Ecology and War: The Wiki Review

So, a while back I wrote a couple of posts about the effect of war on the environment: (http://stochasticreview.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Ecology%20and%20war)

By the standards of this generally idiosyncratic and opinionated blog they were actually pretty scrupulously researched. However, I neglected that most venerated source of amateur research knowledge - Wikipedia.

While reading about the military and civilian uses of depleted uranium (scary stuff - look it up some time) I found that there is a Wikipedia article titled 'Environmental impact of war'. Sadly it is pretty much useless. Despite having multiple issues that should be apparent to a literate reader with no expertise in the subject matter it does not even seem to have warranted a clean up label from the ruling Wikipedia cabal.

The most glaring error is a dominant focus on the long term and cross-generational effects of various chemical and nuclear weapons on human beings. Of course humans play a dominant role in most of the Earth's ecosystems but there are plenty of other places where the human impact of war is addressed. In my humble opinion a better use of a page specifically about ecological effects of warfare would be to focus on animals, plants and the general environment.

The historical section (necessarily a whirlwind tour in such a short article) appears to be randomly organised. For example the Vietnam war and Rwandan genocide are lumped together without any apparent rhyme or reason. Surprisingly this section is actually rather good with interesting points made about the US use of herbicides and the pressure that Rwandan refugee camps put on the surrounding ecosystem. Similarly the brief paragraph on the Iraqi oil spills caused by Saddam's scorched earth policy in the first gulf war is thought provoking about the effects of war in a major oil producing country.

We then have another confused list of general environmental hazards from unexploded ordinance to the use of Agent Orange. Again there seems to be more focus on issues that the authors were interested in than on those that genuinely caused environmental damage. At a glance I'd say that increased military use of fossil fuels (potentially offset by the usual domestic economic slow down?), intentional flooding and nuclear testing are most likely to have a major environmental rather than merely human significance.

So unfortunately not much of an asset to anyone considering the effect of war on the environment. Whole swathes of history are ignored with no real consideration of the (likely lesser) effects of war before the modern era. Geographically the picture is better than you might expect with the case studies taken from numerous continents but coverage remains piecemeal and incomplete. Here's hoping some community minded editor takes an interest in it soon!

Greenpeace fights back

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/16/arctic-30-greenpeace-petrol-stations-protests

Well done Greenpeace! The travesty of Russian attacks on legitimate protestors against Arctic exploitation just shows how out of control the energy giants are in a world that urgently needs to wean itself off fossil fuels.

As for Shell's reponse, it is beyond contemptuous. If they should have learned one thing from the recent fuss over price hikes it is that they cannot hide behind secrecy and obfuscation any more. A debate over potential Arctic resources is preferable to allowing the grasping opportunism and cowboy behaviour that prospecting firms have exhibited elsewhere on the globe.

Perceptions of African ivory poaching

So I've seen a couple of newspaper articles recently arguing that poaching is on the rise in Africa with a disastrous impact on conservation efforts. Only a couple of months ago there was the case in Zimbabwe where elephants were targeted with poisoned watering holes and now Kenya are proposing to introduce micro-chipping to safeguard rhino's horns.

Hopefully this initiative will be successful and will help stop selfish individuals and businesses from slaughtering the beasts that benefit African economies far more effectively when preserved and kept in national parks.
 
I do find it a bit myopic though that every article about this trend focusses on the use of ivory in Chinese traditional medicine as the cause of poaching. Of course it is true that this is a cause of poaching and should not be allowed to threaten the existence of endangered species. However we don't feel a similar need to discuss the big game hunting Victorians or the chaos sparked by bungled decolonisation in every article about ivory poaching. A superficial analysis of poaching as the fault of the Chinese ignores the historical factors that have caused environmental catastrophes across Africa and the globe and leads to a misleading 'not our problem' attitude towards these issues in the West.

Bypassing an unpleasant controversy

So I've wasted hours of my life in pointless argument. People who know me may be less than surprised by this. I usually rather enjoy arguing, even at cross purposes, after a few drinks to bring all involved to the optimum level of incoherence and stubborn intransigence.

However, the argument of bike vs car is an especially unpleasant one that tends to bring out the most tribal and selfish attributes of both sides. As with most 'lifestyle' arguments it quickly devolves into a sprawling mess of interrelated issues. Ethics, environmentalism, safety, legality and anecdote intertwine as temperatures rise and everybody involved tries to justify their heart-felt beliefs and habits. It usually ends with hurt feelings all round along with a general nasty atmosphere.

So I was relieved to stumble across a tactic that bypasses all of these poorly understood and applied issues and reduces the debate to a single question. Probably I'm being as intolerant as everyone else but it is a question that is addressed to car drivers and will probably strongly appeal to cyclists and other road users.

The question is '... would you prefer X more cars instead'. Allowing for selective perception we can conservatively estimate that for every one cyclist/bus/motorbike that annoys a motorist there are four that they simply don't clock or have no problems with.

Annoyed by the extra six seconds it takes you to pass a cyclist on a steep upwards stretch? Instead you could add another four cars to your traffic jam,

Inconvenienced by a bus rudely pulling out in front of you or taking a while to safely reach a bus stop? The alternative might be fifty more cars - enough to clog any main road.

The brilliant thing is that it doesn't work the other way round. Most bus passengers, cyclists and motorbike riders would be glad to see more people adopt their favoured mode of transport. For the former it could only bring ticket prices down (possible after a transition stage while the infrastructure began to benefit from increased revenue). For cyclists and motorbikes it would just lower the chance of accident or death. I don't think anyone would mourn the decreased emissions.  

Chomsky speaks out

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/us-disaster-race-noam-chomsky

Interesting article by Chomsky on the responsibility of the most affluent and powerful countries of the world for the environmental and nuclear threats to civilization as we know it.

Some bits are more on the mark than others. Chomsky is openly and publicly anti-American and sometime underestimates the extent to which the anti-Americanism of other can be mistaken for a genuine concern for the environment. Projects like Ecuador's Yasuni are fantastic and should be supported strenuously but in many cases there is a big difference between making a speech about the environment in order to embarrass powerful neighbours and actually acting to bring in green policies.

However, when he moves on to nuclear warfare he is absolutely on the button. The West cannot adopt the moral high ground on Iran or North Korea's minuscule weapons programs while turning a blind eye to Israel's plausibly deniable stockpile and tendency to destroy any installation that they have suspicions about. If nuclear weapons are to be banned effectively, and in the interests of humanity they should be, then it must be done without favour or prejudice. Any other method merely encourages back sliding and shows of nervous aggression by those who feel unfairly treated by the USA and its allies.

Natural Nuclear Reactors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/13/natures-nuclear-reactors-the-2-billion-year-old-natural-fission-reactors-in-gabon-western-africa/

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1097.pdf

This is absolutely amazing! Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that such a process could occur naturally!

However, it does make me somewhat glad to be living in an extraordinarily stable and temperate region of the Earth where landslides, floods, volcanos and earthquakes are largely something that happens to other people.

Keeping it this way is just one of the many reasons to oppose the Tories' scheme for large scale and government-backed fracking in the UK.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/8999677/Fracking-company-blamed-for-earthquakes-comes-to-the-Home-Counties.html

Norway Foreign Minister on Arctic exploitation

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-norway-s-foreign-minister-espen-barth-eide-on-arctic-drilling-a-863558.html

I really hope that the translation process has made this guy seem more hard core than he is. He flatly denies the special status of the Arctic in environmental terms and pays lip service to the need to manage it carefully if we are to avoid complete global melt down.

Here are some of his more controversial statements:

"The exploitation of Arctic resources will happen. It has always been our key policy to make sure that the rules are clear, both on who owns what and on how to exploit resources. The Arctic is not special in legal terms; it is just an ocean. The area is of course ecologically vulnerable. But it is possible to have responsible drilling."

"whilst the Antarctic is a continent, the Arctic is an ocean. And it is governed by the law of the sea. It is an area of opportunity."

I can't say I'm reassured. If the Arctic is not special in legal terms then we should probably do something about making it so rather than allowing it to be casually taken over by corporate interests.  

Yasuni in trouble?

http://mondediplo.com/2012/07/12ecuador

Interesting article on the attempt by Ecuador to prevent oil prospecting in environmentally sensitive areas in return for international financial support. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this one. It is a bold move by Ecuador but similarly it is difficult to see crisis threatened Western governments and corporations going for such an untested scheme that is likely to offend so many vested interests.

Le Monde seem to be generally positive while aiming slight criticism at Ecuador's past political conduct and economic choices.