<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-topline">TOPLINE</h2>



A new scientific study offers the first-ever estimates of how many polar bear cubs die because of greenhouse gas emissions—something experts hope will allow the federal government to use the Endangered Species Act to regulate individual projects for their greenhouse gas emissions.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-facts">KEY FACTS</h2>



The study by researchers with Polar Bears International, published Thursday in the academic journal&nbsp;Science,&nbsp;explains that polar bears’ survival is heavily dependent on sea ice concentration, because when that sea ice melts, polar bears are forced onto land, where food is less abundant and they are forced to fast for long periods of time.



Polar bears are normally able to fast for long periods of time and survive, but the study says sea ice melting is forcing them to fast for even longer than typical.



The longer they fast, the more weight they lose—nearly a kilogram of body mass each day—and this makes mother bears less able to care for and provide milk for their cubs, which makes cubs less likely to survive into adulthood.



As less cubs survive into adulthood, the species grows closer to extinction.



This study, researchers say, was able to quantify just how much each individual greenhouse-gas emitting project contributes to that sea ice melting and thus contributes to the extinction of polar bears—though the rate at which greenhouse gas emissions contribute to polar bear extinction varies by the region in which those polar bears live, as there are 12 distinct subpopulations of polar bears, each living in a different eco-region.



For example, the study found that 24.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) emissions will decrease the amount of polar bears that survive into adulthood by 2.7% in the Chukchi Sea subpopulation and by 0.6% in the West Hudson Bay subpopulation.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-key-background">KEY BACKGROUND</h2>



In 2008, after projections showed that two thirds of the world’s polar bears could die by the middle of the 21st century, polar bears became the first animal to be listed as a protected species under the Endangered Species Act as a result of human-caused climate change. Section Seven of the Endangered Species Act establishes a process with which the Department of the Interior must ensure projects they fund or authorize do not further jeopardize the survival of listed endangered species like polar bears. However, in October 2008, then Solicitor of the Department of the Interior David Bernhardt issued a legal opinion declaring Section Seven considerations wouldn’t be required unless one could differentiate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions of specific projects from the total greenhouse gas emissions created by humans since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This made it impossible for the Department of the Interior to evaluate projects based on how their greenhouse gas emissions would contribute to the death of endangered species, because the department previously had no way to establish one specific project’s impact separate from all the other greenhouse gas-emitting projects in the world. However, the researchers at nonprofit Polar Bears International believe this study has finally discovered how to do that. This study, the researchers argue, provides the scientific basis to rescind Bernhardt’s memo and begin including consideration of greenhouse gas emissions in reviews of all new projects.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-tangent">TANGENT</h2>



The researchers behind this paper said that they focused on polar bears because Bernhardt’s memo was created in response to polar bears being listed under the Endangered Species Act. However, they said their findings can be extended to other endangered species. For example, they believe with more research, scientists would be able to establish a similar direct link between individual greenhouse-gas-emitting projects and the survival of marine turtles.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading" id="h-further-reading">FURTHER READING</h2>



<a href="http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adh2280?adobe_mc=MCMID%3D92211209542915049140651591500405688068%7CMCORGID%3D242B6472541199F70A4C98A6%2540AdobeOrg%7CTS%3D1693398899" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Unlock the Endangered Species Act to address GHG emissions</a> (Nature)

A polar bear walks on the ice floe, a glacier in the background

New Study Makes First-Ever Direct Link Between Greenhouse Gases And Polar Bear Deaths

South Africa, a country heavily dependent on fossil fuels for its energy generation, is ranked 13th out of the 21 countries on KPMG’s 2013 Green Tax Index. The country releases 559 million metric tons of greenhouse gas a year and this figure is steadily rising. At a climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009, South Africa committed to cutting emissions by 34%, by 2020.
Managing greenhouse gas (GHG) production can be done using tax levies or incentives. The South African government is proposing a mixture of the two. The tax can either be levied on upstream emission, which some companies can mitigate by changing the way they produce; on direct measured emissions or the downstream final product. Irrespective of the way in which the tax is implemented, it will eventually be passed through to the end user. Making a more pollutant end product more expensive will hopefully result in an environmental incentive for friendlier production.
Environmental tax isn’t new. The price of new cars already includes a form of environmental tax, which is why the discussion here isn’t whether or not to implement environmental tax but rather how the taxes should be expanded.
South Africa will be the first African country to introduce carbon tax and the second BRICS nation, after India initiated a nation-wide tax on coal produced in and imported into the country. The initial rate will be R120 ($11.5)/ton of carbon-dioxide, with various levels of exemption increasing at 10% a year during the first phase between 2015 and 2020.
South Africa’s carbon tax is postponed until 2016, in this time government will further investigate the tax’s impact on growth, job creation and other economic implications. The announcement of the tax sparked growing concern that carbon taxation may hold South African companies back.
The proposed tax will hit Scope 1 GHG emitters the hardest. These are emissions from sources that are directly owned or controlled by an entity. Sectors will receive an initial 60% discount, an additional 10% for those that compete internationally, 10% for process emissions; there is also the option for trade in carbon credits – granting another 5 to 10% relief.
According to a Nedbank Group’s sustainability carbon specialist, Marco Lotz, one of the barriers to implementation of the carbon tax is the lack of knowledge on carbon footprinting by all the stakeholders. He mentions that other aspects that should be expanded are the capacity of the institutions that audit and manage the magnitude of information that will be received by government institutions, as well defining who owns the carbon offsets.
The annual emissions of public utility company Eskom are around 228 million metric tons a year. It contributes 75% of South Africa’s carbon footprint. With a possible guaranteed discount of around 60 to 70%, further relief will need to be argued for. Eskom has mentioned it will pass on the effects of the tax to the consumer. South African consumers have already suffered through an avalanche of price increases by the utility company. Since 2008, there have been approved increases of 20% each year. An 8% annual increase, which began in 2013, will continue until 2018.
There is currently a R0.04/kWh ($1=R10.4) environmental levy on electricity included in the price consumers pay. At this stage, it will be replaced by an equivalent amount of carbon tax, leaving the price of electricity initially unchanged, proceeded by a 10% increase on the R0.04 each year.
“The current proposal will have a significant financial impact on the already high cost base of producing steel, estimated to be R630 million ($60 million) per annum. This is based on a 70% exemption and our steel production of around 5 million tons,” says steel maker ArcelorMittal – one of the country’s top emitters.
The company says that existing technologies for manufacturing steel do not allow for more carbon efficient alternatives and that there are no new technologies available either.
The estimated revenue from the tax is set at R8 billion ($764 million). There is uncertainty as to where this money will go, although there is talk of it feeding into the general state coffers, therefore not directly assisting in decreasing greenhouse gas pollution.
Government needs to ensure that the standards set are realistic and enforceable. A combination of tax, environmental regulations and investment in renewable energy projects could be the answer the world is looking for.

Carbon Tax Needs To Be Realistic

Worldwide, commuting has proven to be an increasingly expensive, stress inducing and environmentally unfriendly necessity—the latter due to the increase in carbon footprint generation, defined by the UK Carbon Trust as “the total set of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an organization, event, product or person”, thanks to more vehicles being used on our roads.
Alternate forms of transportation have been eagerly sought and this has led to companies such as Ultra Motor developing a range of electric and hybrid-powered bicycles designed to alleviate these personal and ecological issues. FORBES AFRICA recently got the chance to test ride a power-on-demand electrically assisted bike for ourselves and we were pleasantly surprised.
Developed with short distances in mind, the A2B Metro, the company’s flagship model launched in 2008, utilizes pedal power which can be offset by an infusion of electric-powered momentum, allowing you to slip in and out of traffic and get some exercise, or not, if you’d prefer—all for a greatly reduced running cost. And as for the headache of finding parking—consider that a thing of the past.
The A2B Metro weighs in at a robust 37kgs, which, while not light by any means, is only tedious when it needs to be shifted in or out of tight areas. Once in motion, the weight seems to disappear and the bike is highly maneuverable and fun to ride, even when pedal power is used exclusively. Thanks to a seven-speed Shimano derailer, changing gears is simple, quick and the chain never threatened to come loose from its gears or housing. Even traveling uphill is not an issue, thanks to the motor, which comes alive at a flick of the wrist, so you don’t have to go to that early morning meeting gushing like a geyser. Crossing large intersections holds no fear for the A2B owner; slipping off the pedals or not generating enough momentum in time for a changing robot are all offset by the ever-present motor that can take over as quickly as you need it to.
We found that the electric throttle became difficult to keep a grip on over extended periods, but that’s no doubt because it was only designed as an assist and not as an exclusive means of propulsion. The bike has a lithium-ion battery, with the option of a second one that can be installed in the Y-frame, which is placed on a rail behind the seat and housed in custom alloy for more efficient cooling. It takes a mere four to five hours of charging time at a standard outlet, and with two batteries installed, the bike has an effective range of 64km. Charging is easy as the rear battery pack simply slips off and is then attached to a standard wall socket.
Lithium-ion batteries have proven successful and popular in consumer electronics because they have no memory effect, lose very little charge when dormant and have one of the best energy densities available. In addition, they are much lighter than their counterparts, and it is advised that they be charged regularly, versus other batteries that should be totally depleted, making them more practical to use.
The frame of the Metro is created using hydroforming technology. The process entails placing lightweight aluminum on a negative mold of the desired shape, and then high pressure hydraulic pumps inject fluid within the mold, causing the metal to match the shape exactly. The benefit of using hydroforming technology is that complex shapes can be created with a higher stiffness-to-weight ratio, and at a reduced per unit cost.
The hand-sized 250W brushless hub motor sits on the rear wheel of the A2B Metro and there’s no visible cabling, making it safe to use and water tight. As opposed to conventional brushed motors, this variant has the permanent magnets on the rotor and the electromagnets are moved to the stator, essentially turning it inside out. The benefits are that without brushes which erode due to wear and tear, these motors are more reliable and cooler, with less sparking and noise produced.
The Metro comes with accessories in the form of pannier bags and racks so you can take your essentials with you. You don’t need a special license or gear, other than a helmet, which makes it far more user-friendly than traveling by motorbike. The oversized seat ensures traveling longer distances is comfortable and won’t result in regular chiropractic visits.
And if you thought the A2B was a slouch, think again—it’s capable of clocking speeds around 28km/h. Stopping the A2B is the task of multiple disc brakes that work tremendously well and won’t get clogged up or slip in wet weather conditions. The front wheel quickly clips off, allowing punctures to be fixed with relative ease­—not so much with the rear configuration—and the wide tires mean the bike can deal with some pretty tough terrain, albeit not off-road conditions. Front and rear suspensions, with the latter having the ability to be set as specific preloads, also help transition the ride over any bumps or potholes, as we South Africans are accustomed to experiencing frequently.
The Metro has a built-in display that shows the bike’s speed and range and also sports integrated lights in the front and rear for added visibility and night riding.
An issue we experienced was with securing the bike to standard racks. Due to the large tires, and also because the front one clips off, the A2B has to be turned around and secured using a long cable. Similarly, car racks will battle to transport the bike as a result of its weight and girth. We also found that the A2B attracted a lot of attention, making us somewhat paranoid at the thought of leaving it unattended outside a shop, even for a few minutes. And with an asking price of R35,000 ($4,000), it’s not a possession you’d want pilfered!
The bike’s quality is overwhelmingly good, so it’s no wonder this beauty was designed and built in Helmsburg, Germany. Ultra Motor is looking at the prospect of adding software to the Metro in due course, allowing bike technicians to plug it into diagnostic systems much like modern cars. While the jury is out on whether or not this is simply overkill, no doubt servicing the bike will call for an unwanted expense thanks to these ‘innovation

Tag: Greenhouse gas

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

New Study Makes First-Ever Direct Link Between Greenhouse Gases And Polar Bear Deaths

Carbon Tax Needs To Be Realistic

What A Way To Get To Work