Eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says that fully half of the planet's higher life forms could be gone within 100 years, joining the dodo bird, sketched here, which has been extinct since the 17th century and whose fate was directly attributable to human activity. (Thinkstock)

Researchers believe that the rate of species loss currently underway is 100-1,000 times faster than what was normal (the so-called “background rate” of extinction) prior to human overpopulation and its negative environmental effects. But thanks to overhunting, deforestation, pollution, the spread of non-native species and now climate change, we are likely in the midst of the sixth mass extinction in the geologic history of the world. The previous mass extinction, 65 million years ago, wiped out the dinosaurs and other species; the previous one, 250 million years ago, killed off 90 percent of all species on the planet.

While the current mass extinction might in reality not be that bad—only time will tell—eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson predicts that the rate of species loss could top 10,000 times the background rate by 2030, and that fully half of the planet’s higher life forms could be gone within 100 years. This jibes with statistics from the non-profit International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—keeper of the global “Red List” of endangered species—which currently considers 37.8 percent of the world’s already classified species to be threatened. Of course, this is far from the whole story, as biologists think that we have only classified 10 percent or less of the world’s total number of plant and animal species.

Which types of species are being hit hardest? An analysis of IUCN statistics from 2008 found that of the world’s fauna (animals), invertebrates (animals without backbones, such as earthworms, shellfish and insects) were suffering the most, with 40.5 percent of those classified considered threatened. Next hardest hit were fish species, with 36.6 percent threatened, followed by reptiles at 30.5 percent and amphibians at 30.4 percent. Meanwhile, 20.8 percent of mammal species were threatened and 12.2 percent of birds.

More shocking was the statistic that some 70.1 percent of plant species are at risk. However, a more recent (2010) study found that only 22 percent of the world’s classified plants are actually facing extinction. This finding has led analysts to question conservationists’ estimates in regard to animal species loss as well.

In lieu of any direct way to measure the rate of species loss, conservationists have relied on reversing the so-called “species-area relationship,” whereby scientists tally the number of species in a given area and then estimate how quickly more show up or evolve as viable habitat increases (or decreases in the case of reversing the concept). But lately this method of tracking and predicting species losses has been criticized for generating overestimates. “The overestimates can be very substantial,” argues UCLA evolutionary biologist Stephen Hubbell, “…but we are not saying [extinction] does not exist.”

However many species may be dying, it’s clear we are in the midst of another mass extinction, and if you believe 70 percent of biologists, unlike previous mass extinctions humanity is most likely the cause. Conservationists remain optimistic that we can marshal the resources to turn the tide—and we’ll need to if the planet is to remain habitable for our species, given our own dependencies on the world’s biodiversity.

CONTACTS: E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, www.eowilson.org; IUCN, www.iucn.org; “Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss,” www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7347/full/nature09985.html.

Major progress has been made in reducing the overpopulation of cats and dogs that had resulted in some 12 to 20 million being euthanized each year in the 1970s. Today, despite there being more than twice the number of companion animals in U.S. homes, the number euthanized yearly is down to three to four million. There is still clearly more work to be done. (Comstock)

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the leading non-profit devoted to animal welfare, reports that in the 1970s American shelters euthanized between 12 and 20 million cats and dogs every year at a time when there were 67 million pets in U.S. homes. According to statistics gleaned from the Asilomar Accords, which tracks animal shelter care and euthanasia numbers, U.S. shelters today euthanize three to four million animals, while there are more than 135 million cats and dogs in American homes.

“This enormous decline in euthanasia numbers—from around 25 percent of American dogs and cats euthanized every year to about three percent—represents substantial progress,” reports HSUS. “We will make still greater progress by working together to strike at the roots of animal overpopulation.”

These numbers are only estimates as there is no centralized reporting protocol for shelters. However, the Asilomar Accords method is gaining momentum as a standard for more accurately tracking animal shelter care and euthanasia numbers; it posts annual statistics for some 150 different U.S. shelters on its website.

And what exactly are the roots of the problem? Foremost is irresponsible breeding—pet owners failing to get their animals spayed or neutered, leading to unwanted offspring. Some 35 percent of U.S. pet owners do not spay or neuter their pets, despite increasing public awareness about the pet overpopulation issue.

Another factor is low adoption rates: Only 20 percent of the 17 million Americans that get a new pet each year opt for a shelter pet; the vast majority buys from pet stores, breeders, or through other private arrangements. And six to eight million pets are given up to shelters or rescue groups every year for one reason or another, leaving these organizations with many more animals than they can place in homes.

Beyond these factors, HSUS also cites our society’s “disposal pet” ethos, whereby owners are quick to relinquish their pets for any number of reasons. The majority of shelter pets are not overflowing litters of puppies and kittens, but companion animals turned in by their owners. “To solve this problem, we would need to effect a cultural change in which every individual fully considers all of the responsibilities and consequences of pet ownership before adopting, and then makes a lifetime commitment to their pet.”

The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy is a coalition of eleven of America’s foremost animal welfare organizations concerned with the issue of unwanted pets in the United States. The Council and its partner groups, including HSUS, work to promote responsible pet ownership and reduce pet overpopulation through public education, legislation and support for sterilization programs.

As to what individuals can do, HSUS recommends spaying or neutering their dogs and cats, adopting from shelters or rescue groups, and considering all the ramifications of pet ownership before deciding to take on a cat or dog in the first place.

CONTACTS: HSUS, www.hsus.org; Asilomar Accords, www.asilomaraccords.org; National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, www.petpopulation.org.

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is evaluating 757 imperiled plant and animal species to determine if they should be added to the federal Endangered Species List by 2018. Among the wildlife getting a closer look is the walrus, pictured here. (iStock Photo)

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the gist of the recent agreement between the Center for Biological Diversity and the federal government regarding adding many more plants and animals to the Endangered Species List?      – J.J. Scarboro, Tallahassee, FL 

The agreement in question forces the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to make initial or final decisions on whether to grant some 757 imperiled plant and animal species protection under the Endangered Species Act over the next six years. In exchange, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), a leading advocacy group devoted to animal and plant conservation, will withdraw its legal opposition to a May 2011 agreement between USFWS and another conservation group, Wildlife Guardians. CBD argued that the agreement with Wildlife Guardians was too weak, unenforceable and missing key species in need of protection. The new agreement, if approved by the U.S. District Court as submitted in July 2011, would make many of the provisions of the old agreement obsolete.

“Scientists and conservationists have a critical role to play in identifying endangered species and developing plans and priorities to save them. The extinction crisis is too big—too pressing—to rely on government agencies alone,” says Kieran Suckling, executive director of CBD.

CBD reports that the work plan under the new agreement will enable USFWS to move forward with systematically reviewing and addressing the needs of hundreds of species to determine if they should be added to the federal Endangered Species List by 2018. Some of the species in question that will get a closer look—and which CBD hopes are “fast-tracked” for protection—include the walrus, the wolverine, the Mexican gray wolf, the New England cottontail rabbit, three species of sage grouse, the scarlet Hawaiian honeycreeper (‘I’iwi), the California golden trout, the Rio Grande cutthroat trout and the Miami blue butterfly, among others.

The 757 species up for listing consideration span every taxonomic group—including 26 birds, 31 mammals, 67 fish, 13 reptiles, 42 amphibians, 197 plants and 381 invertebrates—and occur in all 50 states and several Pacific Island territories. Alabama, Georgia and Florida are home to the majority of the species (149, 121 and 115 in each respectively). Hawaii, Nevada, California, Washington and Oregon each play host to dozens of unlisted imperiled species as well.

“The Southeast, West Coast, Hawaii and Southwest are America’s extinction hot spots,” says Suckling. “Most of the species lost in the past century lived there, and most of those threatened with extinction in the next decade live there as well.”

CBD considers the agreement a big win and a key piece of its decade-long campaign to safeguard 1,000 of the nation’s most imperiled, least protected plant and animal species. Some two-thirds of the species listed in the agreement were not previously considered to be candidates for protection for USFWS. “This corresponds with the conclusion of numerous scientists and scientific societies that the extinction crisis is vastly greater than existing federal priority systems and budgets,” adds Suckling.

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; United States Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov; Wildlife Guardians, www.defenders.org/support_us/wildlife_guardians.

Calling all animal lovers! The Cocheco Valley Humane Society in Dover, N.H., invites you to the gala of the fall: The Great Catsby. Arrive at the 1920s-themed event in your best flapper or gangster garb and have your photo taken red carpet-style next to an antique car, sip cocktails and enjoy hors d’oeuvres while perusing the many silent auction items, including wine, jewelry, gift certificates, artwork and more.

After a delectable dinner and decadent dessert, bid on priceless experiences at the live auction, where you  could become a character in a murder mystery novel or an actor in New Hampshire’s famous Haunted Overload’s haunted walk.

The gala will benefit animals such as Hank, a kitten who was tossed out of a moving vehicle. He is being nursed back to health at the shelter.

Details

What: The Great Catsby gala

Where: The Portsmouth Sheraton Harborside Hotel, Portsmouth, N.H.

When: Sept. 17, 6 to 10 P.M.

Tickets: Tickets are $80 per person and are available online at cvhsonline.org or by calling 603-749-5322 Ext. 112. All proceeds go to the care and well being of the animals sheltered at Cocheco Valley Humane Society. Hurry! Tickets are on sale only until Sept. 9 at 10 P.M.

China passed the U.S. as the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter back in 2006 and today produces some 17 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide output. Pictured: A factory in China at the Yangtse River (Wikipedia)

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that China is about to overtake the U.S. as the world’s largest global warming polluter. What is China doing to address this issue as well as its other environmental impacts as such a populous nation? – Sophie N., Andover, MA Actually, China passed the U.S. as the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter back in 2006 and today produces some 17 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide output. According to the China Daily news service, air and water pollution, combined with widespread use of food additives and pesticides, make cancer the top killer in China. Meanwhile, World Bank data show that, based on the European Union’s air quality standards, only one percent of the country’s 560 million urban inhabitants breathe air deemed safe. But many Chinese insist that all this environmental trouble is part of the cost of developing into a world superpower, and government leaders there are hesitant to impose restrictions on economic development. Nevertheless, the Chinese are starting to take action. In December 2009 at the Copenhagen global climate talks, China announced plans to slow greenhouse gas emission increases relative to economic growth by 40-50 percent between 2005 and 2020, and use renewable fuels for 15 percent of its energy. China also committed to increasing forest cover by 40 million hectares by 2020 (forests absorb carbon dioxide).

But even with such measures, analysts say China’s carbon dioxide output will still increase a staggering 90 percent in the next decade, assuming eight percent economic growth. While international negotiators were pleased to finally secure a commitment from the Chinese, it was a far cry from the fast and binding emissions cuts many scientists say are necessary to stave off potentially cataclysmic climate change.

Regarding other pollution, China is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention, which governs the control and phase-out of major persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including many pesticides, PCBs and other chemicals. China has committed to eliminating the production, import and use of pollutants covered under the treaty, and will establish an inventory of POP contaminated sites and remediation plans by 2015.

Other green strides China has made include 2008’s nationwide ban on plastic shopping bags. Before the ban, China was using 37 million barrels of crude oil annually to make the bags that would no doubt come back to haunt people, wildlife, land and water bodies as litter. China has also signed on to an international effort sponsored by the United Nations and the Global Environment Facility to phase out incandescent lightbulbs over the next decade in favor of more efficient varieties. China makes 70 percent of the world’s supply of lightbulbs, so the switch could have a big impact on energy usage for lighting around the world.

China is also no slouch when it comes to manufacturing green technologies and now produces more solar panels and wind turbines than any other country. And the Chinese government recently committed $216 billion in subsidies to further develop the nation’s green technology sector. A recent report by the non-profit Pew Environment Group found that in 2009 China spent two times as much as the U.S. to fund so-called “green markets,” and close to 50 percent of world expenditures overall.

CONTACTS: Copenhagen Accord, www.unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php; Stockholm Convention, www.pops.int; Global Environment Facility, www.thegef.org/gef; Pew Environment Group, www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_category.aspx?ID=110.

Dear EarthTalk: Are the world’s amphibians still in decline and what’s being done to help them? – Chris W., Stamford, CT

Unfortunately yes, amphibians are still in serious trouble around the world. A recently updated worldwide population assessment by the non-profit International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that 32 percent of the 6,000-plus amphibian species left on the planet have declined to dangerously low levels—and qualify for vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered status on the group’s “Red List” of at-risk wildlife.

Perhaps even more disturbing is that upwards of 160 amphibian species—some of which have been around for hundreds of millions of years—have gone extinct just in the last 25 years. Since amphibian species are particularly sensitive to environmental change, they are often the first animals to decline in areas just beginning to experience environmental degradation, and as such are considered to be important indicators of the health of the wider ecosystems surrounding them.

Scientists are hard-pressed to pick one major cause for such dramatic declines, but at least one key culprit is a fungal pathogen called “frog chytid” (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). According to the non-profit Amphibian Ark, frog chytid causes changes to amphibians’ sensitive outer skin layer, making vital life processes—such as the absorption of water, oxygen and electrolytes—difficult or impossible. Prior to 1999 researchers hadn’t yet identified this variant of the chytid fungus, let alone the role it was playing in decimating amphibian populations. It is particularly dangerous because none of the world’s amphibians seem to be immune—even those species that survive an infestation still carry and transmit the parasite.

Frog chytid isn’t the only factor in amphibians’ recent troubles. According to the AmphibiaWeb website, habitat destruction, alteration and fragmentation (with the forest goes the frogs), as well as predatory introduced species, increased exposure to UV-B radiation (likely caused by erosion of the Earth’s protective ozone layer), various forms of air and water pollution, and poaching all combine to stack the odds against amphibians. Human-induced climate change is likely playing a role in the decline as well, with rising global temperatures creating optimal conditions for the growth and spread of the frog chytid pathogen while also displacing amphibians from formerly hospitable habitat zones.

IUCN and its partners Conservation International and NatureServe have released an Amphibian Action Conservation Plan, which outlines ways that international institutions, national governments, corporations and even everyday people can take part in helping to save our frogs and their relatives. According to the plan, reducing pollution and lowering our carbon footprint is an important first step. Likewise, preserving more amphibian habitat—especially in Latin America, which has the largest number of threatened amphibian species, and the Caribbean, where upwards of 80 percent of amphibians are at risk—will be key to the survival of our frogs, toads, salamanders and caecilians. Captive breeding programs in various zoos and labs around the world, reintroductions of species into formerly abandoned habitats, and the removal of harmful non-native species also need to play a role in preserving these many species that, once gone, will never reappear.

CONTACTS: Amphibian Ark, www.amphibianark.org; AmphibiaWeb, www.amphibiaweb.org; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), www.iucn.org; Conservation International, www.conservation.org; NatureServe, www.natureserve.org.

The MSPCA rescued 101 cats, one turtle, and one dog from two Greater Boston-area households last week, all in a two-day period.

The cats were brought to the MSPCA Boston Animal Care and Adoption Center, where they remain quarantined due to their illnesses, which include ruptured eyes, chronic sinus infections, and extreme malnourishment.

MSPCA spokesman Brian Adams said that the organization is working to transfer healthy cats to other adoption centers in order to make room for the neglected cats.

“We continue to urge pet owners to contact our adoption centers and law enforcement department before they can no longer provide basic care for their animals,” Adams said.

I came across this really interesting story two days ago: plans by the autonomous region of Southern Sudan to build multi-billion dollar cities in the shapes of animals. The detailed blueprints show outlined drawings of a rhinoceros and a giraffe, with plans for structures inside their “bodies.”

Image via Wikimedia/Mandavi

The plan’s budget is just over $10 billion, even though Southern Sudan is one of the poorest regions on earth and has a budget of just $2 billion for 2010. Many believe the region should spend its expected influx of oil money to quickly improve living conditions for the poor. Here’s an excerpt from the Al Jazeera story :

“It doesn’t seem like the government of Southern Sudan should be using its resources or staff time when the people of Southern Sudan lack basic services like health care and water,” Nora Petty, an aid worker with the Malaria Consortium in Juba, said.

Of course, some believe the opposite. This, from CNN.com:

“Others think the idea could help put an aspiring new nation on the map.

“If it happened, everybody would come to see the country. It would mean we are developed,” says Ochira Bosco, 27, who works in a Juba restaurant.”"

Plans place the regional capital, Juba, inside the two-horned rhino blueprint.

Still, Nora Petty’s opinion is popular, especially when inspecting the region’s infrastructure stats. Again, from the Al Jazeera story:

“To connect all major towns in southern Sudan we need 13,000km of roads … we need five to six billion dollars to tarmac about 80 per cent of that.”

Right now, Southern Sudan has about 60 km of roads and health care services are rarely readily available for the country’s populace.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as the referendum on Southern Sudan’s independence should take place in early January 2011.

Dear EarthTalk: Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like? – Shelly Johansen, Fairbanks, AK

The short answer is…maybe. Critics of the health care industry postulate that our society’s quickness to test for disease may in fact be causing more of it, especially in the case of medical scans. To wit, the radiation dose from a typical CT scan (short for computed tomography and commonly known as a "cat scan") is 600 times more powerful than the average chest x-ray.

A 2007 study by Dr. Amy Berrington de Gonz¡lez of the National Cancer Institute projected that the 72 million CT scans conducted yearly in the U.S. (not including scans conducted after a cancer diagnosis or performed at the end of life) will likely cause some 29,000 cancers resulting in 15,000 deaths two to three decades later. Scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest and head were deemed most likely to cause cancer, and patients aged 35 to 54 were more likely to develop cancer as a result of CT scans than other age group.

Another study found that, among Americans who received CT scans, upwards of 20 percent had a false positive after one scan and 33 percent after two, meaning that such patients were getting huge doses of radiation without cause. And about seven percent of those patients underwent unnecessary invasive medical procedures following their misleading scans. CT scans are much more common today than in earlier decades, exacerbating the potential damage from false positives and excessive radiation exposure.

"Physicians and their patients cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public-health time bomb," says Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at University of California-San Francisco. "To avoid unnecessarily increasing cancer incidence in future years, every clinician must carefully assess the expected benefits of each CT scan and fully inform his or her patients of the known risks of radiation."

CT scans are not the only concern. Mammograms are now routine for women over 40 years old. But some studies suggest that these types of screenings may cause more cancers than they prevent. Because of this, the federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women not otherwise considered high risk for breast cancer wait until age 50 to begin getting mammograms—and then to get them every two years instead of annually. However, the American Cancer Society argues that such restraint would result in women dying unnecessarily from delaying screenings.

Women with a family history of breast cancer may be at greatest risk. Researchers from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands found that five or more x-rays—or any exposure to radiation—before the age of 20 for "high risk" women increased the likelihood of developing breast cancer later by a factor of two and a half.

Individuals should ask tough questions of their physicians to determine if and how much screening is absolutely necessary to look for suspected abnormalities. Our knowledge of the risks of radiation-based screenings will only help us to make more informed decisions about our health.

CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; University Medical Center Groningen, www.umcg.nl.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: What is happening with various programs initiated over the years in the U.S. to return to the wild certain animal species that had been endangered or threatened? And do environmentalists tend to be for or against such efforts? — Susan Adams, Owl’s Head, ME

From the standpoint of species and ecosystem health, limited attempts at predator reintroduction in the United States have for the most part proven very successful. The gray wolf, extirpated by hunters in the Yellowstone region some 90 years ago, is now thriving there in the wake of a controversial reintroduction program initiated in 1995, when the National Park Service released 31 gray wolves into the park’s expansive backcountry. Today as many as 170 gray wolves roam the park and environs, while the elk population—which was denuding many iconic park landscapes in the absence of its chief predator—has fallen by half, in what many environmentalists see as a win-win scenario.

Other reintroduction efforts across the U.S. have also been successful. From the lynx in Colorado to the condor in California to the Black-footed ferret on the Plains, scientists are pleased with how well reintroduced species have taken to their new surroundings. As a result, many conservationists now view the reintroduction of iconic wildlife species as key to restoring otherwise degraded natural landscapes.

"When we kill off big cats, wolves and other wild hunters, we lose not only prominent species, but also the key ecological and evolutionary process of top-down regulation," says the non-profit Rewilding Institute, adding that the recovery of large native carnivores should be the heart of any conservation strategy in areas where such predators have disappeared. "Wolves, cougars, lynx, wolverines, grizzly and black bears, jaguars, sea otters and other top carnivores need to be restored throughout North America in ecologically effective densities in their natural ranges where suitable habitat remains or can be restored."

Not everyone is so bullish on wildlife reintroduction programs, despite their success. As for the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction, ranchers operating on private land outside park boundaries still complain about the threat of free-roaming wolves poaching their livestock. In response, the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife has implemented its Wolf Conservation Trust whereby donated funds are channeled toward paying ranchers fair market value for any stock lost to wolf predation. The group hopes the fund will "eliminate a major factor in political opposition to wolf recovery" by shifting the economic burden of wolf recovery from livestock producers to those who support wolf reintroduction.

Some environmental advocates also oppose wildlife reintroductions. One argument is that people have "played God" enough and should stop tinkering even more with wildlife and ecosystems, especially given that the overall long-term impact is always uncertain. And some animal advocates dislike such strategies from a humanitarian perspective: "Reintroduction programs subject wild animals to capturing and handling, which is always stressful for them, and may eventually put them in the line of fire of farmers who are already angry about predator-reintroduction programs," claims People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), adding that, when predators are reintroduced to an area where they have long been absent, prey species tend to scatter and "their lives and behavior patterns are turned upside-down."

CONTACTS: The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), www.peta.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Not content with animating a canine alone, Fable III will include an entire menagerie of animals, an artist on the project revealed today.

Lead Artist John McCormack, speaking with Beauty of Games, said the studio is making up for the previous void of environmental animals with Fable III; Going big, instead of going home.

More than just the dog this time around

“The lack of animals in the Fable franchise is always something that has bothered me,” he said. “We’ve built bats, crows, rabbits, ducks, robins, vultures, lizards, rats, butterflies, moths, insect swarms, dogs, fireflies, geese and we even started on a cow [for Fable III].”

Earning The Chicken Kicker achievement in Fable II was rewarding, yes, but knowing I can (hopefully) stomp over a range of animals is even more exciting.

via Joystiq

Over the course of the past week, as temperatures have begun to dip down to single digits, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Angell shelter has found seven cats abandoned at the facility — at doors, in taped-shut boxes, and even in the bathroom.

More recently, a box of three young kittens was dropped in raw sewage at a landfill near Boston.

The irony is, the Angell shelter will never turn away an animal that is brought to it. It just seems as if people are too ashamed to show their faces when they are leaving their animals. So they are leaving them outside, in the cold, where they could die.

"The MSPCA will never turn away an animal that is being surrendered," said MSPCA Director of Animal Protection, Jean Weber, in a statement. "In addition to the valuable behavioral and medical information that pet owners share with us, the surrender process ensures a safe handover of each animal. Several of the cats that were abandoned on our property were left trapped in boxes and exposed to harsh weather conditions."

A grey and white cat, now named Frosty, was abandoned near the front door of Angell Animal Medical Center on December 5 during a rain and snow storm. Other cats were abandoned throughout the MSPCA-Angell including a kitten, Tinsel, who was left in one of the medical center’s bathrooms.

"If a pet owner needs to surrender an animal we urge them to do so properly," said Weber. "By informing us of an animal’s past we are enabled to make a much better match with a new adoptive owner."

Animal cruelty is a felony in Massachusetts punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $2,500.

And now, some cuddly kitty photos:

Some may not recognize the name Tania Gunadi. However if the role of Emma Lau, on the hit series “Aaron Stone,” is any indication of her career? It won’t be long until she joins the ranks with other veterans in the House of Disney like Selena Gomez or Emily Osment.

The cheerful and down-to-earth actress is just one of several stars on “Aaron Stone,” the first original series for the newly branded channel DisneyXD which began on February.

Surprisingly, Gunadi remains humble even though she’s become more popular since the debut of the show. And despite the bevy of young Hollywood starlets, whose self-entitled attitudes or bad behavior exploits land them tabloid covers, Gunadi doesn’t take herself too seriously when it comes to the fame game. In fact, she has no qualms speaking candidly about her appreciation towards people she’s worked with past or present.

Originally born in Indonesia, Tania Gunadi received her first brush with Lady Luck when she was only about 16 years old. Gunadi had won the lottery “" a green card lottery “" and because of it was able to join her family overseas in southern California.

Blast caught up with the actress, and listened to her tackle subjects about roller coasters, hand to hand combat, bunnies, and boba tea!

BLAST: First of all, thank you for chatting with us! I know you must have a busy schedule.

TANIA GUNADI: Oh, it’s no problem! I have been doing interviews this week. But then I have to prepare to go back to work in a couple of days for the second season of “Aaron Stone” in Toronto.

BLAST: The second season? I noticed the listing for new episodes will air on June 22nd. The most recent episode aired was the future episode about Stan.

TG: Hmm… see, I’m not so sure how the seasons are like broken down. We already shot the first 22 episodes. So for us, when we start shooting soon, it’s like season two.

BLAST: I see, maybe it’s because the channel and the series started during the mid-season. Because most networks begin in the fall shows are more continuous in that way.

TG: Hmmm… You know what? Maybe you’re right.

BLAST: Either way, it sounds exciting!

TG: You know everyone [on the show] is great! We have so much fun.

BLAST: Before we get into more details about your current work on DisneyXD’s “Aaron Stone,” let’s talk more about you. It’s really cool that you can say you won the lottery.

TG: Right? (laughs)

BLAST: You were just around 16 when it happened, so what was the experience like for you, coming here to the States?

TG: When I first arrived to Los Angeles, I was beside myself. I thought, “Oh my gosh, there’s really a place like this!” Like, I couldn’t believe it. I love Indonesia, don’t get me wrong, but it was new for me”¦the people I met here [California], they are so nice, and helpful, and I got to see this thing called, you know, “the freeway”!

But then, you know, I didn’t speak very good English. My brother, who came here before me, he hooked me up with a job, because I brought only $200 in money, I thought that was a lot of money. And then I realized really, really quickly that that was not a lot… and I’m thinking, “What’s going on here?” and he said, “Well, you know, you have to work.”

So, my brother, he hooked me up with a job in Pizza Hut. We couldn’t work in the same place because we’re family, but he recommended me to another one. I worked there for two years. It’s also where I learned my English, and I got complaints from customers like you would never believe, because in Indonesia we don’t really eat pizza like the way they do here. And they’re ordering these things and I’m like, “You… want… what? Meat? Cheese?” (laughs) It was really cute.

Soon, I got from where I was at when they hired me, which was answering phones, and in two weeks, they demoted me to cleaning the bathrooms. I was so sad. But then I made some friends and they helped me out a lot. And I was promoted back up, slowly, I’d say about a month and a half later. I went from being the cook, to the phones again, and finally the cashier.

BLAST: Well you really worked hard to earn your place, and that’s really cool. Now, as far as acting, was it something that always interested you? How did you get involved in it?

TG: For me, I grew up in Indonesia, being able to get here; I won a green card lottery. I didn’t even know or understand acting… I didn’t have a wanting for it because I wasn’t exposed to the art world, you know? Then one day at school, a friend of mine, she said, “You know, you have so much energy, you should audition for this Disneyland commercial.” And I’m like, “Oh I don’t know.” I didn’t understand what the audition would be like; I had never done one before. She said, “it’s really easy, you don’t have to worry about English or stuff. You just have to scream like you’re in a rollercoaster,” and I was like, “Oh… okay.”

So I drove my first Hollywood trip and they loved me and I booked the job. And that day they cast about 12 people. The lead was this couple, but after 17 times being on the rollercoaster they got sick and threw up. Slowly but surely, everyone else got sick except for me. I was so happy because I never rode on a rollercoaster before. I was “Whoa!” and then “Woo!” The director loved it, and wanted me to be the lead in the commercial! And I ended up doing it, and I booked two more jobs after it. It was the first time I earned a substantial amount of money from it! I felt like, “Yes! This is it!”

BLAST: You seem so grounded as a person, where do you feel that comes from? Would you say it’s from family and friends?

TG: I think for me, I just appreciate this [opportunity]. I think a positive trait I have is that I don’t always do what I’m told… there are so many people out there who give you their opinions and advice. They’ll sometimes say you dream too big or maybe you shouldn’t do that… they’re just concerned for you. But sometimes you got to do it. I mean, I love my life. And sure I’ve gotten rejected in auditions many times. I don’t focus on that; I focus on the jobs I got booked.

BLAST: People recognize you for your role on “Aaron Stone” but you’ve done a lot of work before it. There’s a guest role you did on the series, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” where you shared scenes with Danny Devito. What was it like working with him?

TG: Oh my god, that was awesome. First of all, he’s so amazingly nice and professional! You know there was this one scene where I was singing, and I was about to get sprayed with this giant [amount of] water. His character is supposed to come in and save me. Even when it wasn’t his close up, and the director said they didn’t really need him for my close up. He said, “No. No. I want it.” He gave it 100 percent. I mean, he got sprayed with the water so many times, I felt so bad. I was like, “I hope you don’t get sick!” I love that show, “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.”

You know, for six months before it, I didn’t book a gig. It was the longest time I had been without work. When I auditioned for the part, and was in the room with the other actors reading for it, they were worried because the assignment sheet asked for someone 18 to play 12. At first I thought it was impossible. Then the other side of me thought, no, everything is possible. Let’s think about it! There’s a reason they want 18 to play 12, and I can play 18 to 16. It’s only a couple years difference. And my acting coach is always teaching me that you have to focus on the things that work for you. So your attention has to be on the good stuff, and then only good stuff will happen for you. And it really works.

BLAST: Now that you’ve gotten further along in your career, what captures your attention when it comes to roles you consider? Do you prefer drama or the light-hearted stuff? What makes you most comfortable?

TG: You know, I don’t have a preference. But usually when my friends have been asked that question they generally know what they like and don’t like. For me, usually when I get a script, I read the whole thing. I check with my feelings, and think about how it makes me feel, happy or sad. Does it make me want to be a better person? Or am I learning more about life? I would like to do work where people can see it, and you know, feel inspired by it.

BLAST: And you’ve come a long way.

TG: You know when I first started, my English wasn’t very good. I spoke well, and understood things, but for me it wasn’t enough. My goal was to start out by doing student films from no lines to a lead role. Then once I got the lead, I would look for an agent. It took me 40 student films later until I got a lead, and even better it was in an independent film. I got an agent later that week.

BLAST: Speaking of inspiration, you worked on the film “The Magic of Ordinary Days,” a romantic-drama that includes the topic of internment camps back in the 40s for Japanese Americans.

TG: That is the first role of mine where I have no accent. The casting director loved me at first but because of my accent it didn’t work with the character that is born and raised here. So I took accent reduction classes, and auditioned until I had it like 100 percent. I researched the most for this film, about five to six weeks every day. I signed up with the Japanese Museum in LA, watched all the movies about the internment camp, the outfits worn [at the time], the way they spoke back then, the relationships within the family -”" father, mother, and kids. I even visited with survivors from the internment camps at convalescent homes.

BLAST: It really must have been a changing moment for you, working so dedicatedly. And not to mention, you got to work with Keri Russell, an amazing actress.

TG: I was so nervous working with her at first because I couldn’t believe it. I had seen her work, you know? She is so professional and great! It’s easy working with her because she’s so talented, and wonderful on the set. I hope we can work together again.

BLAST: Right now, you’re listed as being in the upcoming film “Possession” which stars Trent Ford and Autumn Reeser. There’s not too many details about the character you play, and how often you’re in it.

TG: We shot it about, I think, two years ago. I play a receptionist, and I share two scenes with Trent. Originally it was supposed to be a voice-over role. I can’t take the credit for this, but a friend of mine helped me with the audition to make my performance kind of radical. They liked it, and I found out they wrote it so I could be in the film.

BLAST: Your work is so eclectic, but if you had your choice of a dream cast? Who would be on the list? Which actors would you like to do projects with?

TG: Outside of Disney family and in general… gosh. You know, no one has asked me that question before. This is great! My favorite movie is “Notting Hill,” and I love its story. So, okay, I would love to be in a movie with Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Hugh Grant, Julia Roberts and James McAvoy.

BLAST: That’s a movie cast people would line up to see!

TG: Also, I have always wanted to do a period piece like the eighteen hundreds. It would be fun.

BLAST: Alright, so now that weve gotten an idea about your dream cast, let’s talk about “Aaron Stone.”

TG: Yay!

BLAST: Online gaming is a big part of the show. Did you play games before you landed the role?

TG: I like to play Guitar Hero with my family and friends. And there’s Rock Band where sometimes I’ll sing or play the drums. I can actually — really — play the drums.

BLAST: For those who may know nothing about Emma Lau, how would you describe her?

TG: Basically, my character leads a double life. She’s the girl next door and like any other teenager. But when she comes home she designs and creates the weapons that help Aaron Stone save the world. I’m the one in charge of making new gadgets, and upgrades for him. There’s a one called The Party Crasher that allows you to spy on people. When they create the props, they make it so it actually has my voice come up. It’s so cool. I love all the gadgets except for this thing called The Electro-Depletor which kills all electronic devices around you. But that one isn’t real.

BLAST: And of course, what’s it like working with the cast?

TG: You know, I’ll be honest, they are all so awesome. We all get along and work together so well! We know our lines, and goof around while on set. I work mostly in scenes with Kelly [Blatz] who plays Aaron Stone. But I’ve been getting to work more with JP [Stan], since our characters and Aaron Stone work for the same person. JP is fun, and David Lambert [Jason], David is so funny, and nice. I can’t believe he’s only 14.

BLAST: There are a lot action sequences on the show, and you’ve done quite a lot in recent episodes.

TG: You know, Kelly and I we had to train two weeks before we started filming because we do a lot of staged combat. Stage combat is a lot different than regular kickboxing and all because you want to make every move exaggerated, so when you punch, you want to punch all the way to look good on camera. And Kelly, man, you know I just love him because you know you want to trust the person you’re working with when you do fighting scenes.

BLAST: Of course, because knocking someone out would be an odd way to start a friendship.

TG: Yes, exactly. I mean you don’t want to get hit. I love that we train together because we work with one of the best in martial artists, Koichi [Sakamoto]. I mean he basically trains everyone. I believe one of the perks of Aaron Stone. Now, I feel like I’ve gotten better because before I was scared. He would tell me, “Now, Tania, for this week, we want you to be able to jump that table. Then you’ll get hit, and fall onto the floor. Then you’ll run up to the couch. And then you’re going to jump, and fall into this thing, and then somebody is going to hit you.” And I’m like, “Okay, you mean you want me to jump on that particular table?” But it was really fun in the beginning because we learned how to fall properly.

Also, Kelly was there and we helped each other through it. In the beginning, we had bruises and everything. But later on the set, it’s important to have a good relationship with your cast because you have to trust them. For example, in one scene Aaron and Emma are fighting these ninjas and Kelly has to turn me slightly like upside down so I can do a kick. And I have to trust him fully, 100 percent. I mean he’s so dedicated at work, even though in between takes we goof around, talk, you know, make chit-chat. But then once the camera starts rolling everyone is on top of their game.

BLAST: I always enjoy watching scenes between Emma and Charlie. The first scene I caught of them, she invited him to join her for boba tea. Later in the episode he forgets about it. I mean, who ditches the chance to go grab some boba drink?

TG: Right? (laughs) I’m addicted to it. The entire cast and crew, nobody knew about boba before it. I’m like, it’s boba tea, I drink it all the time. There’s one episode where we were shooting the scene when I got stood up by Aaron Stone [Charlie], after asking him out on a date, not a date date but to go get boba? That was about a block away from my apartment in Toronto, and that’s exactly where we got the boba drink [in that scene], where we shot it.

BLAST: So is there anything more we can expect as far as their relationship since the ‘Boba Incident’? Maybe something romantic? I mean their characters are already close, but now they work for the same cause.

TG: Okay, there are two secrets I can say without giving out too much. There are two short kissing scenes, just one or two seconds. One of them is mine. The other is Kelly. BUT it may not be between them. It may be other people!

BLAST: Oh, wow, how scandalous! I’ll have to set my DVR.

TG: Scandalous DisneyXD! I know, when I read the script I was surprised!

BLAST: Well this is going to be a fun season! Alright, so before we let you go, a lot of people may not know you’re an advocate for humane treatment of animals.

TG: Yes, I love all kinds of animals. I have two cats at home [California] named Lucy and Ricky after my favorite TV show, I Love Lucy. It’s always sad for me when I have to leave them and start shooting the show in Canada. Fortunately, there’s a great place in Toronto, Abandoned Cat Rescue, where I foster cats. Cats, they’re so wonderful, they give you unconditional love and when you come home they’re just ready for you.

BLAST: And when you’re in California, what are some of the organizations or groups you support? I understand often shelters and centers sometimes are understaffed. I’m sure people would like know about what they can do or where to go.

TG: Well thank you, there are several places actually. There’s LA Animal Services, where at the humane center I look after the bunnies because they don’t get as much attention from visitors like with the dogs or cats. There’s a Society for Rabbits that I like here in LA, I also, whenever I get a chance, spend time at St. Martin’s Rescue where they save pit bulls and other dogs.

BLAST: So that about wraps it up, and I’m sure people “"- myself included “"- will be excited at the next installment of “Aaron Stone!”

TG: This has been fun! Can’t wait to talk with you guys again!

“Aaron Stone” airs on Monday nights 9/8c with all new episodes scheduled for June 22nd on the cable network DisneyXD.

If you think rock and roll and cuddly animals have nothing to do with each other, think again. In bizarre news, PETA has asked the band Phish to change its name to … wait for it … Sea Kittens.

Ashley Byrne, PETA’S Sea Kitten campaign coordinator, said in a press release, “If Phish became Sea Kittens and the band’s legions of fans started calling fish ‘sea kittens,’ fewer of these gentle animals would be violently killed for food, painfully hooked for ‘sport,’ or cruelly confined to aquariums.”

We wonder what frontman Trey Anastasio thinks, but we’re betting he’s not having “Sea Kittens” tattooed on his shoulder anytime soon.

In a letter to the band, PETA requested that the name be changed for their June 20 visit to East Troy, Wis.‚  in the hopes that it will stick.

PETA said that “sea kittens” not only feel pain, but are affectionate, intelligent animals who communicate with each other.

Their Sea Kitten campaign is aimed at changing the animals’ name for good.

Check out their website and let us know if you’ll be swearing off the eating of sea kittens for good, or if you’re just as ready as ever to tuck into that smoked salmon.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “nanotechnology?” I’ve heard that nanoparticles are already in consumer products, yet we haven’t really studied their potential health impacts. – Dan Zeff, San Francisco, CA

Nanotechnology makes use of minuscule objects-whose width can be 10,000 times narrower than a human hair-known as nanoparticles. Upwards of 600 products on store shelves today contain them, including transparent sunscreen, lipsticks, anti-aging creams and even food products.

Global nanotechnology sales have grown substantially in recent years, to $50 billion in 2007, according to Lux Research, author of the annual Nanotech Report. And the final tally isn’t in yet, but analysts had predicted 2008 sales to be $150 billion. The National Science Foundation says the industry could be worth $1 trillion by 2015, when it would employ two million workers directly.

What makes nanoparticles so useful is their tiny size, which allows for manipulation of color, solubility, strength, magnetic behavior and electrical conductivity. Nanoparticles do exist in nature, and they’re also created inadvertently through some industrial processes. What’s new-and potentially hazardous-is the widespread engineering of these particles for commercial purposes.

While there is no conclusive evidence that nanomaterials are either unsafe or not, health advocates worry that we’re already putting them on our bodies and ingesting them as if they’d been thoroughly tested and proven safe. Animal studies, including one with rats at the University of Rochester, have shown that some nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from toxins in the bloodstream. And inhaled nanoparticles have also harmed the lungs of animal test subjects.

Despite these and other studies, nanomaterials are virtually unregulated in the U.S. And of $1.3 billion budgeted for research in 2006, only $38 million went to examining risks to health and to the environment.

“While the benefits of nanotechnology are widely publicized, the discussion of the potential effects of their widespread use in consumer and industrial products is just beginning to emerge,” reports the Journal of Nanobiotechnology. “Both pioneers of nanotechnology and its opponents are finding it extremely hard to argue their case as there is limited information available to support one side or the other.”

Europe’s regulators are far more wary about nanotechnology than their American counterparts. Britain’s Royal Society recommended in 2004 that nanoparticles be viewed as brand new substances, and the European Commission is examining them on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is loosely charged with regulating nanotechnology here, but has barely dipped its toe in the water.

Taken together, the evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the use of nano-ingredients in consumer products. It’s just not known if they’re safe, which begs the question: Why have we gone ahead and approved them for commercial use? Indeed, we may look back at our current decade and see it, for better or worse, as a time when tiny things caused big and momentous changes in our lives.

CONTACTS: EU’s REACH Law, www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nanotechnology Page, www.epa.gov/ncer/nano.

Dear EarthTalk: How is the fur industry doing these days? Has it been impacted by activism from PETA and similar groups?‚ ‚  — Clara Andrews, Edmonds, WA

An accurate source of up-to-date numbers is hard to come by, but it’s safe to say that the fur industry has been hurt by the ongoing and very visible anti-fur campaign-sometimes featuring top supermodels-by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups.

Whether or not activist efforts are the cause, the governments of the United Kingdom and Austria have banned fur farming in their countries altogether, while The Netherlands has phased out fox and chinchilla farming. The U.S. has not taken any action against the industry, but the number of mink farms in the U.S. has plummeted from 1,027 in 1988 to less than 300 today, according to Weekly International Fur News.

But while the fur industry’s sales numbers may have trailed off through the 1990s, resurgence in the popularity of fur-especially among newly affluent high-fliers in Russia and China-has meant that business is booming for those furriers serving such far-flung markets.

By 2004 the industry was reporting banner sales-some $11.7 billion worldwide-despite the slumping post-9/11 economy. “Fur remains big with international designers and is set to continue as an integral part of fashion,” International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) chairman, Andreas Lenhart, told reporters.

According to IFTF data, the vast majority of the fur industry’s pelts-upwards of 85 percent-now come from farm-raised animals. (This does mean, though, that 15 percent are still caught in the wild, often by trapping methods that are painful as well as indiscriminate, catching unintended quarry, including endangered species and domestic pets.) The most farmed such animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchilla, lynx, muskrats and coyotes are also farmed for their fur. PETA reports that 73 percent of the world’s remaining fur farms are in Europe, while about 12 percent are in North America.

IFTF argues that fur farming has environmental benefits, such as providing good use for 647,000 tons of animal by-products each year from Europe’s fish and meat industries alone (they are fed to the captive animals), and generating a lot of manure, sold as organic fertilizer. Mink farming also provides fat for soaps and hair products, says IFTF.

Of course, anti-fur activists don’t see it this way. “The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately‚ 15 times that needed to produce a fake fur garment,” says PETA. “Nor is fur biodegradable, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting.” PETA adds that these same chemicals contaminate groundwater near fur farms if not handled responsibly.

Activists are also concerned, of course, about the conditions animals endure on fur farms. “The animals-who are housed in unbearably small cages-live with fear, stress, disease, parasites and other physical and psychological hardships…” reports PETA. The group adds that the animals are killed in very inhumane ways-such as by electrocution, gassing or poisoning-to preserve the quality of the pelts above all else.

CONTACTS: PETA, peta.org; IFTF, iftf.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Dear EarthTalk: I keep meeting people who say that human-induced global warming is only theory, that just as many scientists doubt it as believe it. Can you settle the score? — J. Proctor, London, UK

So-called “global warming skeptics” are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities.

Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change-sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank-in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Most skeptics attribute global warming-few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature-to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. “The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential,” says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.

But green leaders maintain that even if some warming is consistent with millennial cycles, something is triggering the current change. According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere.

But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies-many which take advantage of new satellite data-back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

To wit, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements-placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders.

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is “very likely” (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

CONTACTS: Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org; Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org; U.S. National Academy of Sciences, www.nas.edu; IPCC, www.ipcc.ch.

Dear EarthTalk: Are elephant populations stable these days? – Reuben Perrin, Hartford, CT

Far from it. The double whammy of poaching (illegal hunting) and habitat loss has led to a dramatic decline in populations of both African and Asian elephants in recent decades. In 1930, there were between five and 10 million wild African elephants, plying the entire African continent in large bands. Just 60 years later, when they were added to the international list of critically endangered species, only about 600,000 were scattered across a few African countries. Today that number is likely less than 500,000.

While Asian elephants were never as numerous as their African counterparts, their population numbers have also dropped precipitously, from an estimated 200,000 a century ago to less than 40,000 today. Conservationists fear that unless demand dries up for ivory, and people stop moving into prime elephant habitat, the world’s largest land mammal could become just a memory within another hundred years.

Putting an end to habitat loss may be next to impossible as more and more people vie for fewer and fewer resources and move out further into the countryside, so conservationists working to save elephants tend to concentrate on reducing or eliminating poaching. While trophy hunting of elephants may have been big decades ago, today most elephant hunters are after the ivory in the tusks, which have been a hot commodity across Asia for years as raw material for highly prized and often ornate carvings. Despite elephants’ inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1990-meaning the sale of tusks and other elephant parts is a violation of international law-poaching is bigger business than ever, with prices for ivory rising more than 16-fold in recent years.

Some countries, such as Tanzania and Kenya, are working hard to hold up their end of the CITES agreement, hiring patrols of young men-some of them former poachers themselves-to monitor local elephant populations and enforce national and international laws against killing these and other endangered species. Conservation groups like the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) are working hand-in-hand with local officials to improve elephant habitat and keep poachers at bay. These organizations hope that the people in these regions can learn how to bring in revenues from tourism instead of hunting.

But elsewhere governments are not as committed to the ivory ban, let alone to following laws imposed by outsiders. Government officials in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana, for example, argue that trade in ivory should be regulated, not prohibited. They maintain that countries that are managing their elephants well should be allowed to sell ivory in order to pay for conservation measures.

In part to test such waters, the first legal sale of ivory in a decade took place in October 2008, despite protests from conservationists. Buyers, mostly from China and Japan, eagerly snatched up some 100 tons of stockpiled elephant tusks-no elephants were killed recently or illegally for the sale-with the proceeds going to groups working to save the elephant and its habitat. But with the legal ivory sale has come an uptick in elephant poaching, leaving conservationists with that “one step forward, two steps back” feeling.

CONTACTS: CITES, www.cites.org; AWF, www.awf.org; WCS, www.wcs.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Dear EarthTalk: I am looking at possibly buying a house that is very close to a gasoline station. Is it safe to live so close to a gas station? What concerns should I have? I have toddler and infant babies. — Ranjeeta, Houston, TX

Despite all the modern health and safety guidelines they must follow, gas stations can still pose significant hazards to neighbors, especially children. Some of the perils include ground-level ozone caused in part by gasoline fumes, groundwater hazards from petroleum products leaking into the ground, and exposure hazards from other chemicals that might be used at the station if it’s also a repair shop.

Ozone pollution is caused by a mixture of volatile organic compounds, some of which are found in gasoline vapors, and others, like carbon monoxide, that come from car exhaust. Most gas pumps today must have government-regulated vapor-recovery boots on their nozzles, which limit the release of gas vapors while you’re refueling your car. A similar system is used by the station when a tanker arrives to refill the underground tanks. But if those boots aren’t working properly, the nearly odorless hydrocarbon fumes, which contain harmful chemicals like benzene, can be released into the air.

Higher ozone levels can lead to respiratory problems and asthma, while benzene is a known cancer-causing chemical, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The quest to reduce ozone levels has led the state of California to implement a more stringent vapor-recovery law, effective April 1, 2009, which requires that all gasoline pumps have a new, more effective vapor-recovery nozzle.

Underground gasoline storage tanks can also be a problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that there are some 660,000 of them from coast-to-coast. Many a lawsuit has been filed against oil firms in communities across the country by people whose soil and groundwater were fouled by a gas station’s leaking underground storage tank. In the past, most tanks were made of uncoated steel, which will rust over time. Also, pipes leading to the tanks can be accidentally ruptured.

When thousands of gallons of gasoline enter the soil, chemicals travel to groundwater, which the EPA says is the source of drinking water for nearly half the U.S. If buying a home, consider its potential loss in value if a nearby underground storage tank were to leak. Gasoline additives such as methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), which has been outlawed in some states, make the water undrinkable-and that is only one of 150 chemicals in gasoline. Repeated high exposure to gasoline, whether in liquid or vapor form, can cause lung, brain and kidney damage, according to the NIH’s National Library of Medicine.

Spilled or vaporized gasoline is not the only chemical hazard if the station is also a repair shop. Mechanics use solvents, antifreeze and lead products, and may work on vehicles that have asbestos in brakes or clutches. Auto refinishers and paint shops use even more potentially harmful chemicals.

In today’s car-centric world, we can’t escape exposure completely, because these chemicals are in our air just about everywhere. But by choosing where we live, keeping an eye out for spills, and pressuring the oil companies to do the right thing for the communities they occupy, we can minimize our exposures.

CONTACTS: U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov; National Institutes of Health, www.nih.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Do zoos have serious programs to save endangered species, besides putting a few captives on display for everyone to see? – Kelly Traw, Seattle, WA

Most zoos are not only great places to get up close to wildlife, but many are also doing their part to bolster dwindling populations of animals still living free in the wild. To wit, dozens of zoos across North America participate in the Association of Zoos and Aquarium’s (AZA’s) Species Survival Plan (SSP) Program, which aims to manage the breeding of specific endangered species in order to help maintain healthy and self-sustaining populations that are both genetically diverse and demographically stable.

The end goal of many SSPs is the reintroduction of captive-raised endangered species into their native wild habitats. According to the AZA, SSPs and related programs have helped bring black-footed ferrets, California condors, red wolves and several other endangered species back from the brink of extinction over the last three decades. Zoos also use SSPs as research tools to better understand wildlife biology and population dynamics, and to raise awareness and funds to support field projects and habitat protection for specific species. AZA now administers some 113 different SSPs covering 181 individual species.

To be selected as the focus of an SSP, a species must be endangered or threatened in the wild. Also, many SSP species are “flagship species,” meaning that they are well-known to people and engender strong feelings for their preservation and the protection of their habitat. The AZA approves new SSP programs if various internal advisory committees deem the species in question to be needy of the help and if sufficient numbers of researchers at various zoos or aquariums can dedicate time and resources to the cause.

AZA’s Maryland-based Conservation and Science Department administers the worldwide SSP program, generating master plans for specific species and coordinating research, transfer and reintroductions. Part of this process involves designing a “family tree” of particular managed populations in order to achieve maximum genetic diversity and demographic stability. AZA also makes breeding and other management recommendations with consideration given to the logistics and feasibility of transfers between institutions as well as maintenance of natural social groupings. In some cases, master plans may recommend not to breed specific animals, so as to avoid having captive populations outgrow available holding spaces.

While success stories abound, most wildlife biologists consider SSP programs to be works in progress. AZA zoos have been instrumental, for instance, in establishing a stable population of bongos, a threatened forest antelope native to Africa, through captive breeding programs under the SSP program. Many of these captive-bred bongos have subsequently been released into the wild and have helped bolster dwindling population numbers accordingly.

Of course, for every success story there are dozens of other examples where results have been less satisfying. SSP programs for lowland gorillas, Andean condors, giant pandas and snow leopards, among others, have not had such clear success, but remain part of the larger conservation picture for the species in question and the regions they inhabit

CONTACTS: AZA’s Conservation & Science Program, www.aza.org/Conscience.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Dear EarthTalk: If you have an electric or plug-in hybrid car, you’re paying for electricity rather than gasoline all or most of the time. How does that cost compare to a gas-powered car’s cost-per-mile? And since the electricity may be generated from some other polluting source, does it really work out to be better for the environment? — Kevin DeMarco, Milford, Connecticut

When you compare battery to gasoline power, electricity wins hands down. A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline-a price not seen at the pump for 30 years.

The calculation was made using an average cost of electricity of 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour and the estimated distance the car would travel on one charge, versus a car that gets 25 miles per gallon and is powered by $3 per gallon gasoline. Change any of those variables and the relative costs change. For example, substituting a car that gets 50 miles per gallon doubles the comparative electrical cost (though it still works out much cheaper than gasoline). On the other hand, in some areas where wind or hydropower is wasted at night-just when the PHEV would be charging-the utility might drop the kilowatt hour cost to two to three cents, making the charge much less costly.

And don’t worry that we’ll run out of electrical power: A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country’s current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants. (And if all those cars were replaced by PHEVs, it would eliminate the need for 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day, or 52 percent of current U.S. oil imports.)

Regarding environmental impact, charging up your car with electricity from the grid also wins handily over filling up at the gas station. In the most comprehensive PHEV study to date, released in 2007 by EPRI and the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), results predict that all greenhouse gases will be reduced as PHEVs begin to penetrate the car market. Estimated cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2010 to 2050, depending upon how fast PHEVs take hold, range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion tons.

More than one half of our national energy grid is powered by coal, and in areas where PHEVs are charged through coal-provided electricity, says NRDC, there is the possibility of increased levels of soot and mercury emissions. However, charging up can be much less of a guilt-ridden affair where cleaner electrical sources like wind and solar are available. The website HybridCars.com points out that as more power plants are required to develop green power and emit fewer greenhouse gases, the environmental and health benefits will further increase.

CONTACTS: Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com; HybridCars.com, www.hybridcars.com; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is aerial wolf gunning and why does Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorse the practice? — Vivian Anderson, Seattle, WA

Aerial wolf gunning involves stalking and shooting wolves from low-flying planes and helicopters. The practice yields better results than traditional ground-based hunting since it allows hunters to cover lots of ground quickly and track prey from an unobstructed “bird’s eye” vantage point. For these very reasons, some hunters-as well as many environmentalists and animal rights advocates-consider aerial hunting unsportsmanlike and even inhumane since it violates the “fair chase” ethic.

Aerial hunting is mostly forbidden on U.S. public lands per the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, passed by Congress in 1972. But individual states can allow it for the sake of protecting “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.” Alaska governor Frank Murkowski exploited this language in 2003 and signed a state bill allowing Alaskans to apply for permits to kill wolves-which some Alaskans’ fear take a large toll on the moose and caribou that hunters like to shoot-from aircraft.

But when Sarah Palin, herself an avid hunter, took over the governorship in 2006, she instituted a $150 bounty for any hunter who killed a wolf from an aircraft in select areas where moose and caribou populations were not as large as hunters would have liked. A state judge quickly put a halt on the bounty, ruling that the Palin administration lacked the authority to offer such payouts. But the judge was powerless to stop aerial hunting itself as long as it was done in a permitted fashion in the name of “predator control,” per the loophole in the federal ban.

Palin also approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign that helped undermine a recent ballot initiative to ban aerial hunting, and also introduced legislation to ease restrictions on the practice. In the four years Palin has been governor, upwards of 800 wolves have been killed by aerial hunting in Alaska. Palin has joined influential groups such as the Alaska Outdoor Council in maintaining that wolf populations need culling, as the great canines are literally stealing food from the tables of Alaska’s many subsistence hunters who rely on moose and caribou kills to feed their families through the long cold winters.

But Rodger Schlickeisen of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife says that it is Alaska’s small but politically influential commercial hunting interests-not subsistence hunters-who want to keep aerial wolf-gunning alive in the 49th state. “Their clear intention is to eliminate as many of nature’s major predators as possible to artificially increase moose and caribou numbers where it’ll then be easier for urban and wealthy out-of-state hunters to shoot their trophy animals,” he says, adding that scientific data do not show the need for stepping up predator control efforts.

Schlickeisen insists that most regular Alaskans are opposed to aerial hunting, even for the purpose of predator control. “Twice in the past 12 years, Alaska voters have approved state ballot initiatives to limit the use of aircraft to kill wildlife-and twice the state legislature, encouraged and abetted by the [appointed] board of game, has overridden the citizen-passed laws to restore use of aircraft,” he says.

CONTACTS: Alaska Outdoor Council, www.alaskaoutdoorcouncil.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s happening with wild populations of cheetahs, the fastest land animals on Earth? — Eduardo Ramirez, Braintree, MA

Due to its plight in recent decades, the cheetah, which can reach speeds of 70 miles per hour, is considered one of the world’s most endangered species by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

A hundred years ago some 100,000 wild cheetahs inhabited 44 or more countries throughout Africa and Asia. According to the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF), a Namibia-based non-profit organization, today the species exists in only two dozen of those countries-including areas of North Africa, the Sahel, East Africa and southern Africa-with worldwide population numbers now between 12,000 and 15,000 individuals living in small groups. In addition, about 150-200 of the fast cats live in the wild in Iran (where they are known as the Asiatic Cheetah), their forebears having been brought in from Africa in the early 20^th century.

The chief threats to the cheetah’s existence are loss of habitat, poaching and hunting (their hide and trophies can command top dollar), and getting shot by livestock farmers. Decline of gazelles, wildebeests, impalas and other preferred prey species (also due to hunting and habitat loss) is a factor, too.

According to CCF, throughout Africa cheetah numbers are dwindling even within protected wildlife reserves due to increased competition from other larger predators like lions and hyenas. As a result, most protected areas are unable to maintain viable cheetah populations, so individual cats tend to fan out beyond wildlife reserves, placing them in greater danger of conflict with humans. Those cheetahs that do survive in the wild come from a smaller, less diverse gene pool, leaving them susceptible to disease and predation in their own right. Furthermore, captive breeding has proven tricky, and wildlife biologists are not optimistic that such efforts can have a measurable positive impact on the cheetah’s future.

Cheetahs have lean bodies, long legs, a large heart and expansive lungs. And with these features come additional speed; perhaps this is why the cheetah is often referred to as the “greyhound” of the cats. In fact, some say a cheetah looks like a “dog with a cat’s head.” But with weaker jaws and smaller teeth than other large predators, cheetahs have difficulty protecting their kills, let alone their own cubs. This has meant that population numbers for wild cheetahs are falling faster than for other big cats.

The cheetah’s future may look dim, but conservationists have been working to lessen the decline in some areas. For instance, CCF began educating livestock farmers around Namibia in the early 1990s about how to prevent cheetahs from preying on their livestock without resorting to the rifle. As a result of these education efforts, along with stronger enforcement of endangered species and anti-poaching laws, cheetah populations in that country stabilized-now some 2,500-3,000 cheetahs make their home in Namibia-after having fallen to half that the previous decade. Clearly more such efforts are needed.

CONTACTS: Cheetah Conservation Fund, www.cheetah.org; Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), www.cites.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

EarthTalk^TM
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Don’t all these huge snow and ice storms across the country mean that the globe isn’t really warming? I’ve never seen such a winter! — Mark Franklin, Helena, MT

On the surface it certainly can appear that way. But just because some of us are suffering through a particularly cold and snowy winter doesn’t refute the fact that the globe is warming as we continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. And the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration (NOAA) reports that recent decades have been the warmest since at least around 1000 AD, and that the warming we’ve seen since the late 19^th century is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years.

“You can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even,” writes Eoin O’Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor. “It’s all in the long-term trends,” concurs Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations-like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter-do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.

The flip side of the question, of course, is whether global warming is at least partly to blame for especially harsh winter weather. As we pointed out in a recent EarthTalk column, warmer temperatures in the winter of 2006 caused Lake Erie to not freeze for the first time in its history. This actually led to increased snowfalls because more evaporating water from the lake was available for precipitation.

But while more extreme weather events of all kinds-from snowstorms to hurricanes to droughts-are likely side effects of a climate in transition, most scientists maintain that any year-to-year variation in weather cannot be linked directly to either a warming or cooling climate.

Even most global warming skeptics agree that a specific cold snap or freak storm doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not the climate problem is real. One such skeptic, Jimmy Hogan of the Rational Environmentalist website writes, “If we are throwing out anecdotal evidence that refutes global warming we must at the same time throw out anecdotal evidence that supports it.” He cites environmental groups holding up Hurricane Katrina as proof of global warming as one example of the latter.

If nothing else, we should all keep in mind that every time we turn up the thermostat this winter to combat the cold, we are contributing to global warming by consuming more fossil fuel power. Until we can shift our economy over to greener energy sources, global warming will be a problem, regardless of how warm or cold it is outside.

CONTACTS: NASA, www.nasa.gov; NOAA, www.noaa.gov.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Zoo Hospital is a plot-driven collection of mini-games that makes you a summer intern at your aunt’s zoo

The adventures unfold as you learn how to treat 40 kinds of animals including mammals, reptiles and birds. It’s your job to diagnose and treat the creatures and return them to their habitats healthy and well-adjusted.

Features:

• Explore the amazing world of animals and learn about animal care, and endangered and exotic species. Budding vets can become experts on their favorites!
• Use the Touch Screen and stylus in medical mini games to treat varied illnesses. Administer injections, apply ointment, pull teeth, remove deadly microbes, X Ray organs and much more!
• Treat 40 different patients from the bird, mammal and reptile families. Start with 10 unlocked animals including: eagle, kangaroo, jaguar, zebra, chimp, panda, hyena, male lion, fossa and cobra.
• Discover how best to calm stressed species through soothing touch.
• Develop new skills via observation, problem solving and motor control that help you successfully decipher a patient’s body language, perform a thorough examination and then determine the most appropriate treatment.
• Consult the Doctor’s Observational Computerized Clipboard (DOCC) to learn what’s ailing your patient while checking vital signs and statistics.
• Get help from, or help a friend in, 2-player cooperative multiplayer!
• Earn award plaques for your trophy room as you become an expert vet.

Get to work from tigers to mearcats as Zoo Hospital tests the DS’ touch screen capabilities in this fun-for-everyone title.

Quick hits:

Publisher: Majesco
Developer: Majesco
Platform: Nintendo DS
Genre: Strategy/Mini-game collection
Players: 1-2
Launch Date: October 23, 2007

Playability: 4 out of 5 stars
Learning Curve: 4 out of 5 stars
Sound: 4 out of 5 stars
Graphics: 4 out of 5 stars
Overall: 4 out of 5 stars