Cucumbers, radishes and lettuce are just some of the green delights that have been thriving in the experimental EDEN-ISS greenhouse in Antarctica. The project follows in the footsteps of successful US operations cultivating crops in the harsh climate.
Despite temperatures in Antarctica falling below -20 degrees Celsius (-4 F) and the sun barely coming above the horizon, the first harvest from the project led by the German Aerospace Center (DLR) demonstrates how astronauts on the moon and Mars could be supplied with fresh food in the future.
After the first three weeks, DLR engineer and Antarctic gardener Paul Zabel had gathered 3.6 kilograms (7.9 pounds) of lettuce, 70 radishes and 18 cucumbers.
He spends about three to four hours a day tending to the Antarctic garden.
"After sowing the seeds in mid-February, I had to deal with some unexpected problems, such as minor system failures and the strongest storm in more than a year," Zabel said. "Fortunately, all these things could be fixed and overcome."
"We have learned a lot about self-sufficient plant breeding in the last few weeks, it has become clear that Antarctica is an ideal test field for our research," said project manager Daniel Schubert.
So far, all of the planned plants have grown successfully in the greenhouse, including radishes, salad leaves, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and herbs including basil, parsley, chives and coriander.
But, Schubert said, "You have to be patient when growing strawberries. Here we are still waiting for successful sowing."
The project is being carried out with the Alfred Wegener Institute and the greenhouse is located about 400 meters (1300 feet) from the institute's Neumeyer Station III.
'Fresh from the garden'
There are currently 10 people toughing out the winter at Neumeyer Station III and the Antarctic harvest came just in time — the fresh vegetables from the last delivery at the end of February had been used up.
"It was something special to see the first fresh salad from Antarctica," said station manager Bernhard Gropp. "It tasted as if we had harvested it fresh from the garden."
Our demand for plastic has devastating consequences for oceans and marine wildlife, and scientists have been revealing the role microplastics play in this.
A new study highlights the significant risk that microplastics could be posing to iconic large marine animals like baleen whales, whale sharks and manta rays — all marine filter feeders.
Such whales and sharks feed on plankton and other tiny organisms by filtering thousands of cubic meters of seawater that is likely to contain microplastics, researchers say.
The tiny particles—plastic less than 5 millimeters long counts as microplastic—could have dramatic effects for these marine animals, leading to reduced fertility or even decreasing populations.
Manta rays need further protection instead of new enemies like microplastics.
Marine 'plastic' feeders
Marine filter feeders, which range from small sponges to huge whales, do not have teeth as animals like dolphins do. Instead, they have baleen — plates similar to bristles made out of keratin, the same material that our fingernails and hair is made of — that allows them to filter food from the water.
Previous studies had found items such as plastic bags to be commonly found in whales' stomachs, leading to critical obstructions in digestive systems and even to death.
In 2017, a whale was found dead in Norway with more than 30 whole plastic bags in its stomach.
This 2-ton whale had no food in the stomach—only plastic—and had to be euthanized.
In France, another one was found with 800 kilograms of plastic inside — yes, 800.
A dead Minke #whale washed up in France had swallowed 800 kg of #plastic – it’s #NotWhaleFood! #swapforgood… https://t.co/5A9PNAgBxt
— Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) (@Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC))
1508425205
Maria Cristina Fossi, co-author of the new study, estimated in previous studies that whale sharks in the Gulf of California—an important feeding ground for endangered whale sharks—might ingest 171 plastic items on a daily basis.
So while plastics pose a clear risk to marine life, microplastics are a bit of a different story.
In the Mediterranean Sea, fin whales could be swallowing thousands of microplastic particles per day, Fossi said.
This new study confirms the risk microplastics represent for marine filter feeders. Scientists believe polluting and toxic substances that hitchhike on microplastics can alter marine animals' biological processes, negatively impacting an already very low reproductive rate.
"While a definitive connection between microplastic ingestion and toxin exposure for filter feeders remains to be confirmed, studies into seabirds and small fish have found a link," said Elitza Germanov, lead researcher on the new study and affiliated with Marine Magafauna Foundation and the Murdoch University.
Further research is required around the topic of plastic pollution on the health of marine animals.
Worrying domino effect
Microplastics are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of pollutants and toxic chemicals that end up in the ocean and accumulate over decades, subsequently entering the diet of marine animals, Fossi told DW.
"We need to further study the potential dramatic effects of the complex synergies between chemicals present in the ocean," Fossi said.
Such substances could change the animals' biological processes, leading to altered growth, development and reproduction, including reduced fertility.
In areas highly polluted like the Mediterranean Sea, animals may also suffer from psychological stress, increasing the risk of health problems, Fossi explained.
Edwin Foekema, co-author of one of the first studies showing the presence of microplastic in the intestines of a baleen whale, believes most microplastics ingested by marine animals will naturally leave the organism, just as food does.
While large plastic pieces can block the intestines — impeding the animal's feeding and potentially lead to death — the probability that microplastics would severely impact animals' health are very low, Foekema told DW.
Endangering endangered species
Compounding the risks, many of the species that could be negatively affected by consumption of microplastics are already endangered.
The whale shark, the world's largest fish, is listed as vulnerable on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. This is due mainly to commercial fishing and bycatch — its estimated population was about 7,000 in 2016.
Most filter-feeding animals are relatively long-lived, and have few offspring throughout their lives — making inhibited fertility all the more grave. Manta rays, for instance, are listed as vulnerable and have a very slow reproductive rate; they usually give birth to a sole offspring every two to five years.
Marine filter feeders like whale sharks are already threatened by unsustainable fishing.
The vulnerability of these animals makes the use of conventional methods like stomach analysis to assess the plastic concentrations even more difficult, Germanov pointed out.
"We are using non-lethal sampling of small amounts of tissue, which we are testing for chemical tracers using sophisticated and sensitive analytical tools," she explained.
Imagine you have to walk through ice and snow all day for most of the year. You'd work up quite an appetite—and get hungrier the more distance you'd cover.
That sums up the life of a polar bear.
Living in the icy Arctic, they prey on fat-rich mammals like ringed seals to sustain themselves in this harsh environment.
The iconic animals require 1.6 times more energy than was estimated in the 1990s, researchers at the US Geological Survey, the Alaska Science Center in Anchorage, and at the University of California at Santa Cruz report in the journal "Science."
"They need to be catching a lot of seals," Anthony Pagano, a Ph.D. candidate at UC Santa Cruz said.
Less sea ice makes them wander more
In total, the bears would have to eat one adult ringed seal or 19 newborn seal pups every 10 to 12 days to avoid starvation, the researchers say.
They assume the bears' hunger for food is greater than previously estimated due to a lack of sea ice; that makes the bears have to roam over greater distances to find and kill prey.
According to a study by the University of Colorado, the extent of sea ice across the Arctic is decreasing at a rate of 14 percent per decade.
Polar bears need sea ice to hunt seals—but that ice is shrinking.
The problem is that many polar bears can't seem to find enough food to satisfy their high energy requirements.
Five of the nine bears that were examined in the study lost weight, amounting to approximately 10 percent of their body mass during the eight- to 11-day period.
"Increases in movement [...] mediated by the loss of sea ice habitat are likely to have negative [...] effects on polar bear reproductive success, and ultimately, their populations," the researchers conclude.
Polar bears in a warming world
The fact that climate change might hit polar bears hard is not a surprise.
But certainly, vanishing sea ice makes the predators' hunt for seals more difficult.
It was once thought that polar bears could go into a kind of walking hibernating state when no food is around, decreasing their metabolic rates and thus their energy requirements. This assumption was found not to be true.
"Two-thirds of the world's polar bears could die out by 2050," cautions WWF, demanding an immediate decline in greenhouse gas emissions so that the bears can stand a chance of survival.
Conservationists warn that polar bears might go extinct soon.
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, there are approximately 26,000 polar bears left. The species is categorized as "vulnerable." In the U.S., it's considered a threatened species.
IUCN experts estimate that the population could decrease by 30 to 50 percent if the loss of sea ice continues.
Observing bears' hunting successes close up
How did Pagano and his colleagues prove that it's harder for polar bears to find food in a world with less sea ice?
The researchers went there and observed the bears.
"We've been documenting declines in polar bear survival rates, body condition, and population numbers over the past decade," Pagano said. "This study identifies the mechanisms that are driving those declines by looking at the actual energy needs of polar bears and how often they're able to catch seals."
They collared nine adult female polar bears on the sea ice of the Beaufort Sea in Alaska with a GPS video camera and observed the bears for discrete time periods over three consecutive years.
The GPS told them the distances the bears wandered, and the video camera recorded if the bears were successful in killing and eating prey.
A collar with GPS and video camera told the researchers when and where the bears hunted.
To measure the animals' energy needs, the researchers injected them with a traceable (nonradioactive) element.
By comparing the bears' blood samples before and after, they could calculate the amount of carbon dioxide that the animal had produced, and thus its metabolic rate.
"An increasing proportion of bears are unable to meet their energy demands," the authors concluded.
Still hope
While the recent study might be bad news, it doesn't automatically mean the end for polar bears, comments Jörns Fickel, an evolutionary geneticist at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research in Berlin.
"Nobody can conclude from the study that polar bears will get extinct," he tells DW. "I am still optimistic that the species will make it."
From an evolutionary point of view, a loss in body weight in some animals doesn't necessarily mean that the total number of polar bears will decline, Fickel stresses.
"In a population, there are always individuals who cope better or worse with any changes."
Fickel points out that the species has seen many warmer periods during their existence, and that they might be able to adjust to a warmer world – as long as there is a healthy seal population, that is.
But still, "when I see pictures of big glacial blocks breaking away and the sea ice is retreating, I get worried," Fickel admits.
As a scientist, he stresses that we shouldn't go off of gut feelings, but rather reliable data—"and for polar bears, those [data] aren't there yet."
From making paper out of elephant dung to building homes with used cardboard, eco@africa has featured a range of inventive recycling ideas. Here are our top five innovations doing their bit for the environment.
1. Turning elephant dung into paper in Uganda
A group of women in western Uganda have been making paper—and a livelihood—out of elephant dung. The community in the Rubirizi district borders the Queen Elizabeth National Park, meaning its resident elephants are frequent visitors to villagers' gardens, destroying their crops. But rather than taking revenge on the animals, the people decided to celebrate the opportunities it brings. The women -mostly widows whose husbands were shot dead by rangers while hunting for elephant tusks - hope the newfound source of income the paper generates will combat elephant poaching.
2. Houses from recycled paper
Swiss architect Fredy Iseli came up with a novel way to make houses more environmentally-friendly, both in terms of building materials and energy supply. He has spent almost 30 years developing a unique system that enables the construction of a house from recycled paper. It’s not only earthquake and fire-proof, but is also 12 times lighter than concrete and cheaper to produce than regular houses. His design means the DIY houses take just two months to build, making them perfect for places with changing weather patterns.
3. Making greener recycled paper from grass
Producing conventional paper means cutting down trees, but recycled paper often contains toxic chemicals, as printer ink can leave residues on recycled paper. A European Union guideline saying that foodstuffs like fruit and pasta must not be packaged in direct contact with cardboard boxes carrying mineral residues is posing a challenge to manufacturers of products made with recycled paper. But German company Creapaper has found a greener alternative by making paper out of grass. If recycled paper is no longer an option for food packaging, that could mean an opportunity for the grass paper manufacturers to expand into that market.
4. Kenya’s recycled pencils
Globally, we get through 14 billion pencils each year, with a lot of wood going into their manufacture. A few years ago, Kenyan entrepreneurs began producing eco-friendly, non-toxic pencils from recycled newspaper. Their bright idea has quickly progressed from rough sketch to thriving business, supplying schools, government agencies and corporate firms.
5. Turning tires into cushions in Niger
Niger’s capital Niamey has no regular rubbish collection so trash is often burned at illegal dumping sites. Environmental activist Amina Issa Ado in Niger hit upon a great way to recycle tires, while at the same time creating jobs for locals: making seat cushions out of used tires. The recycled cushions are also more comfortable and even last longer than traditional Sahel ones.
Political news travels slowly, and in my casual observation progressive Europeans have held on to the myth of Barack Obama as a good man much longer than most progressive Americans did. How could a young black American from Chicago and Harvard be otherwise?
Over here reality has been evident for a while, thanks to the President's pattern of giving way to banks, lobbies, Republicans and right-wing extremists. Whether your prime interest is housing, health care, peace, justice, jobs or climate change, if you are an activist in America you have known for a long time that this President is not your friend.
Still, even on these shores disillusion often took a mildly forgiving form. The President was a “disappointment.” He was weak. He had “bad negotiating skills.” He had a tendency to “deal with hostage-takers,” to “surrender.” All of this fed the image of a man with a noble spirit, a good heart, the best intentions, but trapped by limited ability and the relentless and reckless determination of his foes.
Obama is no progressive
The debt deal will make things clear. The President is not a progressive – he is not what Americans still call a “liberal.” He is a willful player in an epic drama of faux-politics, an operative for the money power, whose job is to neutralize the left with fear and distraction and then to pivot rightward and deliver a conservative result.
What Barack Obama got from the debt deal was exactly what his sponsors have wanted: a long-term lock-in of domestic spending cuts, and a path toward severe cuts in the core New Deal and Great Society insurance programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, of course, no tax increases at all.
To see the arc of political strategy, recall that from the beginning Obama handed economic policy to retainers recruited from the stables of Robert Rubin. From the beginning, he touted “fiscal responsibility” and played up the (economically non-existent) “problem” of the budget deficit. From the beginning his team sabotaged economic recovery with optimistic forecasts and inadequate programs – in the clear interest of protecting the banking system from reform.
As the presidency moved along, false claims of economic recovery supported a transition toward obsessive focus on debt and deficits, validated by a federal commission and constantly reinforced by a Washington propaganda chorus funded by Peter G. Peterson, for many decades a billionaire campaigner against Social Security and Medicare.
Debt ceiling a pseudo-crisis
But it wasn't enough. Even with the Republican victory in the 2010 mid-terms there wasn't the political will-power simply to pass the cuts and make them stick. For it wasn't sufficient just to pass them: politicians need cover when they do ugly things.
They need an excuse, something that will offer protection from the anger of the victims, or more precisely from other politicians who might exploit that anger. In the well-practiced manner of organized crime, blood needs to be on everyone's hands. That way, no one can defect; no one can turn states' evidence and safely get away with blaming the others.
The debt-ceiling pseudo-crisis created the necessary panic.
The debt ceiling is a unique American law – no other country has one – a little travesty of democratic bad faith. It was first enacted in 1917, to allow congressmen to hoodwink the rubes back home even as they voted for a large issue of Liberty Bonds to finance the Great War.
It has been a vehicle for posturing ever since – but that it would be raised has never been in doubt. (Even this time the markets never showed the slightest worry.) It became a vehicle for blackmail because it was convenient. It was convenient, because Obama failed to insist it be his price for agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts last December. Whether that omission was accidental or calculated at the time is, for the moment, unknown.
Obama's neglected options
Even as “crisis” loomed, the President had powerful options. The Constitution of the United States flatly forbids default on debt or any other public obligation. The President could have simply asserted his duty and refused to negotiate.
Even more cleverly, he could – under a quirk of existing law – have turned drama to farce by minting a large platinum coin – say for a trillion dollars – and using that to buy back public debt held by the Federal Reserve, so that the debt ceiling would never have been breached. (There would have been an uproar but no other economic effect.)
These options were rejected or not considered at all. From which, one has to conclude that the President really did want a big budget-cutting deal. He just wanted – like any politician – the appearance of being bullied into it.
So now the die is cast. Practically nothing to address any real economic problem can now get done. Actual austerity will come slowly – the cuts are not abrupt and some may yet be blocked – but unless there is a radical change of events or mood it will come. Meanwhile as the economy stalls and despair deepens, the deficits and debt will continue to climb.
Short presidencies
The deficit lobbies are shifting: their next step will be to raise doubts about the plan's credibility and about Congress's will to enforce it. They will then make the self-protective assertion that still stronger steps are needed. European observers of Greek/Irish/ Portuguese/ British/Spanish and Italian politics – not to mention Latvia or Hungary – will find all of this familiar.
For European observers, one key to understanding how such things can happen in America is to remember that our presidencies are short. The professors who joined Obama for his opening act have already gone home. The advisers who remain face dreary futures in think-tanks funded by the likes of Michael Milken, our premier financial ex-felon.
Maybe, if they are especially loyal to their true masters, then like the former budget director Peter Orszag they can go to work for a bank. This surely accounts in part for their present actions.
And the President too is a young man. Unlike say Lyndon B. Johnson or Jimmy Carter, when his term ends he won't be able simply to go home. He'll need a big house in a gated suburb, with high walls and rich friends. And a good income, too, from book deals and lecture fees. He may be thinking about that now.
The good news is: it won't save him. For if and when he ventures out, for the rest of his life, the eyes of all those, whose hopes he once raised will follow him. The old, the poor, the jobless, the homeless: their eyes will follow him wherever he goes.
