Natural Environment Blog

Tuatara eggs that were recently found at Karori Wildlife Sanctuary in New Zealand. Photo: Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

The first known tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus) nest in over 200 years on the mainland has been found at Karori Sanctuary in New Zealand.

The nest contains at least 4 eggs but it is likely to contain more, as tuatara usually lay around 10 eggs at a time.

Staff at the wildlife sanctuary uncovered the nest accidentally.

“We knew of two suspected nests but didn’t want to disturb them to confirm whether or not they contained eggs. The nest in this photo was uncovered by accident, and is the first concrete proof we have that our tuatara are breeding. It suggests that there may be other nests in the Sanctuary we don’t know of.” said Sanctuary Conservation Manager Raewyn Empson.

The eggs were immediately covered up again to avoid disturbing their incubation. Sanctuary staff say that the eggs would have been laid almost exactly a year ago. Female tuatara lay their eggs into a shallow trench and then backfill it. 

About Tuatara

Scientists refer to the tuatara as a 'living fossil'. Photo: Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

Native to New Zealand, the tuatara is a reptile with distinctive soft spines down its backbone. Although it looks superficially like a lizard, tuatara is actually the only surviving member of the order Sphenodontia. 

Tuatara are greenish brown, and measure up to 80 cm (32 in) from head to tail-tip. It can take as many as 30 to 35 years for a tuatara to reach full size. This makes it the slowest growth rate of any reptile.

Tuatara usually lives to around 60 or 70, but they have been known to live to more than 100. In fact, one tuatara was seen mating last year at the ripe old age of 111.

The tuatara’s ancestory dates back to the dinosaur time. Ancestors of the tuatara and many other sphenodons were roaming the world 225 million years ago. This was about the time the first dinosaurs appeared. 

All other sphenodons disappeared around 65 million years ago and exist only as fossils. As a result, scientists often refer to tuatara as “living fossils”.

Tuatara Mating & Breeding

Tuatara mating last year at the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary in New Zealand. Photo: Karori Wildlife Sanctuary

Staff at the wildlife sanctuary suspected that tuatara were about to breed. They witnessed tuatara mating for the first time in March/April last year. Then around this time last year, they witnessed a female tuatara carrying eggs.

Tuatara reach sexual maturity at around 10 to 20 years of age. 

The female, on average, lays between 5 and 18 eggs only once every 4 years, which gives it the longest reproductive cycle of any reptile.

Mating season for tuatara is between January and March. Female tuatara then lay their eggs between October and December. Hatchlings appear between 12 to 15 months later.

Tuatara - Threatened Species

The nest is a significant find for New Zealand because, until the sanctuary was established in 2005, the tuatara was thought to have been extinct on the mainland.

The tuatara, which only occurs in New Zealand, was almost wiped out by rats - an introduced species - by the 1700s. In fact, in 1895, the tuatara was one of the first animals in the world to become fully protected by law.

Since then, significant tuatara populations have survived on 32 remote islands around New Zealand.

WWF, the global conservation organization, has just released the 2008 version of their Living Planet Report (as I was anticipating), and things are not looking good for planet Earth - or those of us who reside here.

The report, prduced in conjunction with  the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Global Footprint Network (GFN), is released every two years and is recognized as probably the most authoritative report on the state of the world’s ecosystems. It could be viewed as biennial bank statement for natural resources. 

According to the report, our global footprint now exceeds the world’s capacity to regenerate by about 30 per cent. This has increased from 25% in the 2006 report.

Furthermore, our global footprint is expected to keep increasing unless we do something about it. The report says that if our demands on the planet continue at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we will need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles.

WWF International Director-General James Leape said “Most of us are propping up our current lifestyles, and our economic growth, by drawing - and increasingly overdrawing - on the ecological capital of other parts of the world,”

“If our demands on the planet continue to increase at the same rate, by the mid-2030s we would need the equivalent of two planets to maintain our lifestyles” he continued.

World Economical Crisis vs World Ecological Crisis

The 2008 report draws comparisons between the world economic crisis and the “world ecological crisis”.

It says:

The recent downturn in the global economy is a stark reminder of the consequences of living beyond our means. But the current  financial recession pales in comparison to the looming ecological credit crunch.

Whether we live on the edge of the forest or in the heart of the city, our livelihoods and indeed our lives depend on the services provided by the Earth’s natural systems.

The report continues to say that we are consuming the resources that underpin those services much too fast – faster than they can be replenished.

Just as reckless spending is causing recession, so reckless consumption is depleting the world’s natural capital to a point where we are endangering our future prosperity.

ZSL co-editor Jonathan Loh said “We are acting ecologically in the same way as financial institutions have been behaving economically - seeking immediate gratification without due regard for the consequences,”

“The consequences of a global ecological crisis are even graver than the current economic meltdown.”

The report also says that in the past 35 years, Earth’s wildlife populations have declined by a third”

5 Countries with the Highest Footprints

The five countries with the highest footprints per person were:

• United Arab Emirates
• the United States of America
• Kuwait
• Denmark
• Australia 

5 Countries with the Lowest Footprints

These countries were found to have the lowest footprints per person:

• Bangladesh
• Congo
• Haiti
• Afghanistan
• Malawi

Reckless Lifestyles at the Expense of Others

The report says that more than three quarters of the world’s population live in nations that have outstripped their country’s biocapacity. It says:

Most of us are propping up our current lifestyles, and our economic growth, by drawing (and increasingly overdrawing) upon the ecological capital of other parts of the world.

Water Footprints

For the first time the Living Planet Report also includes new measures of global, national and individual water footprints.

It finds that globally, each person consumes about 1.24 million liters of water per year.

But the actual figures vary significantly between countries. The nation with the highest water consumption per capita was United States, with 2.48 million liters of water consumed per year (about the size of an Olympic swimming pool). The nation with the lowest water consumption was Yemen, with 619,000 liters per person. 

The Good News…

Despite the apparent gloom and doom, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

WWF believes that it’s not too late for us to do something about the looming “ecological credit crunch”. 

In order to tackle climate change, the WWF refers to its own “WWF Climate Solutions Model” which outlines a model for achieving reductions in carbon emissions of 60 to 80 per cent by 2050.

The report offers some more advice for dealing with the issue:

Success requires that we manage resources on nature’s terms and at nature’s scale. This means that decisions in each sector, such as agriculture or fisheries, must be taken with an eye to broader ecological consequences. It also means that we must find ways to manage across our own boundaries – across property lines and political borders – to take care of the ecosystem as a whole

Download the Report

The report should be available on the Living Planet Report section of the WWF website very soon.

Alternatively, you can download the report here [PDF File 4.35 MB].

WWF, the global conservation organization, is expected to release the 2008 version of its “Living Planet Report” on Wednesday.

The Living Planet Report, released every couple of years by WWF, is an update of the state of the world’s ecosystems. The report is based on two indicators:

• the Living Planet Index, which reflects the health of the planet’s ecosystems; and 
• the Ecological Footprint, which shows the extent of human demand on these ecosystems. 

Previous reports have shown a bleak future for the planet. According to the 2006 report: 

Since the late 1980s we have been in overshoot – the Ecological Footprint has exceeded the Earth’s biocapacity – as of 2003 by about 25 per cent.

Earth’s regenerative capacity can no longer keep up with demand – people are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources.

What this basically means is that, in 2003, it took around 1 year and 3 months for nature to produce the ecological resources that we used in that year. 

And the 2008 report is not expected to make things look any brighter - things are only going to get worse if we don’t do something to change this. 

The report should be available from WWF’s Living Planet Report page.

According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), global warming is occuring much faster than previously thought.

The findings have been released in a new report, entitled Climate change: faster, stronger, sooner. 

This report has found that the Climate Change 2007 report - released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - underestimated the speed of climate change. The 2007 report consolidated research from nearly 4,000 scientists from more than 150 nations.

WWF says that, since the Climate Change 2007 report, the science of climate change has moved on. 

IPCC Vice Chair, Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele supports the report. He said ”It is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it’s vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious,”

Key Findings

Here are some key findings from the report:

• The Arctic Ocean is losing sea ice up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions. It is now predicted that the summer sea ice could completely disappear between 2013 and 2040 - something that hasn’t occurred in more than a million years.
• Global sea level rise is expected to reach more than double the IPCC’s maximum estimate of 0.59m by the end of the century, putting vast coastal areas at risk.
• Natural carbon sinks - the areas that help to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere - are losing their ability to soak up growing levels of emissions faster than expected.
• Rising temperatures have already led to a major reduction in global yields of wheat, maize and barley, resulting in losses of 40 million tonnes of grain per year.
• Marine ecosystems in the North and Baltic Sea are being exposed to the warmest temperatures measured since records began.
• The number and intensity of extreme cyclones over the British Isles and the North Sea are projected to increase, leading to increased wind speeds and storm-related losses over Western and Central Europe.

A Call to the European Union

WWF are looking to the European Union for more action. 

Dr. Tina Tin, Climate Scientist and author of the report says “If the European Union wants to be seen as leader at UN talks in Copenhagen next year, and to help secure a strong global deal to tackle climate change after 2012, then it must stop shirking its responsibilities and commit to real emissions cuts within Europe”.

In particular, the report calls on the European Union to:

• Immediately adopt an emission reduction target of at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 – to be delivered within the boundaries of the EU; and
• Commit – on top of its own reduction target – to provide additional substantial support and funding for investment in socially and environmentally robust adaptation and mitigation activities in developing countries.

Dr. Tina Tin continues, “Climate change is a major challenge to the future of mankind and the environment, and this sobering overview highlights just how critical it is that EU Environment Ministers discussing the EU legislations against climate change today commit to a strong climate and energy package, in order to ensure a low carbon future”.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been completely hammered over the announcement of their upcoming world tour in 2009.

The tour will enable 88 paying passengers the opportunity to visit, and learn about some of the 19 highest priority places that WWF operate in. Transport will be provided in the form of a private jet. Experts will present a series of lectures to passengers en route. 

News sites and blogs have accused the WWF of hypocrisy due to the amount of carbon the expedition will produce. According to Steven Milloy of the JunkScience website:

…the 36,800-mile trip in a Boeing 757 jet will burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel to produce roughly 1,231 tons of CO2 in 25 days

Here’s a collection of articles I’ve encountered slamming the WWF over this expedition:

• The Hypocrisy of the World Wildlife Fund’s Eco Tour (Wired.com blog)
• Five-Star Green Hypocrisy (JunkScience.com) (This article is also available on FoxNews)
• WWF lectures: don’t do as we do (Blog at News.com.au)
• WWF = Whee, We’re Flying (Deceiver.com)
• You too can be like Al Gore! (Gather.com)
• Neil Hrab: Waste emissions; see endangered species. Don’t tell Al Gore (NationalPost.com)
• All Around the World with the World Wildlife Fund For A Mere $65k (blogtalkradio.com)
• Private Jet Travel for Me, But Not for Thee (OpenMarket.org)
• WWF Full of Environmental Charlatans (Skepticsglobalwarming.com)

Um yeah… I think it’s fair to say that people aren’t happy!

A Different View

OK, at first glance, I couldn’t help but see the irony in the situation. WWF - an organization pleading with the world to lower its carbon emissions - coming up with a 25 day trip that will omit more carbon than an average household does in a year.

But I’m going to take a different view on this one. 

First of all, let’s look at who the WWF is targeting. It’s targeting people who can afford to pay $65,000 for a 25 day trip. People who can afford that amount are not likely to be short of cash, or influence.

It’s exactly people like this, that can help the WWF and its various causes. Wealthy people are in an excellent position to donate hundreds, thousands, or even millions of dollars to these causes. And, influential people are in a great position to inspire others to do something about a cause that they feel passionate about.

Here’s what Dr. Sybille Klenzendorf, WWF Species Conservation Program Director, says on the brochure for this expedition:

During a field research outing in Borneo two years ago, I made a rare sighting of pygmy elephants, the smallest and tamest elephant in the world. A herd of a half dozen of them was weaving through the thick rain forest along the Kinabatangan River.

Of course, such sightings are rare—even after many years working in wildlife conservation or protection, I’ve seen just a handful of the world’s species in the wild. But each time I do, I remember why I work in the remarkable field of conservation: To help save these animals and to inspire others to care deeply for the world’s wild places—and because moments such as that day in Borneo, no matter how fleeting, are the most memorable of my life. 

Contrary to what some cynics would try to have you believe, rich people can have a conscience too. Just imagine if more “high-flying executives” and the “business elite” had experiences like the one described by Dr. Klenzendorf. Think about the good they might do for the environment.

Out of the 88 wealthy, influential passengers that will be on that plane, don’t you think at least some of them will be moved by the experience like Dr. Klenzendorf was in Borneo? 

I expect that an experience like that would almost certainly inspire passengers to ask themselves; “What else can I do to help?”

Plus, I could think of a lot more environmentally-damaging ways to spend $65,000. If they don’t spend it with WWF, where will they spend it?

I think it’s a bit unfair to accuse WWF of hypocrisy on this one. I reckon the WWF would view this expedition as an investment in the environment. If the WWF were to eliminate all its carbon emissions, it would cease to exist. Do you really think that the WWF could operate as effectively as it does if it didn’t use modern technology to help spread the word about the environment?

I’m hoping this expedition is a way of burning a (relatively) small amount of carbon, in order to inspire others to take positive action - the results of which will dwarf any negative impact that this expedition might bring.

If everyone on Earth consumed its resources at the rate Americans do, we would need the regenerative capacity of three planets just to keep up with the demand. 

That’s what the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) say in their Greenprint document that they have handed to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. 

The Greenprint - entitled Leading the World Toward a Safer and Sustainable Future: Greenprint For A New Administration - is a roadmap document that outlines how the next administration should deal with environmental issues. 

The greenprint, which was made publicly available on Wednesday, emphasizes the importance of looking after our natural environment: 

Half the world still lives on less than $2 per day and does so only by subsisting on natural resources provided by the environment—an environment already stressed by unsustainable development, climate change and pollution.

The report also says this about global consumption:

Global consumption of natural resources currently exceeds the planet’s regenerative capacity by nearly 25 percent and is expected to increase threefold by the middle of the century as our numbers and demands grow

The document covers four key areas that the future president should address:

• Climate change
• Conservation of natural resources
• Food security
• Freshwater availability

Here’s a quick run down on what the greenprint recommends in those areas.

Climate Change

The WWF greenprint recommends that the next administration:

• play a constructive role in international negotiations on a new climate treaty
• curb deforestation (which accounts for nearly 20 percent of global annual greenhouse gas emissions)
• propose domestic legislation to establish a cap and trade program for greenhouse gases
• develop a preparedness strategy for confronting the impacts of climate change

Conservation of Natural Resources

The document recommends:

• to restructure America’s Cold War-era foreign assistance programs to better integrate conservation and sustainability into the framework
• renewed investment in natural assets
• a stronger engagement with China (WWF point out that China is developing at a rate that is stressing the world’s natural resource capacity)

Food Security

On food security, the greenprint recommends:

• development of performance-based standards for biofuels to ensure fuel supplies don’t diminish food supplies
• an overhaul of management policies to restore the health of the world’s declining fisheries (WWF also point out that this is a primary source of protein for more than 1 billion of the world’s poor).  

Freshwater Availability

The greenprint recommends that the government:

• make freshwater availability a strategic priority for the U.S. 
• lay the scientific and policy groundwork for global water security.

The Full Greenprint Document

You can read the full Greenprint document here (PDF document).

Green groups have had a mixed reaction to a new report, commissioned by the British government, on how to deal with deforestation and its impact on climate change.

The Eliasch Review, entitled Climate Change: Financing Global Forests, provides a particular focus on the financial side of this issue. It has also been written in anticipation of a new climate change deal in Copenhagan in late, 2009.

A key recommendation of the report is for a multi-billion fund be set up to provide financial incentives to rainforest nations, so that their rainforests become more valuable alive than dead. 

The report also suggests that “an ambitious international climate change deal should aim to halve deforestation emissions by 2020 and make the forest sector carbon neutral by 2030″.

According to Greenpeace, this isn’t ambitious enough. 

“This report shows a dangerous lack of ambition and vastly underestimates the scale of the action needed to tackle climate change” says Andy Tait, Greenpeace head of biodiversity.

“The review assumes a target of 50% emissions cuts by 2050. This is simply inadequate. There is a strong possibility that the UK will be legally obliged to make an 80% reduction over this period, and all developed countries will need to hit and possibly exceed this target to effectively tackle climate change” he continued.

Note that Greenpeace have previously proposed their own solution for saving the world’s rainforests.

Tom Pickens, from Friends of the Earth was also concerned about the Eliasch Review. He said “This scheme has the potential to cause even greater conflict over forests”.

But not all environmental groups shared this sentiment.

WWF-UK say the review is “welcome recognition of the importance of reducing emissions through deforestation in a global agreement to tackle climate change”.

“Sufficient and long-term funding is needed to act as an incentive to protect forests. More than one billion of the world’s poorest people rely on forests for their livelihoods, so any measures to reduce emissions from deforestation must ensure that local communities enjoy continued access to, and benefits from, forests resources” said Emily Brickell, climate and forests officer for WWF-UK.

However, while WWF-UK praise the report for its recommendations, they still believe more could be done. In particular, they believe other sources of funding should be considered, such as the use of revenues from the auctioning of pollution permits under the EU emissions trading scheme.

View the Eliasch Review web page, or download the full report (large PDF document).

I recently read this article in Honolulu magazine about a North Shore company making green surfboards.

The company, called Country Feeling Surfboards, make their surfboards from environmentally friendly materials. According to their website, they use soy-based and sugar-based foams; deck inlays are made from hemp, organic cotton, bamboo and silk; and the resin is catalyzed by the sun.

Here’s what Country Feeling Surfboards say about their foray into green surfboards:

Transforming the industry from ego to eco is a heady process that begins with everyone taking a conscientious step in the right direction. We must recognize that if we don’t take care of our planet, the magic will disappear.

They also recognize that it could take some time before the competive surfing industry makes the switch to the eco-friendly surfboards. Kyle Bernhardt, one of the company’s shapers says this:

Shapers have used the same materials for the past 30 years, and everybody’s grown accustomed to the way the boards feel. When you bring in new materials, you can’t guarantee that same feeling. That’s our biggest hurdle.

Another hurdle could be the higher price tag. Shortboards start at $695; stand-up boards cost about $1,500, which is more than a typical surfboard. 

In any case, if you want to try out these eco-friendly surfboards, check out the Country Feeling Surfboards website.

According to this article by The Australian newspaper, research has found that global warming is directly responsible for declining seabird populations.

The research, compiled by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, was carried out in the Great Barrier Reef in Queensland, Australia. The research was then used for a report called Seabirds and Shorebirds in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area in a Changing Climate, which was commissioned by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Queensland Environment Protection Agency.

The reseach found that warmer water near the surface of the ocean, forces fish and plankton away from the surface of the water. This causes the seabirds and their young to go hungry, as it is more difficult to find prey. This in turn, means the seabirds are less likely to breed.

According to the report, the warmer water is being caused by more frequent and intense El Nino events.

In some areas, seabird populations have declined by up to 96 percent.

Also, the report found that, around Heron Island in 2003, a 1 degree increase in temperature reduced shearwaters’ feeding frequency from once every two nights, to once every five.

Another report, produced in December last year, identifies 31 bird species in Australia that are at “high risk of extinction”. 

The report, entitled The State of Australia’s Birds 2007 - Birds in a Changing Climate, says that a 2 to 5 percent rise in temperatures will lead to the extinction of many species. The urgency of the situation is highlighted when you consider that experts are forecasting that temperatures will rise to those levels within the next 60 years or so.  

The birds at most risk are those around the savannas and rainforests of northern Australia, where the climate is much warmer.