Resource Library: Multimedia/Resource Library: Multimedia.iso/hypertxt/msdos/montanab/jnt.012

Text File | 1993-04-06 | 43.3 KB | 696 lines

BBBBBB    III    0000     SSSSSS   PPPPPPP    H      H  EEEEEE  RRRRR   EEEEEE
B     B    I    O    O  SS         P      PP  H      H  E       R    R  E
B      B   I   O      O S          P       P  H      H  E       R     R E
B     B    I   O      O SS         P     PP   H      H  E       R    R  E
BBBBBB     I   O      O   SSSSS    PPPPPPP    HHHHHHHH  EEEEE   RRRRR   EEEEE
B     B    I   O      O        SS  P          H      H  E       R R     E
B      B   I   O      O         S  P          H      H  E       R  R    E
B     B    I    O    O         SS  P          H      H  E       R   R   E
BBBBBB    III    OOOO     SSSSSS   P          H      H  EEEEEE  R    R  EEEEEE


                    Biosphere Newsgroup Newsletter
                                Number 7
                            24 November 1990

     Contents of this issue (Line number indicated to right of title)

Editorial ..............................................................  37

Articles:
---------
1) Lake Baikal - Siberia, USSR .........................................  63
2) The Real Value of Biodiversity ...................................... 213
3) The Population Crisis ............................................... 353
4) News ................................................................ 530

Miscellaneous:
--------------
Some Interesting Environmental References .............................. 602
Submissions and Copyright .............................................. 667
Retrieving back issues ................................................. 682

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             E D I T O R A L
                             ---------------

  Welcome to yet another irregular issue of the Biosphere Newsletter. In
this issue, I will attempt to keep the file/newsletter size down to about
500 lines or less, in the interest of network traffic. Therefore, in order
to pack more in, I have had to try and make articles as brief as I can, which
I find hard to do. This also means that headers and the like, will be kept to
the bare minimun, (which they always were anyway). However this policy is in
keeping with using resources efficiently and so has it's environmental merits.

  The topics that I have selected to write about this time around are an
attempt by me to try and bring focus to the main problems facing the Biosphere
and to introduce an article on a problem/area/region which hasn't been covered
all that widely by other publications, so that we can help bring other
diasters to your attention/interest. It is important to note, that which is not
been reported on the news is just as relevant, and it is vital that some effort
be made to bring as much (news) as possible to everybody's notice.

  Therefore in keeping with this line of thought I have introduced a new
section which simply lists some interesting articles that I have recently come
across. Finally feel free to make copies of this file/newsletter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Lake Baikal - Siberia, USSR.

Lake Baikal, largely unknown in the West, is perhaps the most fascinating lake
on Earth. It is situated in eastern central Siberia in the USSR, (52N,107E)
just north of Mongolia. It is by far the oldest and deepest lake in the world.
The vast majority of lakes are no more than about 20,000 years old, but it is
estimated that Lake Baikal is 20 to 50 MILLION years old. The lake forms part
of a rift valley and plungs to a depth of over 1637 metres ( >5000ft), and while
in terms of it's surface area, at 34,000 sq km, it ranks only seventh largest.
However because of it combination of depth and size, it holds the greatest
volume of freshwater in the world, in fact more than the five Great Lakes in
North America.

  The Lake is over 650 kilometres long and is flanked on both sides by high
mountains, which are covered by vast areas of forest. There are over 300 rivers
of all sizes feeding into the lake, but only one river drains from it - and
that is the Angara River which is at the southern end of the lake. But it is
not only the geography of the lake, but the ecology in and around it, that
makes Lake Baikal the most interesting lake on Earth. Whereas for nearly all
other lakes, they are so young, the plants and animals that live in them have
had not time to evolve with the lake. In the case of Lake Baikal, there has
been ample time. Baikal is rich in both in terms of biomass and number of
species - 1550 species and variants of animals and 1085 of plants - of which
more than 1000 are found nowhere else. Because of the unique circulation
patterns within Baikal, surface water (carrying oxygen) can reach the lake
bottom and the result is that in the rich sediments below, the lake floor is
teeming with life. Without exception there are almost no other lakes, where
life exists at depths lower than 200 or 300 metres.

  The lake more or less survived intact up to the middle of this century, then
logging and industrialization began. Between 1958 and 68, 1.5 million cubic
metres of logs ended on the lake bottom, clogging many rivers. The bacteria
from the decaying wood, starved the water of oxygen and in time over 10 streams
and rivers had disappeared, because of damage to the hydrologly of the soil from
the loss of tree cover. Large areas of the the shore and mountains around the
lake suffered from erosion and many native fish were unable to spawn anymore
in over 50 tributaries. Eventually some measures were taken taken to counteract
this damage, such as tree planting. But the damage had already been done, and
to add insult to injury, a significant amount of the timber was lost, when it
was 'rafted' down the lake. These timber rafts often collided and the timber,
left unattended -waterlogged, causing much of it to sink.

  On the industrial front, a new pulp mill was opened in the early 60's at
Baikalsk, which is probably still one of the biggest polluters of the lake
even today. Even though, there are still over 100 factories operating along
the shore, which still have no purification facilities of any kind, (as of
last year, and it's hardly any different this year), and the fact that between
them it is estimated they discharge millions of tonnes of effluent into the
lake, laden with metals like, mercury, zinc, tungsten, molybedenum, which
competes with the agriculture complexes on the lake discharing pesticides,
slurry and fertilisers, the pulp mill at Baikalsk, over it's life so far, is
thought to have had just over half the total volume of Lake Baikal through
it's plant and discharged out again.

  The plant at Baikalsk, was originally built to make use of the very pure
water of Baikal, for making high quality cord/fibre for aircraft tyres, which
was later superseded by Nylon. In 1961, the director of the Limnological
Institute - Grigory Galazy warned that the mill would be a disaster and that it
should be built at Bratsk, 600 km down the Angara river away from the lake,
where the water was just as good also. But it was to no avail, and for the
first few years of operation the plant discharged a steady flow of a black
slimy waste. Within 18 months 400 tonnes of toxic waste had entered the lake
and alkaline sludges began to form on the lake. One of the sludges was so big
it grew to 30 kilometres length and persisted for months. During the early
years of operation, the mill used 14 million litres of water a HOUR and thus
discharged this same amount too. This volume is comparable to the amount of
water used by a city such as Los Angles. Naturally enough soon the mill which
had been built because it needed Baikal's pure water, was taking in it's own
waste. So then the Soviets spent a fortunate installing equiment to purify
incoming water, and the mill was eventually downgraded to production of paper
which didn't require the same purity of water as before. Against this back-drop
the mill had also received between 1968 and 71 a temporary award which allowed
it operate on lower standards while the above equiment was installed. And when
they finally had completed the installation, the level of pollution continued
to increase. Nevertheless after many years and alot of money attempting to
raise the standards of this giant paper mill, today 23 years later, it is still
ejecting 230,000 cubic metres of waste water into the lake. It was G. Galazy,
(see earlier) who estimated that the plant has discharged over 1.5 billion
cubic metres of effluent into the lake and that about 15,000 CUBIC KILOMETRES
of water - roughly half the lake's volume - has circulated through the paper
mill, thus destroying it's pristine state.

  While many may be wondering why the paper mill was not shut long ago, it is
because of largely the dependices it has brought on those who live near it. The
local where the Baikalsh mill is situated has 30,000 people, nearly all of
whose livelihoods would be destroyed if it were to close. And a facility as
large as this is also bound to have people with influence and self interest to
match. Therefore taming such as monster is never easy.

  If things then do not seem bad enough yet, air pollution is now beginning to
become a more serious problem that water pollution around Lake Baikal. One
would not think this could be possible but unfortunately the evidence is to
be found in the mountains and forest's of the lake. Vegetation is under
severe stress in some areas and disappearing. At risk are some of the plants
that are to be found only in this area. For example, in 1985, in the Irtutsk
region to the west of the lake where Baikalsk is located, and adjoining the
huge Irkutsk-Cheremkhovo industrial area, more than 1.2 million tonnes of
air pollution were released, while in the region east of the lake - Buryat,
where another major polluting mill is located at Selengisk, a further 200,000
tonnes were released.

  One would get the impression, that there are no laws governing pollution and
the environment in the USSR, but in fact they have some quite tough laws. The
problem is with resources, lack of law enforcement, bureaucracy, the will and
the recent political history of the country, that was incapable of accepting
any form of critisim, constructive or otherwise.

  After years of neglect and much abuse, the fate of the lake's biology is in
a rather serious mess. Many of the fish which are native to it, have stopped
spawning and their numbers are way down. The sediments particulary around the
estuarys to some of the most polluted rivers are heavily contaiminated with
heavy metals and organic toxic wastes - DDT and PCBs. Even though the mirco-
biology of freshwater and marine systems do not often seem very exciting they
are in fact cruical in every case, as much of the biomass is found there and
it forms the base of the food chain. Further evidence of serious damage to the
lake ecology, was the disasterous seal deaths that started in 1987. Thousands
of seals have died and in a very similar manner to the castrophe that hit the
North Sea in Europe in 1988. In both cases, the waters are badly polluted and
it was suspected that the immune systems of the seals were (and still) are
under severe stress from the buildup of toxins, pesticides and many other
compounds in the food chain, and this stress made them highly vulernable to
opertunistic infections.

  The latest threat now looming over the lake, is a massive increase in tourism
and in addition the recent commencement of the transport of oil from one end of
the lake to the other. Last year over 40,000 tonnes were transported. And with
the type of weather encounted out on the lake, thick fogs, storms and hurricanes
it is unrealistic to think that an accident is NOT going to happen. It is quite
possible that one tanker load of oil could cover the entire lake in one giant
sized slick.

   The only positive aspects to report are that the Soviets and particulary
local environmental groups have been making some protests and some efforts have
been taken to the address the problem. However the situation is largely hopeless
given the massive burden of the environmentally crippling industrial
infrastructure that straddles Lake Baikal. And finally last year a delegation
from UNESCO, compared Baikal with the Galapagos, which is a World Heritage Site
because of the large number of endemic species. But don't be fooled by this
glimmer of hope because the omens are not good for this great Lake.

References:

1) 'Baikal's Hidden Depths', by John Stewart, NewScientist 23 June, No 1722,
   pp 42 - 46, 1990,

2) 'The Great Lake is in Great Peril', by John Stewart, NewScientist 30 June,
   No 1723, pp 58 - 62, 1990,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) The Real Value of Biodiversity

While there is much discussion these days about saving the rainforests and
protecting their diversity, there is very little said about why it is all so
worth while saving. The reasons for the lack of further discussion are numerous
but the main one is that it is suspected that all the plants and creatures of
the rainforest are vital to the well being of the BioSphere, and because so
little is really known about what (still) exists in the rainforests, nobody can
say for sure anything concrete about saving them, except that the approach
should be one of caution.

   The situation is largely as follows: It is estimated that 90 percent of the
species of all living things lie within a band roughly 15 degrees north and
south of the equator. Up to about 15 years ago, it was thought most species
were discovered, but now it is known that this is definitely NOT the case.
Only about 2 million species have been classified so far since classifying
began 200 years ago. However from the ratios of known to unknown species turning
up in the rainforests it is estimated that the real number is somewhere between
20 and 30 Million species. The bulk of them are insects of course, and about
a quarter of them are releated to Beetles. Back-boned animals make up just a
few hundred thousand species. (It should be noted that since so little work has
been done on marine animals such as worms and crustaceans that these have not
even been brought into the equation correctly. It is thought that the coral
reefs and deep ocean basins may be in many ways as diverse as the forests them-
selves.) The current rate of loss of species, which naturally enough is occurr-
ing in the forests may be at the level of 1.0 percent or more per year and
increasing. What this means, is that at this rate within 60 - 80 years, up
to 70 or so percent of all living things could easily have vainished from the
Earth forever.

   The value that should be attributed to all this diversity is difficult to
even define. We often here of the medical benefits mankind could reap, but
while this is true, it is nothing in comparison to the great loss of pure
knowledge, beauty and wonder of all these living things. It ought to be
borne in mind that what really makes humans different to other animals is
that we claim to find out about ourselves, our living environment and the
rest of the physical universe. Thus it would seem to be a natural imperative
that if we devoted our resources, we ideally should undertake to finish off
the classification of all species and to protect and perserve them. The
complete examination of all ecosystems should be undertaken and studied,
from the ocean floors to the forest canopies. And while, being presently
totally unrealistic, it is also imperative that the genetic genome of every
plant, animal, insect, fungi and fish be mapped. The mapping of the human
genome, which is the largest, is already under way, although the project was
launched with not quite the same sort of ideal as above. It is only in this
larger view of life, that one can appreciate what a great loss is occurring.

   On a more immediate and pratical side, the value of the rainforest lie in
the number of useful and valueable fruits that could easily be gathered today
from them. If people were allowed live within and thus off the forsest and to
collect and sell some of the hundreds of fruits, nuts, roots, leaves, herbs,
and many other crops from the forest, their value would by far exceed the
present pitifull amount that is received for the same forest in the form of
logs. A cleared forest is totally incaple of supporting any significant number
of people. It is well known and documented how poor the soils generally are in
most rainforests and the disasterous consequences of large scale clearing and
burning. The local climate is invaribly affected too. Not only this but the
forest is part and parcel of the cultures of any of the Indian tribes that
still remain there, and they are nothing without the forest.

   Thus it is becoming clear that the biodiversity while having much value
in terms of knowledge and beauty, also has economic value too. For all of the
forest peoples of the world the biodiversity around them has shaped both their
lives and their cultures.

   Viewing biodiversity from the dynamical side, their are similiarities with
simple and complex ecosystems to simple and complex economies. For example,
because the ecomony of say the U.S. or Europe have many components they are
relatively stable to perturbing effects. This is ultimately related to the large
number of positive and negative feedbacks. In an economy such as many Third
World ones, where the export of bannas, sugar cane, coffee, or minerals may
make up half the GNP, such an economy is considered far simpler, and is more
likely to undergo wild fluctations, when perturbed. - i.e. world drop in the
price of the commodity being exported. Therefore it must surely be evident
that the multitude of bacteria, plants, fungi, insects, and animals (predators
and prey), serve to have an overall stablizing effect on each other and their
environment. Many field studies and (computer) simulations of populations of
insects/animals have shown that under simple condtions are rules, and usually
with no predators, the populations quite often vary widely, in boom and bust
cycles, (like the simple economy above). In reality of course, there is usually
more stability where predators, supply of food, competition, disease and other
environmental factors are all interacting. (Naturally this is not always the
case everytime, but it is still far more stable than a simpler 'model'). This
stability is also reflected in terms of the uptake, release and availability of
nutrients in the soil and water of any ecosystem. Even on a global scale it is
recognised the biological impact that exists for the Carbon, Nitrogen and
Sulphur Cycles. If no life existed on Earth, the levels of these chemicals and
of probably all others as a result would be radically different. Nearly every
other major chemical cycle known is effected by life on Earth. The details of
these processes are very intricate and little understood, but if one considers
for a moment that all plants, animals, algae, and bacteria are constantly
absorbing and emitting numerous gases, from a multitude of biochemical
activities, then it becomes apparent, that stability here is crucial. For
example many of the gases present in the atmosphere in 'trace' quantities, such
as methane, ethane, nitrous oxide carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, and
literally thousands of others, including a host of complex organic molecules
are the result of bacterial and fungal activity. However many of these same
chemicals are important catalysts for many reactions, such as formation and
destruction of ozone. They also react with the hydroxol molecule (OH), thus
determining it's concentration in a given location. The hydroxol radical is
formed by the dissociation of water (by sunlight) and in recent years, it has
been realized that it is important in the breakdown of many other compounds in
the atmosphere, and so is thought to be one of the mechanisms by which the
atmosphere 'cleanses' itself.

   At this point, only a fool, would not recognise, that the real value of
biodiversity is the health of the whole planet. Any threat to it, is a threat
to the stability of this living system of which we are a part. It does not
matter whether we understand or even know all the details and workings of
the system, before we can decide to say that yes, it is wrong to damage it.
It is plain obvious for all to see.

   Some people might suggest, that we can safely discard much of the
biodiversity that exists, as there still would be enough diversity to give the
BioSphere stability. To this I would say, the very suggestion, presupposes the
person making the suggestion seems to know how it all works and is confident
of his or her theory. All I can say is that such a scenario to me would seem
like a gamble where you put all your life's saving and your house on the bet,
and even if you do win, the prize will only be half of your original bet,
because this is what such a suggestion makes - half the species. It would be
very foolish indeed. In addition in the last few years, the upsurge in the
study of chaos theory and it's associated branch of fractals; it has become
patently clear how far more complex the world is and has demonstrated
particulary how complex systems, which the BioSphere is, can be subject to
castrophic effects and jumps to new states - or in mathematical terms shifting
to new 'attractors'.

   To put the above discussion in some more light, it is should be clear,
that the whole biosphere is presently under the influence of a major
'perturbation' and already many of it's internal systems and cycles have
undergone radical alteration. These take the form of existing species loss,
loss of predators in many populations, new environmental factors - such as
pollution, and massive loss of habitat. The BioSphere is no longer operating
under the conditions it did even 20 years ago, and cannot be expected to
behave as it once did. Our only insurance in this whole biological system
- it's biodiversity - is rapidly been taken away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) The Population Crisis.

   The population crisis has been away from the media for quite some time now,
although the crisis itself has never left us. Most people are reasonably clear
in their minds that the world's population will be a problem on us all, long
before it gets to the stage of no standing room. The real issue of course is
with the use and distribution of resources of all kinds. Ideally these would be
used most efficiently and everyone would be friends, thus nobody would starve
either. But this is not the case.

   Humans whether as individuals, as a mass, nation or culture, tend to act
like animals. That is they look after themselves and forget about everyone else.
And so we see this reflected in the world today. While places such as the Sudan
Ethopia, Bangladesh starve to death, Europe, Japan, Austrialia and the U.S.A.
stuff themselves silly, have problems with over-eating, and spend much of their
spare money and time on leisure. Leisure meaning, sports, holidays, partying,
drinking, Christmas time, films, video games and so on. All of this sulphurus
activity also requires enormous amounts of resources, from minerals, to wood,
paper, oil, to energy, on top of our already 'essential' needs. Clearly then
there are some differences between the various groups on the planet.

   In this respect, the more affluent 1/4 of the population behaves towards
the rest, in terms of aid and help in a similar vein. Because of this the
population crisis is headed for a double blow. The first is the insufficient
levels of aid and of that provided, quite often the irrelevence of much of
it. The second blow comes from the fact that many of the goals set out in
the early 70's by agencies (WHO, U.N.) and governments have failed totally to
meet their targets, chief of which were to bring down the global birth rate.
All the problems that were proclaimed that were going to be solved, were not.
Also during the 80's for the first time since the colonial days more money
flowed to the rich 'North' than aid going 'South'. This is as a result of
the massive burden of debt repayments, of which after all these years of paying
interest on the loans, few or none of the countries have managed to pay back a
single penny/cent on the original amount. This loss of revenue to the host
governments has meant that hospitals and schools haven't been built, running
water and sewage systems not built and health and birth control programs not
implemented.

   In fact during the 80's much of the funding for birth control, chiefly
financed by the U.S. because it is such a large country, has been axed. Over
190 million dollars were cancelled. The prime movers behind this have been
the anti-abortion lobby, who irrationally have taken their campaigns far
beyond their own agendas. This loss of funding over the past decade may
be the cause of up to 400 million extra births. The anti-abortion lobby have
reasoned that this money was been used to encourge women to have abortions.
In reality the effect has been totally disasterous, because many of these
programs for family planning and birth control also had a educational and
health component to them. If these people were so concerned why didn't they
promote this money to raise the status of women in very large tracts of the
Third World ?

   To throw some light on the situation in countries throughout Africa and
Asia particulary, it is worth examining the plight of women. In the countries
where the highest birth rates, and generally the gravest problems, women
are treated as 3rd or even 4th class citzens. The system there is, that they are
married over at an as early age as possible, 15 and younger. They have no say
in the number of children, but normally they would have 10 or more. When
it comes to meals and education, priority is always given to the sons, who
receive their portions first and if any of the family is sent to school,
usually it is the sons, first. Women do much of the work, and raising the
family. Their daughters end up been raised in the very same social climate as
they (their mother's) were in which they have very little say and unlikely to
have any education, and therefore illiterate. This immediately makes it far more
difficult for them to get information about health programs and other matters.
Life for them is survial, a mere existence, not life as we in the rich 'North'
know where we even have time to think beyond the next meal, because our
stomachs are not paining us. To most of us, the extreme poverty of these people
is unimagineable for us. However it is these very people that need to be helped.
It is in the gettos where they live, where because life is so miserable, disease
so prevelant, (generally from lack of sewage and water facilities), that they
have more children; -precisely as a guarantee, that they will somehow help bring
income to the family and thus help their parents. To understand why the
situation is so; it is neccesary for us to visualize what it is like, and if
need be then to see for ourselves. In the West, we often hear that if the
relevant countries could raise employment and industrialize then these people
would have income. What they fail to recognise is that in a true capitalist
society, nobody would employ them anyhow. That's because they have received
no education, may be chronically sick, and suffer from a number of disabilites
because lack of nourishment while growing up. Furthermore the mental development
may have been impaired again because of lack of sufficient food, while young
and while they were still developing in the womb. The West seems to think
that if they tell these countries to adopt what they do, the problems will
somwhow go away. However they are not usually as forthcoming with the aid as
they are with the advice. The tendency is for presititous mega-projects that
benefit nobody, but harm everyone, while requests for running water at even a
few locations are ignored, where in fact the amount of good and benefit they
could bring is way beyond their proportion/size. This scenario repeated again
and again all over the Third World, is the core of the population crisis.

   In countries throughout the Third World, in towns and villages where there
are programs to involve the women in the decision making and to make them
literate, in other words where the status and role of women has been RAISED,
the birth rate has DECLINED. Raising the status of women has proved to be
time and time again the one way to bring down the birth rate. It is precisely
these and other sort of programs that the axing of funds, due largely to the
anti-abortion lobby in the US, have cancelled. The effects of gentle persausion
and better standard of living are far longer lasting than forced birth control
which only causes resentment, and in the long run makes the problem worse.

   The population of the Earth has surpassed 5 billion and it well on the way
to the 6th. The growth rate is explosive and in the current regime of things
the use of resources by the rich and the laying waste of large parts of land
due to massive urban and rural populations of the the remaining 3/4 will not
be able to continue for much longer. There is simply no cooperation or help
going on that is worth talking about. The West is more concerned with the lives
of celebrities and fictional characters in soap operas, than the plight of
the planet. It is not for a lack of brains or human ingenuity that the
situation cannot be salvaged. In fact much of the technology, skill and
finance is there. The will and perhaps the message is not. There are a million
things which could be done. For example Kenya, in Africa has the highest birth
rate in the world at approx 4 percent. The population is currently about 40
million, and at this rate (~4%), it will double in 17 YEARS. If one considers
for a moment, this means another 40 million is just one country, then it
becomes clear, that not even the richest country in the West would be able
to provide the same level of infrastructure, in terms of the number of schools
hostipals, factories, food output, sewage treatement, running water etc that
would be required to maintain it's standard of living. To help imagine this,
consider the consequnce of the population of the US going from it's roughly
240 million to 480 million in 17 years! But like any other Third World country
Kenya has to carry the burden of debt with it as well as it's existing problems.
It is therefore plainly clear to everyone, that the Third World debt HAS to be
canceled. The price of not doing this now, will is incaluable. This problem
cannot be looked at in isolation -that is to say, the money was lent and there-
fore it must be paid back. Besides it has got to be remembered that much of
it was lent when interest rates were lower, and at the time the GNP growth
rate in the Third World was relatively high. Banks simply assumed high growth
and low interest rates. In fact the opposite occured. In many cases, in the
mid to late 70's Banks were so eager to loan their money, that they sent out
young men still in their early 20's around the world giving out loans to people
like Marcos of the Philippines, (who promptly bought parts of Manhatten), the
Miltary government of Brazil at the time. who poured more than $7billion alone
into nuclear energy, with still little to show for it, even today. So an awful
lot of the money lent never even went to their intended projects, and since
most of the mega-projects were ill-conceived, there was no benefit. The only
lasting result is that the West now keeps the screw turning on the Third World
not by miltary colonialism, but by economic and financial colonialism today.


   Returning however to the main theme of this essay, the effect of population
growth can be seen in other areas. For example, carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas),
grew in emission amounts from 2349 million tonnes in 1950 to 6793 million
tonnes in 1985. This represents a growth rate of 3.1 per cent a year. At the
same time world population grew by 1.9 per cent and emissions per person rose
by 1.2 per cent. We can see therefore that almost two thirds of the increase
is accounted for by population growth. However it must be stressed that probably
most of the growth per person occured in the West.

  Between 1971 to 1986, 125 million hectares of forest and woodlands were lost
in developing countries according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization,
FAO. However in the same period urbanisation in these countries ate up more
than 58 million hectares, much of it prime farmland. Thus half the land cleared
was just used for making up the losses to cities and roads etc. This leaves
about another 58 million hectares of new farmland. But much of this was
marginal land, with poor soil and prone to erosion. So we can see virtually all
of this expansion was at the expense of forests. Over this period (71 to 86),
cropland grew by 0.51 per cent a year, and population by 2.2 per cent, (higher
than 1950 to 1986). Consumption per person grew by 0.58 per cent, but technology
change allowed a decrease of 2.3 per cent of cropland area per person. This
means that population growth can account for four fifths of the growth in
cropland, which from the above example, would also account for much of the
deforestation in the world. However that are many regional effects suffering
from their own problems.

   So it is clear then, that population growth coupled with poverty and
excessive consumption by the elite 1/4 of the population is bringing to bear
a large number of factors that are contriving to destroy much of the vitality
and fertility of the Earth. It is worth noting too that perhaps all of the most
fertile land, lying in river basins and deltas has already been brough into use
or urbanised and therefore any new land be added to the world's stock of
farmland is marginal at best. This is usually the sort of land where you only
get one go if you are lucky to make it work, otherwise it is botched up on a
permanent basis. So as the numbers go up, the pressures on the system are
jacked up another few notches and like a ballon inflating, it will burst
pretty soon, if the pressure is not backed off.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) News

  * Seal Slaughter Update: As reported in the last issue, the fate of over
25,000 seals in the area of Port Nolloth off South Africa was at stake. At
the last minute, efforts were made to prevent the slaughter. Unfortunately
while media attention was focused here, a similar number of seals in another
colony off the Namdian coastline, were later butchered and meat sent to the
Far East to be sold as dog food.

   * Australia to ban mining in 'Australian' Antarctic: Australia is to bring
in legislation to ban mining, oil drilling and prospecting both on land and
off the continental shelf in those areas of the Antarctic, claimed by the
Australians. Their move is part of the effort supported by New Zealand and
France to prevent all mining activity there in the future, The present treaty
of the Antarctic is up for renewal this year, which brings fears that this
may herald the beginning of an 'assault' on the continent. Greenpeace and other
environmental wish to make the Antarctic a World Park.

  * One small way to help save the Rainforests: Two American clothing companies,
Patagonia Incorporated and Smith and Hawkin have agreed to buy a million buttons
made from the Tagua nut, which grows on palm trees in the Ecuadorian rainforest
in South America. They hope that people will choose to buy shirts and jackets,
which use their buttons, over those which typically have  plastic ones. The idea
is that the rainforest will benefit, if their venture is successful, as local
people, hopefully will then be able to receive a steadier income, from the
produce of the forest, rather than the non sustainable source of income they
have now, which is cutting down the forest and selling the logs in their own
currencies, which are constantly being devalued.

  * USSR, Leningrad's drinking water: The city of Leningrad's drinking water,
drawn from Lake Ladoga, is heavily polluted. There are 9 pulp and paper plants,
two dairy complexes and a number of chemical factories along it's shore. It
has also recently been revealed that a ship that sank there years ago, was
carrying radioactive waste, and has been and is still leaking radioactive
Caesium into the water.

  * USSR, Threat to Nuclear PlaLnt Safety: The continuing crisis in the USSR,
is putting the safety of many of it's plant at serious peril. Staff moral at
nuclear power stations is at an all time low, partly the result of protests
and demonstrations outside the plants themselves. There has also be a drop
in discipline, standards coupled with irresponsible management, antiquated
equipment and outdated technology according to the Safety Commission chairman
- Vadim Malyshev. This also has to be seen it the context of the potentially
explosive situation in the outlying republics, where nationalist feelings
have already reached boiling point. These factors increase, considerably the
chances of another Chernobyl sized accident again.
(NewScientist 11 Aug 1990, p 20, The European ?????? )

  * New system for classifying species: A new system of classification for
living things has been suggested, which divides the tree of life up into
three main classifications or kingdoms, instead of two as before. They are
Bacteria, Archaea and Eucarya. Archea covers many algae, while the last kingdom,
Eucarya, includes both plants and animals. However as expected they have many
subgroups The new system is based around genetic considerations and is thus
thought to be more fundamental.
(NewScientist 11 Aug p 30 1990)

  * Fire threatens Golden Lion Tamarin Monkeys Habitat: A fire last February,
in Brazil's Poco Das Antas Biological Reserve, has destroyed more of the
remaining coastal forest habitat of the Golden Lion Tamrin Monekys. There is
currently a program to try and save the remaining monkeys there from extinction.
In the early 1980s there were less than 500 monekys, and since the habitat has
been destroyed steadily since then, it is assumed the smaller areas left, can
only support fewer and fewer animals. The conservation program, has already
introduced 75 animals from zoos, (some of which had to be trained to peel
bannas), to bosst the population. The program leader, Devra Kleiman of the
National Zoo in Washington, D.C., has said that the fire, while not killing
any animals, put the conservation effort back along way.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some Interesting Environmental References:

Is our World Warming ?, National Geographic, Oct 1990, p66-100.
A Raft Atop the Rain Forest, National Geographic, Oct 1990, p129 - 138.

Fruits of the rainforest, Ghillean Prance, NewScientist 13th Jan, 1990, p42-45.
Abstract: Ice creams, body creams, bath oils and sweets: these are the latest
fruits of the rainforest. As new markets develop, fruits and nuts will soon
be worth more than timber - and the future of the forest will be more secure.

Who's a clever parrot, then ?, Annabelle Birchall, NewScientist, 24th Feb,
1990, p 38 - 43
Abstract: Few people would think it ethical to keep an ape in a cage in
their front room, but parrots may be as bright as primates. And trade in
parrots as pets is driving many to extinction.

A cool solution to global warming, David Olivier, NewScientist, 12th May 1990,
p 42 - 45.
Abstract: Modern fridges and freezers are among our most inefficient domestic
appliances. Only legislation will persaude manufactures to build coolers that
do not waste energy.

Hit and run in Sarawak, Fred Pearce, NewScientist, 12th May 1990, p 46 - 49.
Abstract: Under the floodlights of 24-hour forestry, the world's oldest
rainforest is disappearing before the eyes of it's inhabitants. Who will call
a halt ?

Too much life on Earth ?, Paul Harrison, NewScientist, 19th May, 1990, p28-29.
Abstract: Is the population explosion responsible for today's environmental
ills ? Some say yes, others are just as sure that the blames lies elsewhere.

India's troubled waters, Omar Sattaur, NewScientist, 27th May, 1990, p 46-51.
Abstract: The Indian government is convinced that only huge irrigation schemes
will solve its problems of drought. Yet history shows that large dams are
bad science.

How green is the wind ?, Alexi Clarke, NewScientist, 27th May 1990, p 62-65.
Abstract: Wind power may be a clean way of generating electricity, but no one
knows what the effects will be of thousands of windmills in the environment.

Making sense of the genome's secrets, Susan Watts, NewScientist 4th Aug, 1990,
p 37-41. Abstract: Thousands of researchers around the world are gradually
revealing how our genetic material is made up. Collecting and collating their
results has forced computer scientists to reconsider the way we store and
use information in databases.

Counting species one by one, Nigel Stork and Kevin Gaston, NewScientist,
11th Aug, 1990, p 43-47.
Abstract: Biologists will never be sure that they have found and named every
last species on Earth. But they have a long way to go before they can even
start to wonder.

Your genome in their hands, Christopher Joyce, NewScientist, 11th Aug, 1990,
p 52-55. Abstract: Soon it will be possible to screen people for genetic
diseases and predisposition to heart disease or cancer. Who will see this
information and what will they use it for ?

A Worm at the heart of the genome project, by Roger Lewin, NewScientist,
25th Aug, 1990, p 38 - 42.
Abstract: What can we learn about ourselves from a lowly parasitic worm ?
A great deal, argue molecular geneticists on both sides of the Atlantic.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      'Submissions and Copyright'

Anyone is welcome to send articles, reviews, news items, or comments to me for
insertion into the next issue. The only thing is that the subject must be
related to the BioSphere and environment in some way.

      Send all your submissions to me at [e-mail]

  And now to copyright. There is none. You are free to make as many copies of
this or any other of the previous issues of this newsletter. Feel free to make
copies onto floppy disks and pass them around.  Post them up on BBS, if you
like. The main point is to generate some interest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      `Retrieving Back Issues'

This is the seventh issue of the Biosphere Newsgroup Newsletter. From now on
backissues will be available from me (at [e-mail]) or by using
anonymous FTP from, (courtsey of Andrew Mossberg, Editor of the Florida
Environmental Reader).

FTP Site Address:  mthvax.cs.miami.edu (ip address is 129.171.32.5)

Directory where issues will be is pub/biosph.

The UMNews server at MAINE, where backissues used to be stored is unfortunately
no longer operational.

Users on BITNET, please note, that the server [e-mail] can do
anonymous FTP transfers for you. You should send a mail file with the word
HELP or FTP to [e-mail] for further details.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------