A young niece of mine has taken to declaring whenever she picks up a toy: "It seems to me that everything comes from China." Even eight-year-olds read the label. And it's not just toys. It's everything.

To find out how China became the workshop of the world I recently went to Yiwu – a town of a million people about four hours drive from Shanghai. Forget the Great Wall, this is the Great Mall. Or, as they put it there, "the largest wholesale market for small commodities on the planet".

Yiwu is where the world's retailers come to fill their stores. Where 80% of the world's Christmas decorations reach the global market, and 60% of children's toys. Christmas is made in China and sold in Yiwu. My Christmas footprint is here, and in the transportation of the thousand containers that leave Yiwu daily.

The city is dominated by a series of giant covered markets. The city administrators claim they contain 50,000 booths selling more than 300,000 product lines. You can buy anything here. Whole sections are devoted to items like babies' dummies and kites (pictured above), Halloween witches (pictured below) and purses, dusters and dangly things to hang in car windows. My hot tip for this Christmas: Father Christmas playing the saxophone.

Outside, the bazaar continues. Amble through bra street, zipper street, timber street, computer street, stationery street, necktie street, artificial-flowers street, supermarket-trolley street, towel street, scarf street, calendar street, picture-frame street and Christmas crafts street.

If you want a belt, you have a choice of a million. One neighbourhood had, by my calculation, a billion beads: plastic and wood and stone and glass, all different sizes, in bags and buckets and no doubt by the container-load if you like.

Yiwu is home to 8000 permanent foreign buyers. Why does Santa shop here? Because the province around it, Zhejiang, has made itself the world capital for making… stuff.

Suzhou near Shanghai may make the world's computers, and Shenzhen near Hong Kong its mobile phones. But round here they make everything else.

I despair at the obscenity of all this stuff, most of which we don't need, consuming the world's resources and then being shipped back across the planet. Why can't we have a few, quality things, rather than all this tat? But if someone is going to make it, then why not the Chinese?

And I rather like the fact that much of it is not made in big factories, but in tens of thousands of backyard workshops run by former farmers. These unknown entrepreneurs are China's true geniuses.

They cluster together. Towns you have never heard of are world hubs for things you never knew you needed. Nowhere in the world makes more drinking straws than Yiwu itself. Datang, half an hour down the road, makes one in three of the world's socks. Two-thirds of reusable cigarette lighters come from Wenzhou.

And it goes on. A billion or more people round the world wear shoes made in Wenling. One in every three men has a tie in a drawer somewhere from the 300 million made annually in Shengzhou. Yangzhou makes 3 billion toothbrushes a year, and most of the cheap disposable bits and pieces you find in hotel rooms, like slippers and folding combs and shampoo and shavers. All sold in Yiwu.

My favourite is Qiaotou, which makes 60 per cent of the world's buttons, and enough zippers to zip half way to the moon. Without Qiaotou, the world's flies would be undone. For that, at least, we should be grateful.

Fred Pearce, senior environment reporter, China

Labels: freds-footprint

OK, other people's holiday photos and videos are usually deathly dull. But here's a bit of holiday footage you just might like to see.

On 19 July, I spotted a tornado forming across the valley from where we were holidaying near the village of East Allington, in Devon, England. My brother captured the video below as I held my baby son.

The tornado touched down only briefly in a grass field, and never appeared to threaten us directly - it was fascinating rather than frightening. I'd assume it was only an F0 on the Fujita scale, probably spawned by the same weather front that caused all the flooding the following day.



Think tornadoes, of course, and you think the American Midwest. Yet I remember reading that the UK, for its land area, has more tornadoes than any other country in the world. So is the UK the real Tornado Alley?

While there are an estimated 50 tornadoes in Britain each year, very few are more than an F3 on the Fujita scale. In fact, the most intense recorded tornado in the UK occurred way back in 1091, demolishing churches and houses in London.

And a 2003 study suggests that per land area, the Netherlands in fact has more tornadoes than any other country, with the UK in second place.

Michael Le Page, features editor

Our story about a journal article in which Jesse Ausubel argues that renewable energy generation would be a disaster for the environment, because it requires the use of lots of land, really sparked debate.

Among the comments on the associated blog was one from Matthew – thanks! - drawing our attention to a possible error in Ausubel’s calculations for how much land area solar power takes up. So let's do the maths.

Ausubel calculated that it would take 150 square miles of photovoltaics (PVs) to equal the output of a 1000 megawatt nuclear power plant.

But Matthew wrote:

I fear that the solar panel calculations are off by an order of magnitude (or my own calculations are off by the same). One 80-watt panel is 48" by 22", which yields a constant (24-hour) output of roughly 40 watts in sunny climes. So, one 40-watt-yield solar panel is 0.00000026304 square miles. And 0.00000026304*(1000*1000*1000)/40 = 6.576 square miles.

In his paper, Ausubel derived his 150- square-mile figure in the following way:

PVs remain stuck at about 10% efficiency, with no breakthroughs in 30 years. Today performance reaches about 5 to 6 watts per square metre. But no economies of scale inhere in PV systems. A 1000 MWe PV plant would require about 150 square kilometres plus land for storage and retrieval.

We then showed both of these calculations to John Turner, a solar power specialist at the US government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He found fault with both sets of calculations:

Well they are both off, but Ausubel is way, way off. If we assume a 1000 MWe electrical generation plant, and we assume it runs 24/7 for the entire year (no down time), then that plant will generate about 8.8 billion kilowatthours per year. So we need to calculate the size of a PV array that will generate the same kW-hrs.

Assuming the average US solar resource of 1800 kW-hr/m2-year [how much the sun shines] and a PV system efficiency of 10%, one square meter of PV would generate about 180 kW-hr/year. Therefore you would need about 48.7 million sq meters or 48.7 square kilometers. That’s 18.8 square miles.

For the sunny southwest, we have a yearly average solar resource of 2300 kWh/m2. Again assuming a 10% PV system efficiency, then that would produce about 230 kWh/m2-year. So for this array, you would need 38 million sq meters or 38 sq km. That is 14.7 square miles.

This is why it is so very important to be correct with the numbers - the future of our society depends on energy and we need to get this right! Also, PV has not been stagnating - current panel efficiency is running close to 15%, which will of course reduce those areas.

In a follow-up phone conversation, Ausubel stood by his figures:

My calculation is right. I looked at actual existing facilities and what they produced in recent years. It’s not an argument of what is the best possible performance of any of these technologies.

Your comments are welcome, as ever.

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

Good things rarely arise in war zones, but in the case of the disputed region of Kashmir, an endangered bear is getting some much needed relief.

Asiatic black bear populations have shot up by 30% to 60% as the fighting that has killed thousands of people seems to have also scared off the poachers.

However, I do wonder how anyone could make an accurate population survey if even the poachers felt it was too dangerous to go hunting. The article says that fences put in along the India-Pakistan border may be disrupting the bears' normal movements and causing them enter villages in greater numbers. Perhaps this is simply creating the illusion of an increase.

Even if numbers aren't increasing as much as reported, at least they're not being decimated as was long the case for mountain gorillas caught up in Rwanda’s civil war.

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

Labels: Asiatic+black+bear, Kashmir, poaching, war

It seems that the memory of the hurricanes that battered the US in August 2005 may be fading for some of those in the firing line.

A new survey from the Harvard School of Public Health (.doc file) has found that a growing number of Americans in high-risk hurricane areas say they would not evacuate their homes if government officials said they had to leave due to the approach of a major hurricane. Just over 30% said they would not go, up from 23% in 2006, according to the survey.

Perhaps most revealing is that of those who say they would not evacuate, 75% say their home is well-built and they would be safe there. That seems like overconfidence to me, though I can understand why people don't want to leave their homes – protecting their property, the risk of getting stuck on the road, etc.

The survey comes as climate scientists are increasingly suggesting that hurricane intensity is on the rise as a result of global warming.

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

Labels: hurricane-katrina

Today we have written about a study by noted conservation biologist and climate-change researcher Jesse Ausubel (who we interviewed here - subscription required) suggesting that renewable energy is bad and nuclear power is good.

Ausubel’s basic premise is that, unlike nuclear power, key renewable power sources including sun, wind, and biofuel would all require vast amounts of land if ramped up to large-scale production. That would severely damage the environment, in his estimation.

This argument is clearly controversial, even heretical, say some. However, it doesn’t come from someone in the nuclear energy industry, but a scientist who has long worked on conservation and climate-change issues.

Where do you think the balance of good and harm lies?

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

Here in England, the media is awash with reports on the recent flooding, which has made what was just a gloomy summer a whole lot worse for many thousands of people. Think houses under 3 feet of sewage-infected floodwater.

The floods came just as a study revealed the first firm evidence for the hand of global warming in changing rainfall patterns. By definition, no single weather event can be attributed to climate change. But there's widespread agreement that at the mid-latitudes where England sits, it's going to get wetter on average – a warmer world means more evaporation. It's also thought the intensity of storms will increase.

But back to the English floods. The Science Media Centre in London rounded up some interesting points of view. First, the floods were pretty exceptional.

Very unusual weather conditions across much of the UK have persisted throughout the summer of 2007, leading to the highest May and June combined rainfall total on record. It is unusual for soils to be close to saturation point at this time of year, and this in combination with several days of intense rainfall has lead to flooding that has no close modern parallel.

Barnaby Smith, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

They were also unusual in where they started:

These floods are very unusual – "mid-catchment" floods, meaning heavy rain falling, not in the uplands, as is normal, but in the middle parts of river basins.

Stuart Lane, Institute of Hazard and Risk, Durham University

But there have been more extreme local events in the past:

The rainfall events on 20 July were unusual in that the cloud system remained nearly stationary for a considerable length of time, resulting in about 100 millimetre rainfall depths.

But similar levels of heavy localised rainfall have occurred during the past hundred years. For example:
- 110 mm in an hour near Oxford in 1910
- 140 mm in 2 hours at Hampstead, London in 1975
- 178 mm in 3 hours in Lincolnshire in 1960
- 200 mm in 8 hours in Somerset in 1917

Alastair Borthwick, Professor of Engineering Science, University of Oxford

Here's a montage of the flooding from YouTube:


With the UK government announcing on Monday plans for millions of new houses, there has been much talk about the wisdom or otherwise of building on flood plains. Flood plains are flat and conveniently located for many urban areas – but they are flood plains, which come under water when rivers periodically break their banks. But this point is interesting:

Ten per cent of UK housing is on flood plains, but this is quite low compared to some countries – it is 70% in Japan and 100% in the Netherlands. We need better flood defences.

Ian Cluckie, Professor of Hydrology and Water Management, University of Bristol

That has been a common refrain – you'll never stop all floods. All you can aim for is to reduce the risk of them, and cope better when they happen. So how do you do that? One big issue is run-off.

When rain falls, the ground can soak up some of it, meaning it does not run into rivers and raise their level. But the harder the rain falls, the more runs off, and the less soaks in – and rainstorms are predicted to get more intense as the planet warms. The other key issue here is urbanisation – water rolls off concrete and straight into drainage channels – and that will increase with the plan to build millions of new homes.

There's a clear irony about the floods, given that in the summer of 2006 in England, all the talk was of droughts and hosepipe bans.

What is significant and thought provoking is that a year ago we were seeking ways to retain water. Now we are desperate for it to go out to the sea. What we need is a more holistic approach that recognises the role of catchments in terms of flood storage.

Justin Taberham, Director of Policy, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Here's a picture of that holistic approach:

You cannot design flooding out of urban spaces. Therefore it is vital that planners and developers move away from trying to resist seasonal influxes of water [which are increasing in volume] and move towards designing for flooding and absorbing excess water safely. This can be aided by taking some simple steps such as: incorporating green roofs, creating recreational areas within cities, and providing storage areas such as wetland habitats and water bodies upstream. In fact, planners could take this as a golden opportunity to make properties safer, but also improve our environment with green spaces and create richer habitats for wildlife

Bob Sargent, President, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

It's either that or building houses on stilts, I'd say.

Talking of holistic, it turns out that the responsibility for the various aspects of drainage appears oddly disparate: road drainage, surface waters, sewage drainage and flood protection are the separate responsibilities of local councils, the Environment Agency and water companies. Not very joined up. What are often joined up, but shouldn’t be, are surface drainage channels and sewage drainage, making a real mess when floods happen.

So are there any silver linings? Not many. The risk of disease following the floods is low:

Despite the dire warnings about outbreaks of disease following flooding, they rarely happen.

Keith Jones, Health-Related Environmental Microbiologist, Lancaster University

And the wet weather could break at any time:

There's no obvious culprit for the unusually long wet spell we've been experiencing this summer and so there's no reason to believe it will persist for the rest of the summer. We could revert to more normal summer weather at any time.

David Stephenson, Met Office Chair, University of Exeter

Now if anyone knows what is "normal weather" for the famously capricious English summer, do let me know.

More seriously, I'd love to hear what you think should be in done in the aftermath of this flooding – bigger defences, a ban on flood-plain building, the "holistic" approach above, or is it the houses on stilts, or even house boats? Lastly, if you have been affected by flooding, do share your experiences.

Damian Carrington, online editor
(Image of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire by Barry Batchelor/PA Photos)

Labels: england, floods

First came sniffer dogs, then rats and even wasps have had a go. But now the animal approach to mine-sweeping has apparently got a whole lot bigger – elephants.

According to biologist Michael Chase of the charity Elephants Without Borders, elephants recolonising the previously war-torn country of Angola from Botswana seem to have worked out where minefields are, and actively avoid them.

Based on seven years’ worth of satellite tracking data, he has found that elephant territories rarely overlap with minefields. And it doesn’t seem to be just down to luck – in the past elephants regularly strayed into minefields and died a painful death after having their trunks or legs blown off.

So how do they know to steer clear? Chase isn’t sure whether they are sniffing out the mines, and have worked out that they are dangerous, or have just learned from witnessing family members’ fatal mistakes.

Either way it shouldn’t be that surprising that elephants have these kinds of skills. We already know that they really do have long memories and that the matriarch of the herd is a mine of information about good – and not so good – places to forage.

Elephants also have a big nose for a good reason – their sense of smell is one of the best in the animal world, and can pick up scents from several miles away. They can also communicate with related groups by infrasound over long distances.

So we might have expected them to combine all these skills to adapt to life in a danger zone.

However they do it, local people have also been making use of the elephants’ mine-avoidance skills by using elephant-trodden paths to get to water sources and to other villages. Unfortunately this may not be a good thing. When humans and elephants come into close contact somebody often dies, and clearly that’s not good for anyone.

This video clip shows just how scary an elephant can be when riled:



Having seen elephants up close in Africa (see video below), I understand why these people wouldn’t want one crashing through their backyard, but this does highlight perhaps the most pressing issue in elephant conservation. When push comes to shove, can we find enough space for them as well as us?



Caroline Williams, features editor
(Image: Jonathan Fildes)

Flying pigs may not be so mythical after all, with news that US Department of Defense (DoD) and NASA have put in orders with Tyson – the world's largest producer of pig, chicken and beef products – for jet fuel.

The first 500-gallon (1900 litres) shipment of fuel derived entirely from animal fat is currently on its way to the DoD with a little help from fuel processor Syntroleum.

The initial batch will be for "research and development", but the companies plan to pump out 75 million gallons (285m litres) of the stuff per year by 2010.

At that time the US Air Force plans to have all of its aircraft capable of running on alternative fuels. And, by 2016, they hope to have 50% of their fuel coming from domestic non-petrol sources, according to Syntroleum.

The majority would likely be synthetic fuel derived from coal, something that was widely used by Germany in the second world war, and has recently received new interest from the DOD.

Do I smell an Iraq exit strategy in the making, or is that simply pork and beef fat?

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

"Stop global warming, take off your tie!" So says the Italian health ministry in a pretty unconventional campaign to combat climate change.

Freeing the neck of a tight-fitting tie immediately cools the body temperature by 2°C to 3°C according to the ministry. And cooling workers would allow offices to turn down the air conditioning on hot summer days, thereby saving energy and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Now, I’ve heard of neckties harboring nasty bacteria and, if tied too tightly, even causing increased pressure that can lead to glaucoma, but I'll remain sceptical on those body-temperature figures until I see the experiments that came up with them.

Correct or not, Italian tie manufacturers are not impressed. One wrote in to a daily newspaper to mock the plan. "We can now happily continue with our lifestyle, using cars, consuming fuel, heating and cooling our homes at leisure. On one condition: we should not wear a tie while we do so," wrote Flavio Cima.

Italy is among the EU countries expected to exceed their greenhouse gas emission targets.

The tie campaign comes on the heals of Cool Biz, an effort by the environment ministry of Japan that began a couple years back to get rank and file salarymen to shed their suit coats in the summertime.

A later proposed Warm Biz campaign, involving wearing warmer clothes in winter to save on heating costs, never gained popularity, but Cool Biz was a hit. Japan claimed 460,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide had been saved by the loosening of its salarymen's ties.

Anyone out there want to stick up for the necktie?

Phil McKenna, New Scientist correspondent

Labels: cool, global warming, italy, necktie

For a while now, I've been using concerns about the environment to justify the fact that I live in an unfashionable inner-city suburb, in a crummy three-bedroomed terraced house. That's considered modest here in Australia, where five-bedroomed houses, with four dining areas (formal, casual, al fresco, and kitchen, for the uninitiated), and who knows how many living areas, are part and parcel of outer-urban sprawl.

So the new interactive Australian "Consumption Atlas", looked like the perfect tool to lend a bit of clout to my rationalisations.

Created by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis at the University of Sydney, the atlas allows you to work out your water consumption, greenhouse-gas emissions pollution and eco-footprint – all based on the suburb in which you live.

You can also compare your suburb's consumption patterns with the national average, or your friends' suburbs, and work out how much is due to categories such as "books and magazines", "construction and renovations", "“transport", and so on.

So I plugged in my postal code, did a few clicks of the mouse, plus a few more to double check I'd got it all right, and it turns out I actually consume more water, produce more greenhouse-gas pollution and have a bigger eco-footprint than the average Australian.

And of course the average Australian isn't doing too well either, being the third highest per capita users of water in the world), and having the fourth highest eco-footprint.

And while I'm at it, we haven't signed the Kyoto protocol, although we do now have the bare bones of a "cap and trade" greenhouse emissions scheme.

My suburb's environmental impact is higher than average, because it is wealthier than average, despite the small size of houses around here. According to the report "Consuming Australia" (PDF) that accompanies the atlas, the amount of money in your pocket strongly correlates with a negative impact on the environment. That contradicts the idea that only the rich can live sustainably, because only they can afford water tanks, solar panels and so on.

My suburb is exactly the sort of place where people can and do pay for green electricity, and have access to and use public transport. But those efforts are totally overwhelmed by the extra spending power because by far the largest part of a person's environmental impact is due to the production of the things and services they buy, rather than the direct consumption of fuel or water.

Which is just the point the ACF wants to ram home with the atlas – the need to move towards a buy-less, waste-less lifestyle. It worked for me.

Rachel Nowak, Australasian editor, Melbourne

Seeking to lower my personal carbon footprint, I have been holidaying in southern England, not far from my London. I travelled to the South Downs by bus. What could be greener? Quite a lot, it seems.

My suspicions were aroused when my wife and I boarded a 40-seater bus in the pretty town of Petworth, heading for the almost as pretty Midhurst. We were the only passengers. Later in the week, there were six of us from Chichester to West Marden, and four of us on a double-decker from Chichester to Singleton.

I began to wonder about the carbon footprint of these services.

Most of our journeys were on buses owned by the Stagecoach company, which has recently been promoting its green credentials. But it doesn’t publish figures for the carbon footprint of its services. The coach company National Express does (PDF), however.

Based on typical occupancy rates, National Express puts its emissions at 29 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometre. That is roughly half the footprint from travelling by train and a fifth that of a plane flight or a car. Good for them.

But, typically, National Express coaches travel at least half full, they say. The Stagecoach buses I travelled on were mostly virtually empty.

Even assuming my Stagecoach bus manages the same fuel efficiency in the lanes of Sussex that National Express attains on motorways, it seems pretty clear that our footprint would have been less if we had rented an SUV for our jaunts. And, for our Petworth to Midhurst journey, the truth appears to be that my wife and I must have been responsible for emissions of about 300 grams of CO2 each per kilometre travelled – bigger than if we had been flying to Hong Kong.

Of course, you could say the bus would have made the journey anyhow. But so would the plane.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am in favour of rural buses plying the lanes of England picking up those of us unwilling or unable to go by car. And while they continue their journeys, I will continue to hop aboard. But, until more of us can be persuaded to fill those buses, they will often be a rather environmentally unfriendly social service.

This line of thinking led me to another thought. A couple of times every year I travel from London to Edinburgh. To avoid flying, I try and go by train. I enjoy the overnight sleeper service, and have always felt environmentally virtuous on arrival. But should I?

On the face of it, yes. Virgin Trains claims that its new Pendolino trains to Scotland have a footprint only around a quarter than of a plane, again with typical occupancy rates. The engines that run the sleeper services are much less efficient, but still have a footprint typically between a third and a half that of flying.

However, that is for regular, seated passengers. You can fit far fewer passengers into a sleeper carriage. So my carbon footprint as I slumber my way northwards is far greater. I reckon my sleeper footprint is often greater than if I had flown.

Fred Pearce, senior environment reporter, Chichester

Labels: carbon-footprint, freds-footprint, local-bus

The boiler broke last week at the gym I use, meaning cold showers. That made me pretty grumpy, but the news of a 1000-metre swim at the North Pole makes what I had to endure look utterly pathetic.

The British explorer and endurance swimmer, Lewis Gordon Pugh, became the first person to swim at the geographic North Pole on Sunday. The swim took 18 minutes and 50 seconds in waters of -1.8°C centigrade. And what was Lewis wearing? Only Speedo briefs, cap and goggles. That's just mind-numbing.



Over to Lewis: "The water was absolutely black. It was like jumping into a dark, black hole. It was frightening. The pain was immediate and felt like my body was on fire. I was in excruciating pain from beginning to end and I nearly quit on a few occasions. It was without doubt the hardest swim of my life."

This from a man who has already swum the entire 204 km length of Norway's longest fjord and splashed around the Barents Sea, Spitsbergen and Petterman Island, Antarctica.

So why did he do it? "I hope my swim will inspire world leaders to take climate change seriously," he says. "I am obviously ecstatic to have succeeded, but this swim is a triumph and a tragedy - a triumph that I could swim in such ferocious conditions but a tragedy that it’s possible to swim at the North Pole." He says the swim would not have been possible just five or ten years ago.

If it was down to me, that swim would have not be possible at any time in human history.

Damian Carrington, online editor

Labels: arctic, ice, swim

Oh, the irony. Buyers of the much sought-after "I'm NOT a plastic bag" bag arrived at a store in Hong Kong on Wednesday and were handed the cotton bag... wrapped in three plastic bags.

Need I say more?

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: bag, plastic, plastic bag

Go on, admit it: as birds go, pink flamingos have got to be among the weirdest and most wonderful in existence. I suspect bird watchers out there could mount defences of many others, but can you name one that looks like it just walked off the set of Barbie - the movie?

And judging from these pictures, the place the lesser flamingo (Phoenicopterus minor) lives is just as weird and wonderful. But the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is concerned that Lake Natron in Tanzania is about to be ruined by plans to build a factory on its shore.

Lake Natron is a shallow, saline lake covered with a crust of salt, and is home to more than 500,000 lesser flamingos during the summer. That's 75% of the world’s breeding population. The lake has also been the lesser flamingo's only nesting site in East Africa for 45 years

According to the RSPB, an Indian company called TATA Chemicals has set its sights on Lake Natron's unusual waters and is planning to build a factory on its shore to pump the salty water and produce sodium carbonate (washing soda). The factory will be powered by a new coal-driven power station, and the developers also want to introduce a hybrid shrimp to the lake to increase the water's salinity.

I agree with Chris Magin, RSPB’s Africa officer: the plan is "bonkers".

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: flamingo, tanzania

Thanks to all who answered our mystery sound blog post. It's been great fun reading through your highly imaginative answers. Some deserve an honourable mention:

One poster thought it sounded like "the Earth's crust expanding caused by global warming", while another revealed that it was the sound of his heartbeat when he sees Shakira dancing. Legoman enlightened us all: "It is termites mating you fools!" he wrote.

Selwyn was not one to underestimate New Scientist: "Knowing you guys, its probably something random and obscure like proteins unfolding or the shifted frequency representation of galaxies colliding."

But tough as it was, a few of you did get close. Auntiegrav suggested "A glacier sliding over the Washington monument", while an anonymous poster thought the sound was "too irregular for mechanical, too irregular for heart, too regular for most natural processes". This poster then erred on the side of comedy and came to the conclusion that the sound must be "that old 1968 Ford I used to drive after the fan belt parted". But the first part was on the right track - because it was a mix of mechanical and natural.

The sound is a recording of ice being chopped up by a propeller on the icebreaker Oden. Read more about the Oden expedition to explore the bottom of the Arctic Ocean here.

Thanks again for all the comments.

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: arctic, icebreaker, mystery sound, sound

You may recall that a couple weeks ago, Russia laid claim to the North Pole. One astute commenter on our blog pointed out that "Father Christmas obviously owns the North Pole, you fools". Another user kindly gave us Father Christmas's postal address, which, if it's accurate, would make Santa a Canadian citizen not a Russian one.

Well guess what. Stephen Harper, Canada's prime minister (pictured), must have been reading our blog, because he's decided to make a something of a military display to demonstrate Canada's Arctic sovereignty.

To be fair, Canada is not quite laying claim to the North Pole. But the country is in dispute with its neighbour, the US, over the ownership 0f the northwest passage. If sea-ice continues to shrink, this passage could knock a third off the trip from Europe to Asia. Currently, the shortest route involves crossing through the Panama Canal.

Harper's determination to show that Canada will not be booted out of the Arctic is such that he has decided to put $2.9 billion (US) towards building up his nation's military presence in the area. This will help buy eight new ice-breaker military patrol ships and build a new port in the north of Canada.

In a video address posted on his government's website (top right of the page), Harper says he believes Canadians always look to the north for the true definition of their country. I can't believe that's true. It would imply that the true definition of Canada involves: a healthy dose of military presence, exploitation of as-yet untouched Arctic fish stocks, a dash of oil drilling (a big dash), and a sprinkle of silver, copper, zinc and, potentially, uranium mining.

"As I looked at the vast gleaming expanse of the Arctic I could not help but think it is at limitless as the potential of Canada itself," says Harper. Hmmm... Is he thinking of limitless resources? Or am I being too cynical?

What do you think? Given that human greenhouse-gas emissions are causing the Arctic to melt, is the logical next step to push that a little bit further and exploit its newly available resources? Antarctica is a declared no-nation zone. I think the Arctic should be as well.

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: arctic, canada, northwest-passage

The New Scientist Tech blog guys have run a couple mystery image features, which people have found fun, so we thought we'd run a mystery sound here on the Environment blog to see if any of you can guess what made this sound.

Please post your answers in the comments below. We'll post the answer here on Thursday. Good luck!

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

--UPDATE: the answer is posted above--

While the federal US government remains adamantly opposed to laws to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, some state governments think differently. New Jersey became the third US state to adopt legislation to limit its emissions on Friday 6 July.

"In the absence of leadership on the federal level, the burden of reducing greenhouse gases has now fallen upon the states," said Democrat governor Jon Corzine. "I'm proud that New Jersey is one of the first among a handful of states that are leading the nation to combat global warming, and I hope more states will follow in our model."

New Jersey follows in the steps of California and Hawaii, and eight other states are considering going solo on greenhouse gas emission caps.

According to the new law, New Jersey emissions will have to be brought down to 1990 levels by 2020, which is the same target as California adopted in September 2006. For this to happen, the state will have to lower its emissions by about 20%. But the NJ legislation pushes things a big step further, and requires 2050 emissions to be 80% below 2006 levels.

There are a number of other state-led US initiatives - my favourite is Arnie taking the federal government to court over washing machines.

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: emissions, greenhouse gas, US

What is the secret of the Spanish government's carbon dioxide diet? Trees. More than 20 million of them.

Back when Spain ratified the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions in May 2002, it was in a good position, carbon-wise. The fact that its economy was lagging behind the rest of the European Union meant that while some countries were facing serious emissions cuts, Spain could increase its emissions by 15% above 1990 levels under the protocol.

Trouble is, Spanish emissions are now 48% above 1990 levels and the government thinks that by the time the 2008-2012 accounting period for the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end, it will only have managed to bring that down to 37%.

It intends to handle most of the situation by investing in clean energy projects in developing countries through the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. The rest, it will deal with by planting trees. The local government of the Castilla-la Mancha region has said it will plant 20 million trees in the next 4 years and Madrid says it will create hanging, vertical gardens to cover buildings and plant 1.5 million trees.

As we've written many times before, trees are not an easy way to deal with carbon dioxide emissions. First of all, planting a tree does not guarantee it won't soon be cut down. But also, the location of the tree is key to determining its effect on global warming. Research published in December 2006 showed that planting trees in tropical countries can cool help cool the planet. But in the mid-to-high latitudes, the warming effect of the dark colour of trees tends to outweigh the cooling effect of their carbon dioxide absorption (see Location is key for trees to fight global warming).

And finally, trees will not continue to grow endlessly so long as there is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. They need other things to grow, like nitrogen. Research published in April 2006 suggested that insufficient amounts of nitrogen will eventually limit plant growth regardless of how much extra carbon dioxide is available.

Catherine Brahic, Online environment reporter

Labels: kyoto protocol, spain, trees

Soft-hearted souls, look away. This Sumatran tiger, caught on camera in the Tesso Nilo National Park in Indonesia appears to have gnawed off its front right paw to escape from a trap.

WWF, who obtained the images when the tiger's movement triggered one of their "camera traps" in March, say they saw it again in May. Both times it looked in good health, but given that there are only 400 Sumatran tigers left the group is understandably upset that even one tiger should have been harmed by a trap - and in a national park, no less.

They say that in November 2006 part of a tiger's leg was found in a poacher's trap, and they suspect this is the owner.

There are stories of mice leaving legs behind in mouse traps flying around the office at the moment, so feel free to add your tales below. A colleague just told me that his hamster once had a similar urge. And a WWF spokesperson just told me that rhinos have been known to do similar things.

I find the whole thing rather upsetting - possibly more so because my dog once got his leg caught in a trap. Sumatran tigers are the most endangered sub-species of tigers. The traps are used by poachers, sometimes with the intention of catching tigers and sometimes to catch other wild animals for food. Either way, it's cruel.

Catherine Brahic, online environment reporter

Labels: endangered species, tiger

It is finally upon us: Live Earth is this weekend. On Saturday 7 July, in New York, London, Johannesburg, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney and Hamburg, the likes of the Beastie Boys, Snoop Dogg, KT Tunstall, Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and many more will take to the stage to raise awareness of climate change.

I've just read that those who can't make it to one of the concerts will be able to watch them online at http://www.liveearth.msn.com. Personally, I'll be heading to Devon, UK, for the weekend and am unlikely to log on, but the thought crossed my mind this morning: I wonder if any of our readers would like to work out what the electricity bill of the online viewers will be? And how much will it contribute to global emissions?

I notice the Live Earth website has got a page of suggestions on how to get to the concerts using green(-ish) transportation, but it doesn't have any suggestions for the web surfers.

To get you started: the average amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each kilowatt/hour of electricity used is 0.43 kg.

I look forward to reading your estimates!

PS: I don't know what has happened to the Antarctica concert - there is certainly no obvious mention of it on the Live Earth website. Does anyone know?

Catherine Brahic, Online environment reporter

Labels: live earth

Thanks to all for your imaginative explanations for how a lake might have come to vanish overnight from the Bernardo O'Higgins National Park in Chilean Andes in June (see Missing: one lake, last seen in Chilean Andes). The discussion triggered an interesting finger pointing exercise, with blame falling on: thirsty fish, little green men, and... er... Canada!. Pat Kittle even confessed to having committed the crime, but left no contact details.

But an Anonymous contributor did get it right - or so it seems - by blaming global warming. On Monday, a team of scientists flew out to the National Park and returned with the verdict: melting glaciers dunnit.

Now, you'd be forgiven for thinking that melting glaciers might fill up a mountain lake, not make it disappear. According to the team, the lake was dammed at one end by part of the Bernado glacier. Melting from another part of the glacier increased the amount of water in the lake so much that the additional pressure simply broke through the ice dam.

Andres Rivera, a glaciologist with Chile's Center of Scientific Studies, was part of the expedition. "On one side of the Bernardo glacier one can see a large hole or gap, and we believe that's where the water flowed through," he says.

Catherine Brahic, Online environment reporter

Once, our margarine was made from whale oil. That was always controversial. In the 1930s, Norway blockaded British "blubber-boiling" ships owned by the giant food company Unilever. It demanded that they cut the cull, to save the whale.

In the 1950s, the Greek shipping mogul Aristotle Onassis was employing Hitler’s old whaling captains to run the world’s largest whaling fleet. And, far from being bashful about the business, he boasted to guests on his yacht that the bar stools were covered in white skin from whale scrotums. All this so the blubber could be spread on our sandwiches.

Thank heaven that is over. Most whaling is now banned, and our taste in margarine has moved on. We prefer vegetable oils like palm oil.

But now some of those vegetable oils are in trouble, blamed for rainforest destruction.

I eat palm oil several times every day without knowing it. So do you. Palm oil is in an estimated one third of all the products we pick up off the supermarket shelves. Margarine or biscuits, chocolate or crisps, ice cream or pastry, instant soup or noodles or coffee whitener... Usually, they contain palm oil.

And we don‘t just eat it. Palm oil is in our soap, detergents, toothpaste and shampoo. Britain alone consumes over a million tonnes of palm oil a year. That works out at about 20 kilograms – or 40 tubs – for each of us.

Most of the world’s palm oil comes from two countries: Malaysia and Indonesia. Mostly it grows on old rainforest land. Remember when the forests of Borneo burned back in 1998? Three-quarters of the fires had been lit by people clearing land for palm oil.

Now, not content with filling our kitchens and bathrooms, the purveyors of palm oil want to top up our fuel tanks. Palm oil makes good biodiesel. To meet soaring demand, Indonesia intends to extend its plantations from 6 to 9 million hectares. Most of the increase will be from converting a chunk of rainforest in central Borneo the size of Wales into the world’s largest palm oil plantation.

Green fuel? You have got to be kidding.

The big palm-oil trading companies like Unilever and Cargill have formed a Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. But an official report from their last meeting said talk of sustainability in the industry was currently "a pipe dream".

No wonder that green-minded retailers like Wal-Mart and Tesco don’t have much to say about where the palm oil in their products originates (though Tesco has joined the Round Table above).

Can I suggest a place to start? McDonald's says it will no longer serve meat made from animals fed with soya beans from recently deforested land. So how about a similar rule for palm oil in our biscuits? The industry could begin by announcing a ban on palm oil from Indonesia’s new super-plantation.

Otherwise we will have saved the whales, only to finish off the jungles.

Fred Pearce, senior environment reporter

Fred's previous footprints: Furniture stolen from the rainforest, An ethical paper mill isn't pulp fiction, Cans lost in the landfill, A can-load of energy, Where prawns meet the mafia, How fair is fair-trade coffee?, The cost of gold, Old phones offer new hope in Africa, A dollar a day for wrecked lungs, Green beans and old computers, Cottoning on to FairTrade.

Labels: deforestation, environment, freds-footprint, palm oil, plantation, rainforest

Piranhas are revamping their image from vicious killers to victims. According to a researcher at the University of St Andrews in the UK, the carnivorous fish have been seriously misunderstood.

Shoals of piranhas, portrayed in the James Bond film You only live twice, are not ravenous hordes that swarm to attack anything that ventures close. In fact the shoaling behaviour forms defensive structures designed to protect the fish that are able to reproduce, says Anne Magurran.

Magurran studied the way piranhas formed shoals depending on the season. She says the fish are more likely to travel in large groups - with the older, more sexually mature individuals seeking refuge at the centre - when water levels in their native Amazon river are low.
At that time, piranhas are more likely to be munched by caimans and dolphins, as is nicely shown at the very end of this video:


As for the young ones, being on the outside makes gives them the first chance of grabbing passing food - if they can avoid becoming someone else's lunch themselves.

I still wouldn't take the plunge, but if you're in London, UK, and want to test the theory, Magurran is presenting her research at the Royal Society's Summer Science Exhibition, complete with a a tank of live piranhas. Perhaps it'll be set up as a petting tank.

Catherine Brahic, Online environment reporter