subject:"Re\: \[Biofuel\] Help"

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-22 Thread Keith Addison

USDA:
Blackbirds, Red-Winged - killed, intentional: 965,889
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2009_prog_data/PDR_G_FY09/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/Table_G_FY2009_Short.pdf

And the rest...

>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0120/Bye-Bye-Blackbird-USDA-acknowledges-a-hand-in-one-mass-bird-death
>
>Bye Bye Blackbird: USDA acknowledges a hand in one mass bird death
>
>One in a series of mysterious mass bird deaths in the past month was
>the product of a USDA avicide program, which began as operation Bye
>Bye Blackbird in the 1960s.
>
>By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / January 20, 2011
>
>Atlanta
>
>It's not the "aflockalyptic" fallout from a secret US weapon lab as
>some have theorized. But the government acknowledged Thursday that it
>had a hand in one of a string of mysterious mass bird deaths that
>have spooked residents in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Dakota,
>and Kentucky in the last month.
>
>The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) took
>responsibility for hundreds of dead starlings that were found on the
>ground and frozen in trees in a Yankton, S.D., park on Monday.
>
>The USDA's Wildlife Services Program, which contracts with farmers
>for bird control, said it used an avicide poison called DRC-1339 to
>cull a roost of 5,000 birds that were defecating on a farmer's cattle
>feed across the state line in Nebraska. But officials said the agency
>had nothing to do with large and dense recent bird kills in Arkansas
>and Louisiana.
>
>Nevertheless, the USDA's role in the South Dakota bird deaths puts a
>focus on a little-known government bird-control program that began in
>the 1960s under the name of Bye Bye Blackbird, which eventually
>became part of the USDA and was housed in the late '60s at a NASA
>facility. In 2009, USDA agents euthanized more than 4 million
>red-winged blackbirds, starlings, cowbirds, and grackles, primarily
>using pesticides that the government says are not harmful to pets or
>humans.
>
>In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from
>the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and
>starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or
>cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances,
>the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers,
>who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not
>need to report their bird culls to any authority.
>
>"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these
>blackbirds," says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the
>National Audubon Society. "These guys are professionals, and they
>don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast,
>efficiently, and out of sight."
>
>Bird kills turning too zealous?
>
>The depredation order, however, is under review for its impact on the
>rare rusty blackbird, which roosts with more common species.
>Ornithologists also suspect that the mass killings may be a factor in
>declining populations of those species in the US.
>
>While the USDA keeps tabs on the number of birds the program
>euthanizes, the total death toll isn't known because private
>contractors operating under the depredation order aren't required to
>keep count in the case of blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, and
>starlings.
>
>"My biggest concern is we don't know how many birds are being killed,
>and we don't have a sense of how at risk the rusty blackbird is
>because of depredation events in their range," says Mr. Butcher.
>
>Yankton animal control officer Lisa Brasel told KTIV-TV that she
>first believed a cold snap had killed some 200 European starlings
>that were found dead in Riverside Park, reminding some residents of
>the final scenes of Alfred Hitchcock's thriller, "The Birds."
>
>But then she said she received a call from a USDA official who said
>the agency had poisoned a roost of starlings 10 miles south of
>Yankton. Usually such poisonings result in flocks falling directly
>out of their tree roosts. But in this case, the birds traveled a fair
>distance before falling. "They were surprised they came to Yankton
>like they did and died in our park," said Brasel, according to
>KTIV-TV.
>
>How birds plague farmers
>
>Carol Bannerman, a Wildlife Services spokeswoman, said such kills are
>carried out at the request of farmers who can prove the birds are a
>nuisance. The farmers also help pay the cost, according to the agency.
>
>One example of nuisance birds are European starlings, a non-native
>species, at US dairies, where a flock of 5,000 can eat 200 pounds of
>feed a day while soiling equipment and dairy cows.
>
>"It's not that we have anything against starlings, but our charge is
>to help protect agriculture ... and protect property and human health
>or safety," she says. "And the fact is, in a lot of rural settings,
>people say, 'It's just birds, what's the problem?' "
>
>Ms. Bannerman added, however, that the agency takes care to notify
>local public-health and law-enforcement ag

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-22 Thread Keith Addison

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0120/Bye-Bye-Blackbird-USDA-acknowledges-a-hand-in-one-mass-bird-death

Bye Bye Blackbird: USDA acknowledges a hand in one mass bird death

One in a series of mysterious mass bird deaths in the past month was
the product of a USDA avicide program, which began as operation Bye
Bye Blackbird in the 1960s.

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / January 20, 2011

Atlanta

It's not the "aflockalyptic" fallout from a secret US weapon lab as
some have theorized. But the government acknowledged Thursday that it
had a hand in one of a string of mysterious mass bird deaths that
have spooked residents in Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, South Dakota,
and Kentucky in the last month.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) took
responsibility for hundreds of dead starlings that were found on the
ground and frozen in trees in a Yankton, S.D., park on Monday.

The USDA's Wildlife Services Program, which contracts with farmers
for bird control, said it used an avicide poison called DRC-1339 to
cull a roost of 5,000 birds that were defecating on a farmer's cattle
feed across the state line in Nebraska. But officials said the agency
had nothing to do with large and dense recent bird kills in Arkansas
and Louisiana.

Nevertheless, the USDA's role in the South Dakota bird deaths puts a
focus on a little-known government bird-control program that began in
the 1960s under the name of Bye Bye Blackbird, which eventually
became part of the USDA and was housed in the late '60s at a NASA
facility. In 2009, USDA agents euthanized more than 4 million
red-winged blackbirds, starlings, cowbirds, and grackles, primarily
using pesticides that the government says are not harmful to pets or
humans.

In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and
starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or
cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances,
the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers,
who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not
need to report their bird culls to any authority.

"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these
blackbirds," says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the
National Audubon Society. "These guys are professionals, and they
don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast,
efficiently, and out of sight."

Bird kills turning too zealous?

The depredation order, however, is under review for its impact on the
rare rusty blackbird, which roosts with more common species.
Ornithologists also suspect that the mass killings may be a factor in
declining populations of those species in the US.

While the USDA keeps tabs on the number of birds the program
euthanizes, the total death toll isn't known because private
contractors operating under the depredation order aren't required to
keep count in the case of blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, and
starlings.

"My biggest concern is we don't know how many birds are being killed,
and we don't have a sense of how at risk the rusty blackbird is
because of depredation events in their range," says Mr. Butcher.

Yankton animal control officer Lisa Brasel told KTIV-TV that she
first believed a cold snap had killed some 200 European starlings
that were found dead in Riverside Park, reminding some residents of
the final scenes of Alfred Hitchcock's thriller, "The Birds."

But then she said she received a call from a USDA official who said
the agency had poisoned a roost of starlings 10 miles south of
Yankton. Usually such poisonings result in flocks falling directly
out of their tree roosts. But in this case, the birds traveled a fair
distance before falling. "They were surprised they came to Yankton
like they did and died in our park," said Brasel, according to
KTIV-TV.

How birds plague farmers

Carol Bannerman, a Wildlife Services spokeswoman, said such kills are
carried out at the request of farmers who can prove the birds are a
nuisance. The farmers also help pay the cost, according to the agency.

One example of nuisance birds are European starlings, a non-native
species, at US dairies, where a flock of 5,000 can eat 200 pounds of
feed a day while soiling equipment and dairy cows.

"It's not that we have anything against starlings, but our charge is
to help protect agriculture ... and protect property and human health
or safety," she says. "And the fact is, in a lot of rural settings,
people say, 'It's just birds, what's the problem?' "

Ms. Bannerman added, however, that the agency takes care to notify
local public-health and law-enforcement agencies before a scheduled
kill, and noted "what went on in Louisiana and Arkansas, that was
totally outside of what we're doing. We're quite concerned that
people not connect those."

Two mass bird deaths in north Alabama this week are bein

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-08 Thread Keith Addison

A nice study in educated derision, Dawie.

Starting, I suppose, with the notion that a place "such as San 
Francisco" could be considered a local community. No doubt there are 
many functional local communities within it, but the thing itself is 
a city. Parr probably puts it correctly when he talks of policies - 
when cities look at policies they don't see the same thing as local 
communities see.

I share your scepticism of economies-of-scale - just a doctrine 
indeed, and in whose bible? IMHO when economies of scale become 
operative, it's too big to serve anybody's best interests except the 
corporations' - not mom-and-poppable. Eg:

"Small family and part-time farms are at least as efficient as larger 
commercial operations. There is evidence of diseconomies of scale as 
farm size increases." -- "Are Large Farms More Efficient?" Professor 
Willis L. Peterson, University of Minnesota, 1997. Download (Acrobat 
file, 52kb):
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/13411/1/p97-02.pdf

Colin Tudge also says that. So does the IAASTD report (International 
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for 
Development). So do lots of people, including me.

Small farms
http://journeytoforever.org/farm.html

I also happen to think that birds, like just about everything else 
that really matters, are more important than corporate profits.

All best

Keith


>'Bird-safe glass is also being developed for use in tall buildings.
>
>'"Bird-safe building glass is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream." said
>Parr. "Its reality is on the horizon - we are close. The
>manufacturers are working with the scientists; they're working with
>us. And local communities are getting into the act as well, with more
>and more cities - such as San Francisco - looking at policies that
>implement bird-friendly construction,"'
>
>Bird-safe glass indeed! Another engineered intrusion of mass-production into
>building construction, a field that has long proved resistant to it 
>despite all
>the prevalent theories (Fuller's Dymaxion house came to naught because the
>doctrine of economies of scale is subject to more qualifications than has
>generally been understood - qualifications the recognition of which raises
>questions about the desirability of the effects of economies of scale). How
>would "bird-safe" glass work? Would it use differences between birds' and
>humans' light perception in some way? Somehow I'd expect corporations to love
>the idea of "bird-safe" glass being indistinguishable from common clear float
>glass by the naked eye, as enforcement of legislation in that regard would set
>up yet another corporate-friendly burden-of-proof regime.
>
>I would suspect that birds fly into window panes mainly in a small number of
>situations. The glass is too transparent, especially in the sense of 
>their being
>too few glazing bars; or the glass is too reflective, forming a mirror that
>reflects open sky until it's too late for the bird to react; or the 
>glass is in
>a place where it ought not to be, e.g. a quarter-mile up in the air. 
>Small-pane
>windows make sense because the plant required to make small panes is 
>more easily
>accessible to a smaller operation. Likewise clear float/drawn/spun glass makes
>sense because there are centuries of small-scale craft behind it: it's
>mom-and-poppable. And I'd say the tallest building (excepting specialized
>tower-structures) that can be effectively managed by the members of 
>a household
>is about four or five storeys. By happy coincidence all this is also 
>much better
>for birds.
>
>Far better for birds - and humans - to cease to be subject to that 
>extraordinary
>situation in which it makes economic sense for large corporations to 
>erect tall,
>shiny, crystalline buildings. Bird-safe glass, forsooth!
>
>'New wind technology is in the works for a turbine which would pose
>much less risk to birds than the design implemented in wind farms
>today.
>
>'Called an "airborne wind turbine", the idea is to do away with the
>tower of a traditional wind turbine and instead use a helium-filled
>blimp which would enable the device to be raised much higher than is
>currently possible in order to capture the increased wind energy of
>higher altitudes. Because its height, the device could emit a
>bird-deterring sound too loud for use in lower turbines.'
>
>*sigh*
>
>I wonder how birds fare with traditional Dutch-style windmills, or even modern
>turbines in the 6-odd-metre size range. I'd think the lower operating speed of
>the former would offer some advantage in this regard.
>
>Regards
>
>Dawie Coetzee
>
>
>
>

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-08 Thread Dawie Coetzee

'Bird-safe glass is also being developed for use in tall buildings.

'"Bird-safe building glass is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream." said 
Parr. "Its reality is on the horizon - we are close. The 
manufacturers are working with the scientists; they're working with 
us. And local communities are getting into the act as well, with more 
and more cities - such as San Francisco - looking at policies that 
implement bird-friendly construction,"'

Bird-safe glass indeed! Another engineered intrusion of mass-production into 
building construction, a field that has long proved resistant to it despite all 
the prevalent theories (Fuller's Dymaxion house came to naught because the 
doctrine of economies of scale is subject to more qualifications than has 
generally been understood - qualifications the recognition of which raises 
questions about the desirability of the effects of economies of scale). How 
would "bird-safe" glass work? Would it use differences between birds' and 
humans' light perception in some way? Somehow I'd expect corporations to love 
the idea of "bird-safe" glass being indistinguishable from common clear float 
glass by the naked eye, as enforcement of legislation in that regard would set 
up yet another corporate-friendly burden-of-proof regime.

I would suspect that birds fly into window panes mainly in a small number of 
situations. The glass is too transparent, especially in the sense of their 
being 
too few glazing bars; or the glass is too reflective, forming a mirror that 
reflects open sky until it's too late for the bird to react; or the glass is in 
a place where it ought not to be, e.g. a quarter-mile up in the air. Small-pane 
windows make sense because the plant required to make small panes is more 
easily 
accessible to a smaller operation. Likewise clear float/drawn/spun glass makes 
sense because there are centuries of small-scale craft behind it: it's 
mom-and-poppable. And I'd say the tallest building (excepting specialized 
tower-structures) that can be effectively managed by the members of a household 
is about four or five storeys. By happy coincidence all this is also much 
better 
for birds.

Far better for birds - and humans - to cease to be subject to that 
extraordinary 
situation in which it makes economic sense for large corporations to erect 
tall, 
shiny, crystalline buildings. Bird-safe glass, forsooth!

'New wind technology is in the works for a turbine which would pose 
much less risk to birds than the design implemented in wind farms 
today.

'Called an "airborne wind turbine", the idea is to do away with the 
tower of a traditional wind turbine and instead use a helium-filled 
blimp which would enable the device to be raised much higher than is 
currently possible in order to capture the increased wind energy of 
higher altitudes. Because its height, the device could emit a 
bird-deterring sound too loud for use in lower turbines.'

*sigh*

I wonder how birds fare with traditional Dutch-style windmills, or even modern 
turbines in the 6-odd-metre size range. I'd think the lower operating speed of 
the former would offer some advantage in this regard.

Regards

Dawie Coetzee





________
From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Fri, 7 January, 2011 22:23:17
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0106-morgan_bird_kills.html

"End of Days" bird kill just a fraction of real death toll

By Morgan Erickson-Davis, mongabay.com
January 07, 2011

The sudden en-masse deaths of thousands of birds in the Southern U.S. 
on the night of New Year's Eve have created a frenzy of media 
attention, but in reality hardly compare to the massive number that 
die each year because of human activity.

Shortly after midnight on January 1st, thousands of red-winged 
blackbirds fell from the sky in Beebe, Arkansas. Some were outright 
dead, others mortally wounded, all were found to have suffered severe 
injury through blunt-force trauma. While there has been speculation 
around a number of hypotheses including a climate change-driven 
weather phenomenon and even a fluctuation in the earth's magnetism, 
as usual the most obvious solution is the most likely: fireworks set 
off by people celebrating the holiday flushed the birds into the air 
where, unable to see, they collided with houses, trees, and each 
other.

However, these deaths represent just a fraction of the true impact 
humans have on birdlife.

"There are many human-related causes of bird mortality including 
buildings, outdoor cats, pesticides, communication towers, 
automobiles, wind farms, and lead poisoning from spent ammunition and 
lost fishing tackle." said American Bird Conservancy Vice President, 
Mike Parr. "But because most of t

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-07 Thread Keith Addison

http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0106-morgan_bird_kills.html

"End of Days" bird kill just a fraction of real death toll

By Morgan Erickson-Davis, mongabay.com
January 07, 2011

The sudden en-masse deaths of thousands of birds in the Southern U.S. 
on the night of New Year's Eve have created a frenzy of media 
attention, but in reality hardly compare to the massive number that 
die each year because of human activity.

Shortly after midnight on January 1st, thousands of red-winged 
blackbirds fell from the sky in Beebe, Arkansas. Some were outright 
dead, others mortally wounded, all were found to have suffered severe 
injury through blunt-force trauma. While there has been speculation 
around a number of hypotheses including a climate change-driven 
weather phenomenon and even a fluctuation in the earth's magnetism, 
as usual the most obvious solution is the most likely: fireworks set 
off by people celebrating the holiday flushed the birds into the air 
where, unable to see, they collided with houses, trees, and each 
other.

However, these deaths represent just a fraction of the true impact 
humans have on birdlife.

"There are many human-related causes of bird mortality including 
buildings, outdoor cats, pesticides, communication towers, 
automobiles, wind farms, and lead poisoning from spent ammunition and 
lost fishing tackle." said American Bird Conservancy Vice President, 
Mike Parr. "But because most of the deaths from those sources often 
occur in ones or twos, they often go unnoticed or unreported."

In total, says Parr, studies have estimated that up to one billion 
birds may be killed annually due to collisions with buildings. 
Another billion fall prey to domestic cats. Up to 50 million birds 
are killed each year after hitting communications towers, and 
pesticide poisoning has been linked to the deaths of up to 15 million 
birds each year.

In addition to all these hazards, the increasing presence of wind 
turbines is a threat to many birds, especially when they're built in 
the path of migration routes.

"When you look at the totality of human-caused threats to birds, it 
has got to give cause for serious concern about our cumulative 
effects on their populations," Parr said.

Strides have been taken in the development, implementation, and 
promotion of bird-safe technology. For instance, the prohibition or 
restriction of many pesticides most toxic to birds, such as 
carbofuran, fenthion, and ethyl parathion, has reduced bird mortality 
by as much as 75 percent.

Bird-safe glass is also being developed for use in tall buildings.

"Bird-safe building glass is no longer a pie-in-the-sky dream." said 
Parr. "Its reality is on the horizon - we are close. The 
manufacturers are working with the scientists; they're working with 
us. And local communities are getting into the act as well, with more 
and more cities - such as San Francisco - looking at policies that 
implement bird-friendly construction,"

New wind technology is in the works for a turbine which would pose 
much less risk to birds than the design implemented in wind farms 
today.

Called an "airborne wind turbine", the idea is to do away with the 
tower of a traditional wind turbine and instead use a helium-filled 
blimp which would enable the device to be raised much higher than is 
currently possible in order to capture the increased wind energy of 
higher altitudes. Because its height, the device could emit a 
bird-deterring sound too loud for use in lower turbines.

However, while airborne wind turbines are on the horizon, today's 
turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds every year. The 
Department of the Interior is currently considering imposing 
operational guidelines on wind farms which would lessen their risk to 
birds. Parr believes those guidelines should be mandatory.

"Voluntary guidelines don't work." he said. "We wouldn't expect 
people to abide by voluntary drinking and driving limits. We can't 
expect the wind industry to follow voluntary environmental guidelines 
either."


>... Not to mention this:
>
>http://www.alternet.org/story/149440/%27aflockalypse%27%3A_here%27s_why_we_should_really_be_concerned_about_the_huge_bird_and_fish_die-off?page=entire
>
>AlterNet / By Tara Lohan
>
>'Aflockalypse': Here's Why We Should Really Be Concerned About the
>Huge Bird and Fish Die-off
>
>The massive death toll of dead birds and sea life should draw
>attention to the countless other species on the brink of extinction.
>
>January 7, 2011
>
>By now, we've all seen the news reports of the "Aflockalypse." The
>New Year came in with a bang in Beebe, Arkansas when thousands of
>blackbirds fell from the sky. As news reports of the eerie incident
>spread, similar stories began surfacing all over the world: Massive
>fish kills by the thousands in Brazil, New Zealand, the Arkansas
>River and the Chesapeake; more bird deaths in Louisiana, Kentucky and
>Sweden; and tens of thousands of dead crabs (aptly named dead devil
>crab

Re: [Biofuel] Help put a ban on nicotinoid pesticides

2011-01-07 Thread Keith Addison

... Not to mention this:

http://www.alternet.org/story/149440/%27aflockalypse%27%3A_here%27s_why_we_should_really_be_concerned_about_the_huge_bird_and_fish_die-off?page=entire

AlterNet / By Tara Lohan

'Aflockalypse': Here's Why We Should Really Be Concerned About the
Huge Bird and Fish Die-off

The massive death toll of dead birds and sea life should draw
attention to the countless other species on the brink of extinction.

January 7, 2011

By now, we've all seen the news reports of the "Aflockalypse." The
New Year came in with a bang in Beebe, Arkansas when thousands of
blackbirds fell from the sky. As news reports of the eerie incident
spread, similar stories began surfacing all over the world: Massive
fish kills by the thousands in Brazil, New Zealand, the Arkansas
River and the Chesapeake; more bird deaths in Louisiana, Kentucky and
Sweden; and tens of thousands of dead crabs (aptly named dead devil
crabs) washing ashore in the U.K.

2011 seems to have gotten off to an ominous start, but so far no one
credible has come up with a theory to link all these occurrences
together. They appear to be mostly isolated catastrophes. Sadly, this
kind of stuff happens a fair bit, and in our uber-connected world,
it's getting easier and easier to share when they do. Although I do
admit that some of the purported explanations thus far sound kind of
far-fetched. The 100 or so dead jackdaws in Sweden were explained by
a veterinarian to a local news outlet: "Our main theory is that the
birds were scared away because of the fireworks and landed on the
road, but couldn't fly away from the stress and were hit by a car."

One car? Really? I can't imagine being the driver who kills 100 birds
simultaneously. But the other incidents, perhaps, have better
explanations that are largely due to either weather (cold snap) or
environmental factors (fireworks, lightening, disease). As for
Britain's crabs -- well, it turns out that this is the third year in
a row it has happened, which may or may not be comforting, depending
on how you look at things.

The only upside to these die-offs has been the rapt attention of
readers, which is great; however, no offense to jackdaws and dead
devil crabs, but there are a whole lot of other species on the brink
that could use the publicity.

For starters, the World Wide Fund for Nature (also known in the U.S.
as the World Wildlife Fund) just released its top 10 list of
endangered species: the tiger, polar bear, Pacific walrus, Magellanic
penguin, leatherback turtle, Atlantic bluefin tuna, mountain gorilla,
monarch butterfly, Javan rhino and the giant panda are the unlucky
finalists. While one night of fireworks revelry may have offed a few
thousands birds this year, the creatures on WWF's list are teetering
on the edge of extinction thanks to decades, and in some cases
centuries, of hard work by humans.

Loss of habitat and poaching may claim our remaining 3,200 wild
tigers, 720 mountain gorillas and 60 Javan rhinos. Polar bears,
Pacific walruses and Magellanic penguins are losing out to climate
change. We're doing in leatherback turtles, which have managed to
survive on this earth for 100 million years, thanks to overfishing
(they're often killed as bycatch), and their habitat is endangered by
rising sea levels and temperatures. Bluefin look like they will be
eaten into extinction in the form of sushi. Treehugger reported that,
"A single bluefin tuna just sold at auction for a new record price of
32.49 million yen in Tokyo. That's nearly $400,000 for a single
fish," which means there is a pretty big monetary incentive for
fishing them until they are wiped off the planet. Monarch butterflies
and giant pandas can hang on only so long as we can protect their
vital habitat.

And these 10 are only the tip of the iceberg. A recent infographic on
Mother Nature Network reveals that in the last 500 years, 900 species
of plants and animals have gone extinct and 10,000 more are close to
making that list. We've done the most damage, however, in the last
100 years. Biologically rich Ecuador has the most to lose, with 2,211
endangered species, but the U.S. is a close second (1,203 endangered
species).

Honeybees aren't officially designated as endangered, but the
population of these essential pollinators is falling thanks to
"colony collapse disorder." A recent leaked EPA memo implicates the
pesticide clothianidin as a contributor to honeybee die-offs,
although sadly the EPA has yet to curb the chemical's use in the U.S.

Bumblebees aren't faring much better, as a recent report concludes
that four common species in the U.S. have declined by a startling 97
percent. "According to the Center for Ecology and Hydrology in the
UK, three of the 25 British species of bumblebee are already extinct
and half of the remainder have shown serious declines, often up to 70
percent, since around the 1970s," writes Sami Grover for Treehugger.
Without these polli

1 2 >

1 - 100 of 187 matches

Mail list logo