Liberty
Matters News Service
December 6, 2004
"Light Pollution," the Next Crisis
The state of Florida strictly controls the amount of light
12 million beachfront property owners can display to enable beach creatures to
come out and play after dark. According to a study by the University of Florida
(UF), this practice has benefited the elusive sea turtle, but has had little
positive impact on improving the numbers of beach mice. Even though residents
use dimmer bulbs for their homes and area hotel lighting, there is still too
much light to suit the nocturnal rodents. "Light pollution worldwide has
increased dramatically," said Lyn Branch, biology professor at UF's department
of wildlife ecology and conservation. The UF study was the first to focus on a
single species and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to pursue the
project on its own to learn how the turtle-friendly lights affected the habits
of beach mice. The study team placed lights on poles along the beach with trays
of millet to attract the animals. Similarly, trays of millet were placed in
dark areas of the beaches. Low and behold, the mice preferred to dine in the
dark. The startling results of the study prompted Lorna Patrick, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife biologist to remark that people and endangered species can live on the
same planet or beach. "It's a fairly simple concept, that you should just put
light where you need it. You don't need to light up the whole beach."
Lights Still too Bright for Beach
Mouse
Wood is Good
A study prepared by the
Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials, a non-profit group
of 15 research universities, has concluded that wood is a more environmentally
sound building material than either steel or concrete. The $1 million study
revealed that a wood frame house in cold Minnesota uses 17 percent less energy
than steel construction for the typical house and 16 percent less energy than a
concrete structure. In steamy Atlanta, researchers found that a concrete house
used 16 percent more energy and caused 31 percent more global warming potential
than did a similar wood building. Further, for those concerned about global
warming, the study indicates "[T]he growth of wood in renewable forests works
to 'sequester' and remove carbon from the atmosphere, and fewer carbon
emissions are created in the processing needed to produce wood products than
their steel and concrete counterparts." The study is the first major update on
the subject since 1976 and James Wilson, professor of wood science and
engineering at Oregon State University and vice president of the research group
believes the information will aid those seeking environmentally friendly
materials. This study will provide them a blueprint, Wilson believes. Once
again, sound science trumps environmental hysteria.
Saving the
Environment by Building with Wood
Study May Help Ranchers Resolve Grazing Issues
A study by a University of Nevada research
team has concluded that "light-to-moderate grazing in the Great Basin certainly
has no ill effects on the ecosystem." The scientists studied ungrazed
enclosures that had been in place since the Taylor Grazing Act was established
in 1934 and compared them to outside areas grazed by cattle and sheep. The
study, which was conducted from 2001 to 2002, determined there were few
differences between the two areas. That bit of news may give cattle-haters
heart-burn. "Advocates for the removal of livestock often do not provide
scientific evidence of long-term damage from properly managed livestock
grazing," said Barry Perryman, assistant professor of animal biotechnology at
the University of Nevada, Reno. "On the other hand, livestock grazing
supporters have little documented evidence of grazing having any beneficial
effect on the land," he said. Perryman explained that while there are few major
differences between grazed and ungrazed rangelands, the enclosed areas
contained more cheatgrass, a very undesirable and highly flammable, invasive
weed. The study may provide substantial help to ranchers who have a legal right
to graze livestock. "From an ecological standpoint we can argue if we remove
the grazing infrastructure from public rangelands, we would see some adverse
consequences," Perryman continued. We'd see less variety and too much ground
cover…as well as more cheatgrass and the potential for more range
fires."
Study Finds Cattle Grazing Has Little Long-Term
Impact
Greenpeace Goes Red
Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder
of Greenpeace had some not-so-kind words for his former colleagues during an
interview with Roger Bate of Techcentralstation.com. Moore told Bate the
organization he helped found in 1971 strayed from its mission of a
science-based organization to one that now promotes a plainly left-wing
philosophy. He left the organization in 1986 because "it [Greenpeace] lost its
science and logic and became driven by something else: an anti-corporate,
anti-globalist agenda." Moore says the shift started in the 1980's and
culminated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 when "an influx of peace
activists and Marxist ideologues into the green movement destroyed the remnants
of a science-based agenda." They are consumed with "maintaining problems" so
their "solutions" can further a "leftist political agenda." Bate writes that
"Dr. Moore's allegation that the greens have run away from science is
reinforced in nearly every single green campaign today."
Greenpeace Co-Founder says Organization
has Lost Its Way