Feed aggregator
Gardeners may be spreading lethal frog disease throughout UK, study warns
Suburban homeowners stocking their garden ponds with frogs, fish or spawn from other ponds or aquatic centres are helping the ranavirus move around
British suburban gardeners may be unknowingly driving the spread of a lethal frog disease by stocking their ponds with exotic or wild aquatic species, research shows.
Scientists from ZSL and Queen Mary University of London say their findings could explain the rapid spread of ranavirus across UK amphibian populations in recent decades.
Continue reading...Carnegie gets $2.5m ARENA funds for wave-based micro-grid
A revolution disguised as organic gardening: in memory of Bill Mollison
![](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139523/width496/image-20160928-736-1gmof03.jpg)
It is with great sadness that I acknowledge the passing of Bill Mollison on Saturday, September 24 (1928-2016). He was one of the true pioneers of the modern environmental movement, not just in Australia but globally.
Best known as co-originator of the “permaculture” concept with David Holmgren, and recipient of the Right Livelihood Award in 1981, Mollison helped develop a holistic body of environmental theory and practice which is widely recognised as one of Australia’s finest and most original contributions to the global sustainability challenge.
A brief history of permacultureMollison grew up in Stanley, Tasmania. After leaving school at 15 he moved through a range of occupations before joining the CSIRO in the Wildlife Survey Section in 1954, where he developed his research experience and understanding of ecological systems.
He was later appointed to the University of Tasmania, which is where, in 1974, he met the brilliant and radical young research student, David Holmgren
The collaboration between Mollison and Holmgren resulted in the permaculture concept, culminating in the publication of their seminal work, Permaculture One in 1978, which sparked the global movement.
What is permaculture?Permaculture defies simple definition and understanding. The term began as a fusion of “permanent” and “agriculture”. Even back in the 1970s, Mollison and Holmgren could see how destructive industrial agriculture was to natural habitats and topsoils, and how dependent it was on finite fossil fuels.
It was clear that these systems were unsustainable, a position ratified by scientific reports today which expose the alarming effects industrial agriculture has on biodiversity and climate stability. The two pioneering ecologists began to wonder what a “permanent agriculture” would look like. Thus permaculture was born.
In the broadest terms, permaculture is a design system that seeks to work with the laws of nature rather than against them. It aims to efficiently meet human needs without degrading the ecosystems we all rely on to flourish.
Put otherwise, permaculture is an attempt to design human systems and practices in ways that mimic the cycles of nature to eliminate waste, increase resilience and allow for the just and harmonious co-existence of human beings with other species.
A wide range of design principles were developed to help put these broad ideas and values into practice. This practical application and experimentation is what really defines permaculture. Before all else, participants in the movement get their hands in the soil and seek to walk the talk.
There is now a vast array of excellent books detailing the practice of permaculture, as well as outstanding websites such as the Permaculture Research Institute for those wanting to learn, share, explore and connect.
Although permaculture was initially focused on sustainable methods of organic food production, the concept soon evolved to embrace the broader design challenges of sustainable living – not just “permanent agriculture”, but “permanent culture”.
Today we face profound environmental and social challenges: ecological overshoot, climate instability, looming resource scarcity, and inequitable concentrations of wealth. In such a world the permaculture ethics of “care of people, care of planet, and fair share” imply radical changes to the way we live with each other and on the planet.
As well as transitioning away from fossil-fuel-dependent agriculture toward local organic production, permaculture implies the embrace of renewable energy systems, “simple living” lifestyles of modest consumption, as well as retrofitting the suburbs for sustainability and energy efficiency.
From a grassroots or community perspective, the transition towns and ecovillage movements acknowledge their profound debts to permaculture.
From a macroeconomic perspective, permaculture implies a degrowth transition to a steady-state economy that operates within the sustainable limits of the planet. Permaculture even has implications for what alternative forms of global development might look like.
So, in answer to the complex question “what is permaculture?”, perhaps the most concise response is to say with others that “permaculture is a revolution disguised as organic gardening”.
Bill Mollison’s legacy: a challenge to us allDespite developing into a thriving global movement, permaculture still has not received the full attention it deserves. As the world continues to degrade ecosystems through the poor design of social and economic systems, it has never been clearer that permaculture is a way of life whose time has come.
Nevertheless, permaculture is not a panacea that can answer all challenges. Permaculture is not without its critics (see, for example, here and here). But I would argue that the lens of permaculture can certainly illuminate the path to a more sustainable and flourishing way of life, such that we ignore its insights at our own peril.
Thank you, Bill Mollison, for the inspiration and insight – and the challenge you have left us with to design a civilisation that regenerates rather than degrades our one and only planet. May humanity learn the lessons of permaculture sooner rather than later.
Only then, I suspect, will “Uncle Bill” rest in peace.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66137/count.gif)
Samuel Alexander does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
Robin's alarm flashes red for danger across the green space
Wenlock Edge, Shropshire The season might just have tipped over the balance of the autumn equinox but the woods were still green
When I heard the robin’s call, I stopped on the path and peered into the woods. The call had all the qualities of alarm that we recognise: an annoying insistence, a way of filling space with inescapable sound, an instinctive understanding that something was wrong. Like heart-monitoring machines in A&E, a reversing vehicle or a broken-into car, it was a warning but, unlike mechanised alarms, it was made from a narrative – a collection of rapid phrases, sharp as rattling a box of knives.
The season might have just tipped over the balance of the autumn equinox but the woods were still green. Infinite greens – leaves, stems, trunks, brambles, ferns, shadows – merged together to form a vanishing green in which everything disappeared. Something stirred in the crab apples and the alarm flashed red-for-danger as the robin turned to face me.
Continue reading...Lack of tree clearing reforms a roadblock to saving Great Barrier Reef
Queensland’s environment minister says Liberal National party’s refusal to pass laws puts reef in danger of being listed by Unesco as ‘in danger’
The failure of tree clearing reforms in Queensland is the only significant delay in Australia’s conservation plan for the Great Barrier Reef, says a progress report by the state and federal governments.
But the Queensland environment minister, Steven Miles, has declared the roadblock on a “huge” reform for the reef – coupled with a historic bleaching event that killed nearly a quarter of its coral – may lead Unesco to reconsider an “in danger” listing.
Continue reading...Airlines back possible $24bn pollution plan, EU could soon ratify climate deal
Brisbane’s Team Arrow developing ‘street-legal’ solar car in demonstration project
Eastern quolls edge closer to extinction – but it’s not too late to save them
Eastern quolls – small, fleet-footed and ferocious – are one of Australia’s few surviving marsupial predators. They were once so common in southeast Australia that when Europeans arrived the quolls were reportedly hyperabundant.
But by the 1960s they were extinct on the mainland, driven down by a combination of disease, poisoning, persecution and predation.
Despite their mainland demise, eastern quolls continued to thrive in Tasmania – until recently. Across Tasmania, quoll numbers declined by more than 50% in the 10 years to 2009 and show no sign of recovery.
Recognising this worrying decline, the quolls have recently been listed as endangered internationally and in Australia. This is a stark reminder of how quickly a common species can plunge towards extinction.
But the quolls can still recover, as long as we act now while we still have an opportunity. In research published in Wildlife Research, I looked at what caused the decline, and how we can help.
Change in the weatherSeveral factors coincided with the decline, but after five years of investigation I found that a period of unfavourable weather was the most likely explanation.
Eastern quolls prefer areas with low rainfall and cold winters. But an 18-month period of warm winters and higher seasonal rainfall during 2002-03 resulted in most of Tasmania becoming unsuitable for eastern quolls. This rapidly drove their numbers down. In fact, the amount of environmentally suitable habitat in this period was lower than at any other time during the previous 60 years.
With the frequency of extreme weather events predicted to increase over coming decades, the future for eastern quolls looks uncertain.
![](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/138935/width754/image-20160923-25499-19oq6cz.jpg)
Interestingly, while weather conditions have since improved, eastern quolls have not recovered. With their numbers pushed so low, the remaining small populations can no longer breed faster than other threats kill them off. Historically, when quoll numbers were higher, they could cope with these threats.
Quolls are now trapped in what ecologists call a “predator pit”. Predators, cars, poison and a range of other threats are killing quolls as quickly as they can reproduce.
So population growth is in limbo – not because any threats have increased, but because small populations don’t have the capacity to outpace those same threats anymore.
Contrary to earlier predictions, feral cat numbers in Tasmania have not increased following declines in the Tasmanian devil population. Quoll populations could previously cope with the loss of a few quolls (mainly juveniles) to cats. However, that same number of quolls killed by cats is now potentially enough to wipe out any population growth, preventing the species’ recovery.
![](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/138944/width754/image-20160923-2591-193f0gc.jpg)
The key factor preventing quoll recovery is their current small population. Quoll numbers need a boost, increasing reproductive capacity so that they can once again outpace the threats they are facing. This could be done by supplementing small, surviving populations in Tasmanian with quolls from captive-breeding colonies, insurance populations or the wild population on Bruny Island (which is doing better than mainland Tasmania).
Reducing feral cat numbers at key sites in early summer could also help reduce predation as juvenile quolls enter the population. That would potentially increase juvenile survival and allow quoll populations to grow and recover.
![](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/138943/width754/image-20160923-2575-1j3lzhn.jpg)
Since word of the eastern quolls’ plight has spread, there has been increasing talk of reintroducing them to Australia’s mainland, where they disappeared more than 50 years ago. Such proposals are often well-intentioned and could potentially help restore some mainland ecosystems.
However, this could actually serve to drive wild populations in Tasmania closer to extinction, making the species’ recovery more difficult.
With only small populations persisting in the wild, removing only one or two individuals from a population could be enough to render that population functionally extinct – and once a population is functionally extinct it is on the path to total extinction.
Similarly, using quolls from captive colonies and insurance populations for mainland reintroductions further removes valuable quolls that could be used to repopulate and recover wild populations in Tasmania.
The eastern quoll’s persistence in Tasmania decades after it disappeared from the mainland suggests Tasmania is a far safer place for eastern quolls and offers them the best chance to recover. Removing them from a relatively safe place and reintroducing them to high-risk mainland sites filled with dingoes, foxes and toxic fox baits could actually hinder, not help, their recovery. For example, while baiting foxes may reduce the threat from foxes, it takes less than half of one fox bait to kill an adult female eastern quoll.
Mainland reintroductions should definitely be a goal in the longer term. But given the dangerously low numbers in Tasmania, we shouldn’t take Tasmanian quolls for high-risk mainland reintroductions until the Tasmanian population is safe. Once numbers in the wild have recovered, wild-sourced Tasmanian quolls could be reintroduced to mainland sites without putting wild populations at risk.
It’s time to actAustralia’s declining species face a slippery slope towards extinction. The key to recovery is understanding why the species declined, then acting while there is still time.
Australia’s history is littered with examples where delays and inaction prevented small populations from recovering, with some species now lost forever. The eastern quolls’ fate is not yet sealed. But we have to act now.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65882/count.gif)
Bronwyn Fancourt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
Why peak car ownership in 2020 isn’t so farfetched
The $1.2 billion saving Australia’s electricity rule-maker just knocked back
First Reef 2050 Plan Annual Report shows progress towards protecting the Reef
Federal government open to shark cull on NSW north coast
Josh Frydenberg says he puts ‘human safety first’ after teenage surfer mauled by a great white at Ballina
The federal government has signalled it would consider a shark cull on the New South Wales north coast after a teenage surfer was mauled by a great white.
It comes as the NSW government announces a new three-month trial of shark-spotting drones for the area, and additional drum lines off the coast.
Continue reading...Peru’s new president summoned to Amazon by indigenous protestors
Interview with Kichwa leader José Fachín on oil contamination, social struggle and the future of Peru’s biggest region
Indigenous peoples are part blockading one of the main tributaries of the River Amazon and demanding that Peru’s new president Pedro Pablo Kuczynski visit them - with no positive response to date. The protest is one of the latest instances of social unrest across Peru and in Loreto in particular, which, at 50% larger than the UK, is Peru’s biggest and most difficult-to-access region - as well as one of the poorest.
This poverty, together with poor infrastructure and a weak or non-existent state, is particularly outrageous given that some of Peru’s historically most productive oil fields are in Loreto. True, more than 40 years of operations, mostly by foreign companies, have transformed the region to the extent that the economy is now largely dependent on oil, generating wealth through tax revenues and casual employment for many people. But how have such revenues been spent? And what of the fact that the location of the oil fields has meant the systematic invasion and exploitation of huge swathes of indigenous peoples’ territories - allegedly contaminating rivers and local inhabitants, blocking efforts by communities to obtain land title, creating economic dependency, dominating local politics, buying off leaders, misleading community members, dumping trash, wasting staggering amounts of energy and resources, and, in general, leaving precious little behind in terms of infrastructure, basic services, education, beneficial projects and skilled, sustainable employment?
Garden ponds 'playing role' in frog disease spread
Why is this woman flying 4,500 miles?
Culling sharks 'flies in the face of a modern conservation approach': expert
Frydenberg says government 'on track' to meet Great Barrier Reef protection targets
The A$1.2 billion saving Australia's electricity rule-maker just knocked back
![](https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/139374/width496/image-20160927-20138-8je76s.jpg)
The governing body for our energy market, the Australian Energy Market Commission, has just missed a major opportunity to modernise our electricity networks. Last week the commission rejected a proposal to pay credits to small, local generators (such as small wind, solar and gas). Our research shows that this could save electricity consumers A$1.2 billion by 2050.
In July 2015, the City of Sydney, Total Environment Centre and NSW Property Council proposed the Local Generation Network Credit rule change. This would have required network businesses to pay a credit for electricity exported into the distribution grid – that is, close to where it is actually consumed.
This is different to the credit (known as a “feed-in tariff”, or FIT) paid by electricity retailers for solar households that export power, which reflects the energy value of the solar rather than any network value. FITs are a fixed payment for the amount of power exported with no variation for the time of day. In most states, retailer FITs have replaced generous mandatory FITs set by state governments, and usually have an upper limit on system size somewhere between 5 and 100 kilowatts.
The network rule change would have been a small but crucial step towards recognising that in the future electricity will flow both to and from consumers, as more and more individuals, communities and businesses install their own generation.
It is just one of the rule changes needed to make an orderly, efficient transition, rather than a cycle where consumers get more and more frustrated as they are forced into workarounds to deal with outdated regulations, and regulators and markets play catch-up.
The cost of connectionAbout half of our electricity prices are made up of network charges. These cover the cost of building and maintaining the poles and wires that get electricity from generators to our homes and businesses. Traditionally, that was a long way, as electricity all came from large centralised generators.
This is all changing, as homes and businesses increasingly install their own solar, wind or gas generators. These trends are being driven by the increase in electricity prices, cost reductions in renewable energy, and a range of other motives such as climate targets, aspirations for self-sufficiency, and wishing to take control of energy spending.
Network costs have been the main contributor to a big jump in Australian electricity prices over the last 15 years. There was a huge investment to cope with the projected rise in electricity demand, which has so far failed to happen.
Described as “gold plating”, it would have been smarter and cheaper to do a whole mix of other things – energy efficiency, local generation and so on – instead of the big investment focused on network infrastructure.
Because the electricity from local generators is used physically close to where it is generated, it reduces congestion on the network and so can reduce the need to upgrade. The proposed rule change is aimed at rewarding local generators for export at peak times, when the network is under most strain, and so avoiding the long-term need for network investment.
The rule change would also enable many local generation projects, and keep them using the network to share energy. Without this incentive most generators will use their energy onsite rather than exporting to the grid.
This gets the biggest return, as it means each unit you generate avoids the entire volume charge of a unit imported from the grid.
Consumers lose outBut what if you have several buildings and want to generate at one and use it at the other? Tough luck.
Unless you can connect those buildings with a private wire – instead of connecting them via the grid – it’s unlikely to be economic. Consumers pay the same network charges whether the energy is transported across the road or halfway across the state.
This rule change would have meant that you got a network credit for the generation, and therefore helped reduce what you pay to use the network. It would be a win-win for everyone, as putting in a private wire is just duplication of the network that already exists and makes everyone – the network business, the organisation and, by implication, other consumers – worse off.
Of course, a private wire isn’t possible in all situations, but the principle remains: the local network credit offers an alternative to behind-the-meter generation.
The Institute for Sustainable Futures recently led a year-long project looking at local generation network credits and local electricity trading. The results showed pretty clearly that, if designed well, this rule change would be good for local energy projects and good for electricity consumers.
As a result of the economic modelling, we recommended that existing systems and all small (less than 10 kilowatt) systems do not receive the network credit, in order to maximise benefits for everyone. The payments are unlikely to make a difference to whether those small systems go in, and paying them the credit would means an overall cost, rather than a long-term benefit of A$1.2 billion for everyone.
This was a change from the original proposal and was presented to the AEMC in great detail. The rule change proponents were also quite happy with these limits being imposed.
So what did the AEMC decide?The AEMC considers rule change proposals – and accepts, rejects, or makes what is called a “preferred rule”. It is a very arcane process, with little scope for collaborative outcomes.
On this issue, the AEMC delivered a “preferred rule” – which does nothing to solve the problem. The commission ignored the opportunity to work with stakeholders to deliver an alternative rule that would benefit both local projects and all consumers.
Instead, it proposes that network businesses be required to provide information on upcoming constraints, including a dollar value for alternatives to network investment. That’s all well and good, except that the information is already available in the form of Network Opportunity Maps.
Unfortunately it’s just more evidence that the AEMC has lost touch with what is actually happening in the market, and with what consumers want.
So where to now? There is a six-week consultation period on the draft rule – and we can only hope that the AEMC reconsiders its decision.
Jay Rutovitz will be online for an Author Q&A between 4 and 5pm on Wednesday, September 28, 2016. Post any questions you have in the comments below.
![The Conversation](https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65952/count.gif)
The research by Institute for Sustainable Futures was supported by funding from ARENA, UTS, Ergon Energy, Moira Shire Council, Swan Hill Rural City Council, Wannon Water, City of Sydney, Byron Shire Council, and Willoughby City Council, with in-kind support from AGL, NSW Government Department of Industry, Powercor the Total Environment Centre, and other project participants.
Huge blue topaz stone on loan to Natural History Museum
Greenpeace blockades IOI palm oil refinery in Rotterdam port
Protest follows report linking company’s suppliers in Indonesia to deforestation, forest fires and human rights abuses
Greenpeace activists have blockaded a palm oil refinery owned by IOI in the port of Rotterdam after a report linked the company’s third-party suppliers in Indonesia to deforestation, forest fires and human rights abuses, including child labour.
For seven hours on Tuesday, a felled tree barricaded the entrance to the Croklaan refinery, which processes palm oil mostly sourced from Indonesia and Malaysia.
Continue reading...