Scientists warn polar bears are inbreeding due to climate change
The loss of genetic diversity sounds bad, but there is no evidence it actually is. They just assume it is. There is a reply to the story here which pretty well demolishes it
A new study on climate change’s effects on polar bears was published Wednesday in the Royal Society Journals.
The study, published Wednesday in the Royal Society Journals, found a 10-percent decrease in the genetic diversity of polar bears in the Norwegian archipelago Svalbard over a 20-year period, corresponding with the loss of sea ice.
“We found a drastic reduction in genetic diversity over the 20-year period," one of the study’s authors, Simo Maduna of the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, told ABC News. "And we could, in actual fact, associate this reduction in genetic diversity with the loss of sea ice."
As the sea ice melts due to climate change, polar bears have fewer encounters with other polar bears.
Researchers worry that as more bears begin to inbreed, it could lead to infertility among the polar bears, as well as an inability to combat disease.
"With genetic diversity, when the population becomes so small, you'll find that there will be a higher chance of closely related individuals mating and producing offspring," Maduna said. "But with that comes a risk in the sense that some of the traits ... that are recessive, will now basically be unmasked in the population."
Polar bears are already facing other detrimental effects of global warming, such as starvation from their dwindling hunting grounds. A previous study from 2020 estimated that all polar bears could be extinct by 2100 if the Arctic ice continues to melt at its current rate.
*************************************
‘The harm to children is irreparable’: Ruth Etzel speaks out ahead of EPA whistleblower hearing
The US Environmental Protection Agency is failing to protect children by ignoring poisons in the environment and focusing on corporate interests, according to a top children’s health official who will testify this week that the agency tried to silence her because of her insistence on stronger preventions against lead poisoning.
“The people of the United States expect the EPA to protect the health of their children, but the EPA is more concerned with protecting the interests of polluting industries,” said Ruth Etzel, former director of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP). The harm being done to children is “irreparable”, she said.
A hearing will be held on 13 September in which several internal EPA communications will be presented as evidence, including an email in which EPA personnel discuss using press inquiries about Etzel as “an opportunity to strike” out against her. Among many witnesses to be called to testify are several former high-level EPA officials.
“I want this to be seen and heard,” Etzel said. “I think we should let some light shine on these dirty tricks.”
Etzel is among five current or former EPA scientists who have recently come forward with allegations that the agency, which is charged with regulating chemicals and other substances that may harm public and environmental health, has become deeply corrupted by corporate and political influence. That outside influence pushes agency scientists to make important assessments in ways that will protect their jobs, rather than protect the public, Etzel said.
The whistleblowers have alleged a range of wrongdoing by the EPA, including using intimidation tactics against the agency’s own scientists to protect the interests of certain industries, even when doing so puts the public at risk. The problems have continued into the Biden administration, according to the allegations.
‘Destroy the scientist’
Etzel is a pediatrician and epidemiologist who joined the EPA in 2015 after serving as senior officer in the department of public health and environment at the World Health Organization in Switzerland. She also previously worked for the US Centers for Disease Control and the US Department of Agriculture, and is well known as a global expert on children’s health issues.
In her role at the EPA, Etzel helped launch an initiative to accelerate the reduction of childhood exposure to lead from sources in air, water, soil, paint, and food. The federal lead strategy stalled, Etzel alleges, after the 2016 election of Donald Trump when the EPA came under the direction of administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Etzel filed her whistleblower complaint against the EPA in November 2018 alleging that her determination to push the initiative forward, including publicly complaining about EPA delays, triggered retaliation.
The EPA placed her on leave, demoted her, cut her pay, fabricated complaints against her, and conducted a smear campaign aimed at “humiliating” her and “undermining her career and professional stature”, according to her complaint. The EPA also blocked opportunities for her to speak at professional conferences, she alleges.
Internal EPA email communications included as evidence in the case shows that initial questions from media about Etzel’s administrative leave drew curt responses declining to comment on “personnel matters”. But as media inquiries about Etzel mounted, on 28 September 2018, a top EPA public affairs official wrote to the EPA press secretary and other public affairs officers: “This is our opportunity to strike.”
Then, in an email thread with the subject line “Push this around ASAP please,” public affairs officials agreed to a “stronger updated” statement about Etzel that said she was placed on administrative leave because of “serious reports made against her by staff … ” that were “very concerning”.
“The old playbook was attack the science,” Etzel told the Guardian. “The new playbook is destroy the scientist.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics and more than 100 other public health-oriented organizations and institutions sent a letter in 2018 to the EPA protesting the removal of Etzel, who has received multiple national and international awards for scientific integrity and advocacy in recent years.
‘Right the wrongs of the past’
In a pre-hearing statement, the EPA denied taking retaliatory actions against Etzel and said the federal lead action plan was issued in December 2018 and was a “major focus and significant accomplishment”.
“While appellant Ruth Etzel has alleged that EPA’s former administration delayed implementation of the action plan with the premise that it did not care about children and lead exposure issues, the profuse record and witness testimony will illustrate that appellant’s allegations are grossly unfounded,” the EPA said in the filing with the MSPB.
The EPA said there were numerous complaints about Etzel’s management, including complaints that she used “explicit language”, “failed to follow agency HR policy”, was unable “to control her emotions”, and often would “bully others”.
In a statement to The Guardian the EPA said: “This administration is committed to ensuring all EPA decisions are informed by rigorous scientific information and standards. Retaliation against employees who report alleged violations is not tolerated at EPA.”
Paula Dinerstein, a lawyer with the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is representing Etzel, said the EPA still has not taken action to implement the lead protection strategy, and has acknowledged the “libelous claims” against Etzel were not substantiated.
The Biden administration should not only reinstate Etzel to her previous position, but should also take steps to address the deeper problems revealed by whistleblowers, Dinerstein said.
“Etzel and other recent EPA whistleblowers have exposed EPA’s timidity and industry capture,” she said. “The Biden administration has said a lot of the right things, and has taken some good steps, but it will take a lot of effort and pressure to ensure they right the wrongs of the past.”
The case of Etzel v EPA is set for a hearing in front of the US Merit Systems Protection Board on 13-15 September. The proceedings are open to the public, and scheduled to be held via Zoom due to fears about the spread of Covid-19.
***************************************
Australia: Regions To Bear Brunt Of Feel-Good Emissions Target
Earlier this year, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that Australia would “not achieve net zero [emissions] in the cafes, dinner parties and wine bars of our inner cities”,
Rather, “it will be won in places like the Pilbara, the Hunter, Gladstone, Portland, Whyalla, Bell Bay, the Riverina. In the factories of our regional towns and outer suburbs,” Morrison said at the Business Council of Australia event.
But for the people who live and work in these regions, a net zero target is far from a “win”.
A net zero emissions target is a policy designed by inner-city elites, and it only serves their narrow interests.
These elites insist that Australia needs to drastically reduce its carbon emissions, even though we only account for about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. To put that in perspective, every 16 days China emits the same amount of carbon emissions that Australia does in an entire year.
“Reducing Australia’s emissions to zero will have no discernible impact on global emissions. But it certainly makes the inner-city elites feel like they’re being responsible global citizens.”
For Australians in the outer suburbs and regions however, the cost couldn’t be greater.
Research by the Institute of Public Affairs published earlier this year estimated that a net zero emissions target would place up to 653,000 jobs at risk. And, no surprises, these at-risk jobs are overwhelmingly concentrated in regional areas. Some regional electorates could see as many as one in four jobs placed at direct risk, and this doesn’t account for the flow-on effects of mass job destruction.
The experience of the loss of Australia’s car manufacturing industry demonstrates the point. A survey by the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union found that two years after Holden’s Elizabeth plant closed 24 per cent of laid-off workers remained unemployed, and two-thirds of those who found a job were in part-time, casual, or contract employment. Only 5 per cent of the workers had a new job that had the same or better working conditions.
We know from the experience to date that Australia has reduced its emissions at a great cost to those living in the regions. As National members of parliament Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan wrote in a newspaper article in February, “the emissions from people living in cities have gone up during the past 30 years, but their moral guilt has been eased by sending the bill to the bush”.
The mechanism for this was a clause in the Kyoto agreement that allowed Australia to claim a carbon credit if we cleared less land each year than the 688,000ha cleared in 1990. As Joyce and Canavan explained, this “led to state governments imposing ever tightening restrictions on land clearing.
Now Australia clears just 50,000ha of land a year. This is not enough to keep our farming land at a constant amount, let alone develop new areas. In fact, if we had not stripped the right from farmers to develop their own land, Australia’s emissions would have gone up, not down, in the past 30 years.”
The adoption of a net zero emissions target would do exactly the same thing: allow inner-city types to feel good about their so-called “action on climate change”, which does not extend beyond putting Australians living in the regions out of work.
When those working in relatively higher-emitting industries raise concerns about their job security, they are told that the new wave of “green jobs” will ensure that they can continue to work and provide for their family. But these promises ring hollow. IPA research has identified that for each renewable activity job created since 2010, five manufacturing jobs have been destroyed.
The NSW Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap details how the Berejiklian government plans to force expensive and unreliable renewable energy onto households and businesses.
Under the roadmap, the government will establish five renewable energy zones over the next decade and “support an expected 6300 construction jobs and 2800 ongoing jobs mostly in regional NSW”.
In other words, the NSW government’s plan admits that only 900 jobs would be created each year, with the vast majority of these being temporary.
Where the 107,000 people employed in agriculture and mining across the state are supposed to work if their jobs are destroyed as a result of the emissions reduction effort is not made clear.
Perhaps that’s because to the inner-city elites, some jobs are more important than others.
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/regions-to-bear-brunt-of-feel-good-emissions-target
***************************************‘Their views will not be muzzled’: News Corp’s Australian boss outlines climate campaign
News Corp Australia’s executive chairman Michael Miller has told local staff the company’s commentators such as Andrew Bolt and Rowan Dean will not be “muzzled” as part of a company-wide editorial project focused on climate change and reducing carbon emissions.
In an all staff email obtained by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, Mr Miller confirmed plans for a company-wide climate change campaign in October, but said the push was not conceived due to pressure from advertisers and that different viewpoints will be featured in it.
“Our plans are not in response to any advertiser questions or concerns,” he said. “However, since the coverage this week, it has been great to be contacted by our clients and major Australian companies who are interested in how they can be involved.”
“All our commentators and columnists will be encouraged to participate, and their views will not be ‘muzzled’” .
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age this week revealed plans for the Rupert Murdoch-controlled media company to begin advocating for reducing emissions, marking a major shift in its long-standing editorial hostility towards carbon reduction policies. The article said a plan was devised to limit – but not muzzle – dissenting voices among News Corp’s stable of conservative commentators.
The article sparked a furious response from Bolt, who said on his television program midweek he would leave the organisation if the plan was true.
“So we are going to champion a useless gesture by Australia that won’t lower the temperature but will cost jobs and money - when we are already in the schtuck?,” he said this week.
“A pretend fix, to a pretend crisis, after we campaigned against the carbon tax? Okay. But it’s the boss’ paper, it’s their right to campaign even for something stupid and seem like fools for once fighting against what we are now fighting for,” Bolt told his Sky News viewers. “If that is what the Murdoch media will ask of me, I am out of here.”
“If I’m still here, you’ll know it was all untrue. If I’m gone, worry,” he said.
News Corp’s campaign is set to feature in city tabloids including Sydney’s Daily Telegraph and Melbourne’s Herald Sun, national broadsheet The Australian and on Sky News.
Mr Miller said the “major editorial project” was first discussed in March at a meeting of News Corp’s editorial board, which is chaired by The Australian’s editor-in-chief Chris Dore. He said the work will focus on key environmental and climate issues and the options Australia need to consider reaching a zero emissions target. It will feature leaders in the field and perspectives from lawmakers, scientists, academics and business leaders.
“Australians have told us that caring for the environment is a priority,” Mr Miller wrote. “They have told us that they are interested in the issues, the political and personal choices, as well as the costs and trade offs involved. They also want to know more about how their choices can help make the planet a better, greener place.“
“We will endeavour to ensure that all views, not just the popular ones, are heard,” he said.
Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire has in recent years faced growing international condemnation and pressure over its editorial stance on climate change, which has previously cast doubt over the science behind global warming.
Negative publicity about its coverage appeared in global outlets such as The New York Times and Financial Times during Australia’s deadly bushfires almost two years ago. The coverage by local tabloids and national masthead The Australian also triggered a comment from Murdoch’s youngest son, James Murdoch, who publicly denounced the outlets’ “ongoing denial” of climate change. Mr Murdoch quit the News Corp board last August due to concerns about its editorial stance.
Climate change scepticism has proven difficult to uphold as leading corporations start to aggressively push their green credentials. Woolworths and Coles used the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games to broadcast advertisements that focused on their green credentials. But Mr Miller said to staff that the reason for the editorial work was due to the changing needs of its audience, rather than any requests from advertisers.
Mr Miller said News Corp will also reinvigorate 1 Degree - an initiative which began in Australia in 2007 following a famous speech by Rupert Murdoch where he said the planet deserved “the benefit of the doubt”.
News Corporation’s global environmental targets include reducing its fuel and electricity emissions 60 per cent by 2030 on a 2016 base year, reduced supply chain carbon emissions 20 per cent by 2030 and hit net zero by 2050.
”No doubt other media and social platform users will try to take issue with our coverage and attempt to make News the story, however we have never been afraid of pushing boundaries and facilitating tough and uncomfortable conversations,” Mr Miller said. “This is a conversation which Australia needs to have.“
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment