: $9.59M
• Woodside: $7.77M

Non executive Board directors of listed companies typically can expect between $200K to $300K in directors fees per company together with share options. But how realistic are these pay levels if the returns to shareholders are stagnant at best or most likely falling at worst (apart from the mining boom in Australia) ?