Three old news items about nature conservation

{ "translation": "The Sorcerer's Apprentices\nWe have already written1 that, in Oswald Spengler's view, computer users and magazine readers are products of the Faustian civilization. The central archetype of Western culture is Dr. Faust, seeking the transcendent and, as a result of his quest, coming into contact with dangerous and destructive forces. At the beginning of the 20th century, when Spengler described the major civilizations in human history, he could not yet know what Faustian echo the ecological crisis, spawned by our victories over nature, would have...\nArchetypes, intercultural matrices, can manifest in various forms. Manifestations of the archetype in question include, for example, the stories of Hamlet, Werner von Braun, many other inventors, and even Adam himself, who tasted the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. One of the most interesting classical metamorphoses of the Faustian archetype is the story of the sorcerer’s apprentice.\n…Driven by curiosity, the apprentice used his master’s absence, entered the secret chamber, opened the book of spells—which he had no right to touch—and randomly read a line whose meaning he did not understand. With these words he summoned a demon who would have killed the inexperienced upstart had the latter not found a use for its destructive power. The apprentice asked the demon to water a houseplant. The flood this summoned (an ecological catastrophe) forced the master to return home and subdue the destructive power called forth by inexperience…\nLet us give examples of modern concern for withering plants—that is, to begin with, for animals suffering from parasites.\nHave you realized how dangerous cow burps are? Cattle can break down cellulose from their food thanks to a complex community of bacteria inhabiting each cow’s or ox’s stomach. It seems the most hazardous product of processes occurring in this reactor2 is the gas escaping from the mouth. We are speaking of methane, a product of methanogenic archaea activity. The issue is not only that part of the organic matter that could have turned into milk or beef is spent on its synthesis. Methane (along with carbon dioxide) is a major greenhouse gas, and up to 4% of its atmospheric input is supposedly linked to countless herds of cows that have overrun the planet’s pastures. Over the past half-century, atmospheric methane content has increased sixfold3, and cows have certainly contributed. In this context, Prof. Winfried Drohner of the University of Applied Sciences in Stuttgart proposed a “pill” (fist-sized) which, combined with a diet, can suppress intra-ruminal methanogens for several months. We can only hope that weaning cows off burping will not be accompanied by unplanned consequences, apart from extra trouble and the pleasant feeling of complicity in solving planetary problems.\n[IMG_1]\nThe second idea we discuss is potentially more dangerous, though more practical. It aims to help fight malaria—a disease that today kills about a million people annually. Fortunately for the “golden billion,” these are mainly residents of warm (read: developing) countries. However, one possible result of global warming could be the arrival of malaria in Europe, in currently temperate regions of the USA, and, for example, in central regions of Russia.\nThe causative agent of the disease is the malaria plasmodium, a protozoan of the Apicomplexa type. Incidentally, as genome studies of this organism have shown, it once had chloroplasts (that is, was a plant), but lost them as a result of adaptation to parasitism. The intermediate host of plasmodia is humans (asexual reproduction of the parasite occurs in our bodies), and the definitive host (providing shelter for the sexual generation) is the malaria mosquito Anopheles. People become infected from bites of infected mosquitoes, and mosquitoes—from biting infected people. The mass release of plasmodia into human blood is accompanied by high fever, which attracts mosquitoes… Since this is the case, the pathological chain can be interrupted not only at the human stage but also at the mosquito stage.\nAt Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, transgenic mosquitoes resistant to the malaria plasmodium have been bred. To distinguish such mosquitoes from ordinary ones, they have, among other traits, been given a green glow in their eyes. According to their creators, green-eyed mosquitoes demonstrate increased viability and are potentially capable of displacing the malaria-vulnerable wild form. Thus, if such transgenic creatures are released into nature, there will be no fewer mosquitoes, they will not drink less blood—but they will cease to spread malaria! Questions of why mosquitoes did not acquire resistance to malaria themselves, how the malaria plasmodium will evolve under the new conditions, and whether it will be possible to stop the high-tech mosquitoes if necessary remain unanswered.\nThe apprentice took care of the houseplant that was suffering from lack of water. Ocean plants suffer not from lack of water but from a shortage of biogenic elements, primarily phosphorus and iron. The ocean spaces require enormous amounts of phosphorus, and iron can be supplied to them, provided the demon is duly diligent. Why? To combat global warming by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Early this year, billionaire Richard Branson offered a $25 million prize for an original carbon sequestration technology.\nThe California company Planktos sent the vessel Weatherbird II to the Pacific Ocean to dump 50 tons of iron in a form accessible to planktonic algae. The idea is that an explosion of ocean productivity will lead to additional removal of five million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. The company, representing buyers of carbon emission quotas (under the Kyoto Protocol), hopes that this experiment will be the start of a long journey.\nHow this byproduct will affect oceanic ecosystems is unknown. It is clear that with its decomposition, part of the bound carbon dioxide will return to seawater (acidifying it), and then to the atmosphere. Incidentally, producing iron for planktonic algae requires considerable energy and other resources, the acquisition and use of which are linked to additional greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is no time to think about consequences: investments must be utilized and subsequent ones obtained.\n…It is only a pity that we have no reason to hope that the sorcerer will learn of our problems, return home, and set things right, eliminating the consequences of our recklessness.\n \n\n1 “The Python’s Piercing Gaze” (\"CT\" #669–670). Back to text\n\n2 On the fence sits a cat, // Consuming oxygen. // Under the fence stands a yak, // Excreting ammonia. Author unknown. Back to text\n\n3 Incidentally, according to one version, the halt in the growth of ozone holes—“cancerous tumors” of our planet’s air envelope—is linked precisely to the accumulation of methane, which can stabilize ozone in the upper layers of the atmosphere. Back to text\n\nCooling of Interest in Warming?\nThe Russian government adopted a resolution (No. 332 of 28 May 2007) “On the Procedure for Approving and Verifying the Progress of Projects Implemented in Accordance with Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” This concerns the purchase of carbon dioxide emission quotas by foreign producers—the most dubious of the mechanisms provided for in the protocol. Applications totaling 0.4 billion euros are awaiting their turn. Once we develop standard contracts by September, we can start receiving money for atmospheric harm that Russia did not cause but that other countries will cause…\nWhile official documents are being written, the time for the protocol’s own expiration, scheduled for 2012, is approaching. Negotiations of representatives from 191 countries—parties to the Framework Convention—were held in Bonn. New international agreements that will replace the current ones must be adopted very soon—at the December conference, to be held on the island of Bali (Indonesia). What will that agreement be like? Apparently, it is clear that humanity should not limit emission growth but achieve their reduction. Alas, unanimity among representatives of different countries is not expected. For example, China has refused to accept any quantitative obligations that would slow its economic growth. There is no firm confidence in the correctness of the chosen path even in such countries as the USA and Russia. Is Europe sounding the alarm? Let it then slow its own economic growth! And both America and Russia are still not entirely clear how important the task of reducing emissions is.\nSuch disparate figures as the director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology of Roshydromet and the RAS, Academician Yuri Izrael, and the director of the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Michael Griffin, have begun to dampen passions. Izrael acknowledged the importance of countering a process that could destroy 20–30% of fauna species and lead to flooding of significant territories, but explained that atmospheric carbon dioxide is an important resource and increasing its amount need not be perceived tragically. Well, in the extreme case, we will disperse aerosols in the upper layers of the atmosphere that will block part of the solar radiation. For example, fine droplets of sulfuric acid may prove very suitable for this role, and not so much of it will be needed…\nGriffin’s position is even more concrete. He said that the climate has changed over millions of years of Earth’s history, and trying to preserve the atmosphere in its current state is egoism and self-assurance. Essentially, what else is there to say on behalf of an organization that has significantly cut spending on research into long-term climate change? Instead of the planned six climate satellite launches, NASA will carry out four—enough for weather forecasting, but too few for monitoring the state of glaciers, atmospheric composition, and other parameters important for the long-term perspective.\nIs there any point in such monitoring at all? Science published the results of an analysis of the “predictive validity” of climate forecasts. Such an analysis was conducted at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. It turned out that models built by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based on data obtained before 1990 predicted the dynamics of average annual temperatures and the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide relatively well. Sea-level rise was worse— it significantly outpaced experts’ expectations, both due to glacier melting and simply as a result of thermal expansion of a huge mass of water.\nAnd in general, how necessary is it to limit greenhouse gas emissions? Their current growth is linked to the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of organic matter in soils. Soils must be protected—there is no dispute about that. But fossil fuel will be burned anyway, if not now, then a bit later? The carbon contained in it will enter the atmosphere one way or another. To stop the growth of CO2 concentration, it is necessary not to slow the burning of fuel but to bury as many carbon-containing compounds as will be released into the atmosphere! How? Various options are being considered: injection of liquefied carbon dioxide into wells, binding it in chemical reactions, and even withdrawing fast-growing plant primary production from circulation (a quite strange idea—to extract fossil organic matter from underground and push the new one back there). One of the newest ideas is to char plant biomass (agricultural waste and wood-processing residues) and then mix the powdered wood charcoal into the soil. In this form it will be unsuitable for bacterial nutrition and will remain almost untouched for hundreds or even thousands of years. If no super-fungus capable of converting wood charcoal spreads through the biosphere, part of the problem will be solved. We will dig up fossil carbon (and spend part of the energy obtained from it on this), and “bury” carbon—we will bury it (again with energy costs).\n[IMG_2]\nOr maybe, to hell with it, this warming—who knows, it’s not clear anyway! It was hotter and more “greenhouse-like” at the end of the Paleozoic, and still—dimetrodons and scutosauruses lived. The NASA director said that preserving the climate associated with the establishment of modern humanity is unnecessary “egoism.” Time to relax and enjoy? \n \nSlightly Greenish\nHumanity is increasingly changing the properties of Earth as a habitat for its inhabitants. And it is not only about global warming and chemical pollution. A significant contribution to the destruction of the natural order is made by local physical changes. Nuclear power plants “shine” not only with radiation but also with heat, and thermal power plants have paradoxically turned into not only thermal but also radioactive islands. Power transmission lines entangle the land with a web of powerful electromagnetic fields. In the radio wavelength range, our planet “buzzes” so loudly that it can be heard far beyond the Solar System. All media have covered the surprisingly beautiful photographs of the night Earth, with shining cities, taken from space. Do you think these changes do not affect the living creatures with which we share the planet? Fortunately, local environmental changes allow local solutions that reduce the damage they cause. Let us give one encouraging example that resulted from the cooperation of two Dutch companies—the oil and gas producer NAM and the electrical engineering giant Royal Philips Electronics.\n[IMG_3]\nNAM installs drilling platforms in the North Sea. These high-tech structures are intensively illuminated. The light from electric lamps attracts birds crossing the sea. The birds circle aimlessly around the platforms, land on them, and eventually weaken so much that they cannot reach the shore.\nWhat to do? Well, giving up platform illumination for the sake of some birds is out of the question, that is clear. The platform owner tried to find a compromise. It turned out that the matter lay in the spectral composition of the light. Blue lighting does not confuse birds, but is poorly suited for people—visual acuity decreases, and red fire extinguishers are harder to see. However, when the problem was correctly formulated (to find a spectral composition of light suitable both for birds and for people), it proved not difficult to solve.\nNear the Dutch island of Vlieland, a marine platform illuminated by a combination of fluorescent and gas-discharge lamps has already been installed. The resulting slightly greenish light does not interfere with either people or feathered creatures. Conclusions from observations of migratory birds can be drawn only in autumn, but the companies already claim that the influence of light on bird flocks has sharply decreased. Pleased with themselves, the firms send out press releases, forming their “green,” lamp-lit, image.\nA good initiative? Good. Although… somehow one wants more—not additional expenses of individual successful companies, but a change in humanity’s relationship with nature. As Sigmund Freud said, “The technical expansion of humanity is a sublimated, that is, culturally acceptable, form of sadism.” Should we rejoice that the sadist decided to take care of his victim’s health?\n\nD. Shabanov. The Sorcerer’s Apprentices // Computerra, Moscow, 2007. – No. 15 (683).\nD. Shabanov. Cooling of Interest in Warming? // Computerra, Moscow, 2007. – No. 22 (690).\nD. Shabanov. Slightly Greenish // Computerra, Moscow, 2007. – No. 36 (704).\n" }