gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fforest-trends%2Fdebunked-eight-myths-abou_b_11245022.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Debunked: Eight Myths About Carbon Offsetting
By Will Tucker
This story first appeared on our Viewpoints blog and Ecosystem Marketplace

Let's preface this post with an indisputable fact: buying carbon offsets isn't going to solve climate change. No one (outside of the climate denial camp) disputes that avoiding climate catastrophe will require a deep decoupling of the economy and greenhouse gas emissions. But when Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace (EM) surveyed companies that buy carbon offsets, it found that they're using carbon markets to accelerate this deep transformation, rather than to create a green-tinted perpetuation of the status quo.

So, keeping that in mind - and parking our prejudices at the door - it's time to take a fresh look at offsetting and how it can strengthen corporate strategies to reduce carbon emissions. Where better to start than with these eight oft-recycled misconceptions about the practice:

Myth 1: Companies that buy offsets are just buying their way out of their obligations

We hear this one all the time, but our research shows something completely different: namely, that those companies that do buy offsets are doing so as part of an overall carbon-management strategy, and they're mostly using offsets to either tackle emissions they can't eliminate internally or to create an internal “price on carbon" that focuses attention on emissions and accelerates reductions. Among businesses tracked in EM's newest report, 88% of voluntary offset buyers and 92% of compliance buyers have formally adopted emissions reduction targets. In 2014, the 314 businesses that engage in offsetting invested more than US$42 billion in emissions reduction activities, surpassing the combined investment of the 1,522 companies who did not engage in offsetting (US$41 billion). In fact, companies that included offsetting in their carbon management strategy typically spend about 10 times more than the typical company that didn't offset. Contrary to the "greenwashing" narrative, it appears as though using offsets is increasingly the hallmark of a company that's leading on climate action rather than bringing up the rear.

Myth 2: Offsetting is niche or arcane

Actually, a lot of prominent consumer-facing brands use offsetting, including household names like General Motors, Delta Air Lines, and Microsoft, all of whom were among the top five buyers on the voluntary market in 2014. They're hardly alone: of the nearly 2,000 companies who publicly disclosed data to CDP last year, 248 (17%) invested in projects to reduce carbon emissions outside of their immediate operations, purchasing the equivalent of 39.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (MtCO2e) in 2014. (See the list of top-20 buyers from 2012-2014 here.)

Myth 3: Offsetting is expensive

Ultimately, offsets should be expensive to reflect the true cost of climate change, and companies that internally price carbon often do set their internal prices high to focus attention on the issue, but the average offset on the voluntary market sold for just $3.3/tonne of CO₂ equivalent last year. Even when the average price was more than double that value, it still fell significantly under the internal per-tonne price on carbon adopted by many companies: 120 of these businesses reported a median internal price of $18/tonne to CDP last year. Over time, the price of offsets should rise to reflect the cost of dealing with carbon emissions, but that's not an added cost imposed on us randomly; it's an existing cost being properly reflected. For now, however, offsets are cheap - too cheap.

Myth 4: Offsetting is too cheap to incentivize real change

This is true for now, but that's a question of policy, and not of product. So far, nearly all governments introduce caps on overall greenhouse gas emissions, and as those caps lower in accordance with the Paris Agreement, the price of allowances (issued by governments to permit emissions up to the level of the national cap) and offsets (created by entities that actively reduce emissions) should rise - unless, of course, emissions drop so far and fast that the problem is resolved.

Myth 5: Offsets come from a land faraway, from nebulous projects

Legitimate carbon offsets come from projects and are rigorously verified by third parties in accordance with recognized carbon standards, and many companies choose to buy from offset-generating projects close to home. Among voluntary offset transactions reported with geographical details in 2014, about a quarter involved a buyer purchasing offsets from the same location as its corporate headquarters. This practice is especially prevalent in North America, exemplified by the purchasing habits of companies like TD Bank and Waste Management Inc. The EM report speculates that brands buy offsets close to home in order to demonstrate impact to their consumers and bolster their "social license to operate" in a country or region.

Myth 6: Offsetting does not directly address emissions

Unlike the allowances used in cap-and-trade markets, offsets always represent real removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or avoided emissions somewhere in the world, and carbon standards require that developers demonstrate "additionality," which means they have to show that the emission reduction wouldn't have happened without the project. What's more, EM's newest report found that 79 companies are generating offsets within their own operations or supply chains by reducing emissions above and beyond regulatory requirement and economic incentives. L'Oreal, for example, distributes efficient, cleaner-burning stoves to women in Burkina Faso who boil the shea nuts used in its cosmetics products. Those stoves reduce emissions by reducing the need to chop trees, thereby saving forests, and they also reduce the health hazards of indoor smoke.

Myth 7: Offsetting barely makes a dent

Well, this one might be sort of true, but that's partly because global emission reduction agreements have yet to take effect, and also because offsets are designed to be part of an overall reduction strategy and not a substitute for one. Companies surveyed in the report typically offset less than 2% of their total emissions, usually because they're using offsets to compensate for just one segment of that total, like employee travel or the carbon footprint of a single product. Even the small percentage, however, represents a tangible impact on the climate - the over 140 MtCO₂e in offsets reported to CDP in 2014 had the equivalent impact of taking 30 million cars off the road for a year. As more companies sign on to the Science Based Targets Initiative, the percentage of emissions they address may go up.

Myth 8: Offsetting isn't scalable because there simply isn't enough demand

So far, the vast majority of companies that offset do so voluntarily, because there's no law telling them they have to. That's already changed in places like California, where companies are using offsets to help meet up to 8% of their emissions reduction obligation under the state's cap-and-trade system, and it will continue to change around the world as emissions trading ramps up under the Paris Agreement. Buyers in these nascent compliance markets disclosing to CDP reported purchasing nearly 27 MtCO2e in offsets in 2014. As industrial emissions drop, project developers are waiting with bated breath to see how things shake out in the aviation sector, where the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is determining rules for a Market-Based Mechanism (MBM) to help airlines achieve carbon-neutral growth starting in 2020.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1469720884000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmaria-rodale%2Ffercenomics_b_11240294.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
FERCenomics
"fercenomics"

by guest blogger Maya K. van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper

In March, a jury awarded $4.3 million to two Pennsylvania families that drank well water contaminated by methane. Gas wells drilled by an oil corporation leaked the methane into the water. As a result, the families suffered vomiting, dizziness and skin rashes. In April, a man in Salem, Pennsylvania, was burned in his home when a nearby natural gas pipeline exploded, destroying his house and sending him to the hospital.

What do these incidents have in common? Gas fracked from shale. And they are just a few of the many examples of people suffering at the hands of the industries drilling and transporting fracked shale gas.

From source to end use, fracked shale is harming communities. Research shows overwhelmingly that fracking contaminates our air and water. In Pennsylvania alone, there have already been more than 200 confirmed cases of drinking water contamination caused by natural gas drilling. Problems from contamination last for generations. For instance, children of mothers living within 10 miles of gas wells are 30 percent percent more likely to be born with congenital heart disease and twice as likely to have a neural tube defect.

In a rush to get this deadly gas to market, companies are scrambling to build more pipelines, which inflict a new set of harms and scars on humans and our environments. In fact, all across the country, the fracking industry is rushing to build ever-more dangerous pipelines, cutting through private property and public lands in the process. Not only do these pipeline developments encourage increased greenhouse-gas emissions, threatening the future of our planet, but they also create tangibly hazardous threats to human health and safety.

Much of this is approved by a federal agency known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). While FERC is tasked with reviewing and approving fracked gas pipelines to ensure orderly development that complies with the law, the agency has a long history of responding only to the needs of the fracking industry, failing to protect communities or natural resources that are fundamental to sustaining life.

FERC has used its authority to encourage and support the rapid proliferation of pipelines, compressors, and liquified natural gas facilities that export U.S. natural gas to other nations. FERC has used its legal authority to help the pipeline industry strip people of their property rights, forcing them to become unwilling hosts to dangerous pipelines that damage their property and limit their ability to use their own property. FERC has supported pipelines passing through farmland and business properties, even though some businesses have been forced to shut down and farmers have had reduced crop yields, damaging their ability to earn a living from the land, which threatens an occupation that has been a mainstay of American life. Communities that have purchased and protected public parks and forests for their enjoyment and environmental benefit have been forced to stand by as FERC-approved pipelines cut down trees and ram through creeks.

By exposing communities to dangerous chemicals, fracking endangers our homes and schools. And by continuing to expand the use of fossil fuels and fracking infrastructure, as a society, we are telling affected communities they are less important than industry goals. We are prioritizing the business profits of the fracked-gas industries ahead of the safety of us all.

But the cost of continued dependence on fossil fuels is far too great to support any longer.

Earlier this year, the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) filed multiple lawsuits against FERC, highlighting its bias, calling for change in its funding structure, and demanding accountability and responsibility in regulation. Congress is not holding FERC accountable for its abuses of law and power, so the people must--and we are seeking to do so through both our advocacy and the enforcement of the law in the courts. Hopefully, some day soon, some real congressional champions who want to advance, protect, and reform will step forward and fight with us for meangingful protection and change.

From PennEast to Atlantic Sunrise, Constitution to Leidy Southeast, new and costly pipelines are snaking through the Delaware River Basin and through our nation at large. However, we have the opportunity to stop this dangerous pattern. By demanding that our government uphold its obligations to protect the people first, enforce the environmental regulations already on the books, and stop the careless ruin of our communities and future. It's time for FERC to get the message.

Communities that want to learn more and want to reach out to their legislators to advance reform can do so at bit.ly/FERCNeedsInvestigation.

Maya K. van Rossum is the Delaware Riverkeeper, and has led the Delaware Riverkeeper Network (DRN) since 1994. The DRN is a regional nonprofit advocacy organization that monitors the river and all of its tributaries for threats and challenges, and that advocates, educates, and litigates for protection, restoration, and change.

For more from Maria Rodale, visit www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1469715509000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjohn-mandyck%2Fsleeping-giant-of-climate_b_11116124.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Sleeping Giant of Climate Change (Hint: It's Before Your Eyes)

One-third or more of all the global food produced never makes it from the farm to our fork. In fact, if measured as a country, food waste would be the third largest for greenhouse gas emissions, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization which revised upward its estimated carbon footprint of food waste to a staggering 3.6 gigatons of CO2.

With nations around the world starting to design programs to meet COP21 climate commitments, now is the time to address food waste as the sleeping climate giant surprisingly hidden before our eyes.

The Model for Success may be the Age of Energy Efficiency
As we tackle food waste, we can learn lessons from the energy conservation movement. The last 20 years was the Age of Energy Efficiency. Technology allowed the increasingly more efficient use of electricity distributed to more people and more buildings without new power plants and the resulting climate emissions. Since 1990, the 29 member countries of the International Energy Agency saved enough electricity through energy efficiency investments to avoid the equivalent emissions of 14,500 coal-fired power plants for one year. How did we do that? Energy efficiency rebates, education programs and regulatory signals for energy efficient technology development all played a role.

Age of Food Efficiency
Now, we need an Age of Food Efficiency. We already grow and produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet sadly on a planet of 7 billion people, nearly 1 billion people go to bed hungry every night.

Like energy, we need to efficiently spread the food we already grow and produce across more people without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Why shouldn't food conservation be every bit as important as energy conservation?

Like energy, we need the same prompts in rebates, education and technology development to lower food waste. We need a new paradigm. We need the Age of Food Efficiency where we waste less to feed more with big dividends to the environment.

Consumers are Part of the Problem and the Solution
The issue of food waste is not about despair or guilt. Rather, I see it as an opportunity for everyone to get involved - we can all do our own part. One-third of all food wasted globally happens at the consumer level. In the U.S., food is becoming the top item in many landfills. Let's buy just what we need so we don't throw so much away. Let's have a plan for every item placed in our grocery carts.

Here's Where the Rot Really Stinks
The other two-thirds of all food wasted globally happens at the production and distribution level, mostly in emerging economies where food often never makes it from the field from harvest, or frequently spoils in poor distribution systems or open-air markets. Access to capital, technologies and best educational practices would go a long way to make a difference - and all this could be prompted by emerging economies developing food waste reduction strategies to meet their COP21 climate commitments.

Why?

For two reasons. First, when food waste is managed as a climate issue, it will unlock new policies and new resources to do something about it.

Second, lowering food waste is the only climate policy that simultaneously reduces greenhouse gasses, feeds more people, saves water and promotes national security. No other policy can do the same.

I'm working with NGOs, policy makers, and colleagues in the food refrigeration industry to think about these issues every day. I want to hear what you think. Tweet me @JohnMandyck to continue the conversation.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1469715507000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Filana-solomon%2Fthis-video-shows-why-we-m_b_11239262.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
This video shows why we must stop TPP to keep fossil fuels in the ground
The climate movement has achieved critical wins recently. Protecting the Atlantic coast from offshore drilling, stopping fracking in New York, and defeating the Keystone XL pipeline to name a few. Yet, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), if approved by Congress, could undermine these and other critical climate victories. And the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) isn't looking much better. We can't let corporate trade deals hamper climate progress; we must defeat the TPP.

That's the message of a new video released by the Sierra Club today.

The video comes at a key moment in history. The TPP, a deal that was negotiated in secret with hundreds of corporate advisors and that grants broad new rights to multinational corporations, is facing immense opposition from over a thousand civil society organizations (including hundreds of environmental organizations), millions of members of the public, over a hundred city councils, economists, actors like Mark Ruffalo and Evangeline Lilly, musicians, and both presidential candidates.

And yet, TPP backers--mostly the same multinational corporations who helped craft the deal and will benefit from it--are eager for Congress to pass the agreement during the "lame duck" session in Congress late this year.

As our narrator Evangeline Lilly explains in the video, we can't let that happen, for the sake of our climate. Check it out:

It has never been more critical to take the bold action necessary to tackle climate disruption. The last thing we need is corporate-driven and polluter-friendly trade deals to get in the way. Please watch and share this video and, most importantly, call on your Member of Congress to oppose this corporate giveaway.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1469715503000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjeremy-symons%2Ftrump-now-blames-scientis_b_11228538.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Trump Now Blames Scientists For Global Warming 'Hoax'
Donald Trump offered a new explanation this week on why he believes climate change is a hoax. Past explanations have included blaming China for making up climate change for their benefit. But that was before being nominated for President. So what's his position today?

Speaking with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump gave an updated account of why he thinks global warming is a hoax.

O'REILLY: Did you ever call climate change a hoax?

TRUMP: Well, I might have because when I look at some of the things that are going on, in fact if you look at Europe where they had their big summit a couple of years ago, where people were sending out emails, scientists practically calling it a hoax and they were laughing at it. So, yeah, I probably did. I see what's going on and you see what's going on.

The Discredited ClimateGate Conspiracy Theory

Trump appears to be referring here to the illegal hacking of scientists' emails in 2009, which climate skeptics gleefully dubbed "ClimateGate." These conspiracy theories have been thoroughly debunked (see for example FactCheck.org , Union of Concerned Scientists, and Politifact). After the emails were released, every investigative report -- from the National Science Foundation Inspector General, NOAA's Inspector General, Penn State University, University of East Anglica, and the UK Parliament -- reached the same conclusion: nothing in the emails in any way altered the overwhelming scientific evidence that the world is warming due to increased levels of pollution.

Illegal Hacking Timed to Disrupt Climate Talks

Despite the thorough debunking of these attacks on scientists, the conspiracy theories gained traction in the media and, as Trump demonstrates, remain a convenient go-to point for skeptics today. The hacked emails were mysteriously dumped in 2009 on a server in Russia at an optimally timed moment as President Obama and world leaders were preparing to head to Copenhagen forge a new global climate agreement. The scientific community was instantly judged guilty in kangaroo courts led by Fox News and other media outlets who chased the story before investigating the facts. Fox News' Sean Hannity helped lead the charge, declaring:

HANNITY (2009): "it is safe to say that ClimateGate has revealed that global warming and that movement is run by hacks and frauds."

Fast forward to 2016

Today, NASA says there is a 99 percent chance that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, following the previous record set just last year. Three-quarters of Americans understand that the world is warming, which is creating a tough challenge for thoughtful Republicans who are caught between voters and a nominee who denies the problem.

Given his past statements, nobody should be surprised that Trump is dismissive of climate change. But endorsing the ClimateGate conspiracy theory years after it has been discredited should be alarming not only for the scientists he is ridiculing, but also for anyone who wants to make sure we leave a healthy planet for future generations.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1469651106000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F07%2F27%2Furgent-global-action-needed-to-stop-extinction-of-earths-last-megafauna%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Urgent Global Action Needed to Stop Extinction of Earth's Last Megafauna

A swift and global conservation response is needed to prevent the world's gorillas, lions, tigers, rhinos, and other iconic terrestrial megafauna from being lost forever, an influential group of international scientists reported today in the journal BioScience.

"7-1.cover" Their analysis, entitled Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna, covers the precipitous loss of large mammal populations around the globe, from the poorly known, such as the scimitar-horned oryx, to more familiar species including tigers, lions, gorillas and rhinoceroses, Panthera, one of the organizations associated with the research, said in a news statement.

The report was written by 43 wildlife experts from six continents. [At least 16 of them are scientists who have previously received research grants from the National Geographic Society.]

Business as Usual = Massive Species Extinction

The report included a 13-point declaration calling for acknowledgement that a “business as usual” mentality will result in massive species extinction; while a global commitment to conservation with support for developing nations is a moral obligation.

Declaration to Save the World's Terrestrial Megafauna

We conservation scientists

Acknowledge that most of the terrestrial megafauna species are threatened with extinction and have declining populations. Some megafauna species that are not globally threatened nonetheless face local extinctions or have Critically Endangered subspecies.
Appreciate that “business as usual” will result in the loss of many of the Earth's most iconic species.
Understand that megafauna have ecological roles that directly and indirectly affect ecosystem processes and other species through- out the food web; failure to reverse megafaunal declines will disrupt species interactions, with negative consequences for ecosystem function; biological diversity; and the ecological, economic, and social services that these species provide.
Realize that megafauna are epitomized as a symbol of the wilderness, exemplifying the public's engagement in nature, and that this is a driving force behind efforts to maintain the ecosystem services they can provide.
Recognize the importance of integrating and better aligning human development and biodiversity conservation needs through the engagement and support of local communities in developing countries.
Propose that funding agencies and scientists increase conservation research efforts in developing countries, where most threatened megafauna occur. Specifically, there is a need to increase the amount of research directed at finding solutions for the conservation of megafauna, especially for lesser-known species.
Request the help of individuals, governments, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations to stop practices that are harmful to these species and to actively engage in helping to reverse declines in megafauna.
Strive for increased awareness among the global public of the current megafauna crisis using traditional media as well as social media and other networking approaches.
Seek a new and comprehensive global commitment and framework for conserving megafauna. The international community should take necessary action to prevent mass extinction of the world's megafauna and other species.
Urge the development of new funding mechanisms to transfer the current benefits accrued through the existence values of mega- fauna into tangible payments to support research, conservation actions, and local people who bear the cost of living with wildlife in the places where highly valued megafauna must be preserved.
Advocate for interdisciplinary scientific interchange between nations to improve the social and ecological understanding of the drivers of the decline of megafauna and to increase the capacity for megafauna science and conservation.
Recommend the reintroduction and rehabilitation, following accepted IUCN guidelines, of degraded megafauna populations whenever possible, the ecological and economic importance of which is evidenced by a growing number of success stories, from Yellowstone's wolves (Canis lupus) and the Père David's deer (Elaphurus davidianus) in China to the various megafauna species of Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique.
Affirm an abiding moral obligation to protect the Earth's megafauna.

“The more I look at the trends facing the world's largest terrestrial mammals, the more concerned I am we could lose these animals just as science is discovering how important they are to ecosystems and to the services they provide to people,” said William Ripple, lead author and distinguished professor of ecology in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University. “It's time to really think about conserving them because declines in their numbers and habitats are happening quickly.”

“To underline how serious this is, the rapid loss of biodiversity and megafauna in particular is an issue that is right up there with, and perhaps even more pressing than, climate change,” said senior co-author and Panthera Lion Program Policy Initiative Coordinator Dr. Peter Lindsey.

“Human communities stand to lose key elements of their natural heritage if these large wildlife species are allowed to go extinct,” Lindsey continued. “The disappearance of such species could also significantly undermine the future potential for communities to benefit from eco-tourism operations. Urgent measures are needed to address poaching, and to allow for the co-existence of people and wildlife if megafauna is to persist in the long term.”

Action Needed on Two Fronts

The scientists call for action on two fronts, Panthera explained: conservation interventions expanded to scales that address animals' extensive habitat needs, and policy shifts and increased financial commitment to alter the ways in which people interact with wildlife.

“Among the most serious threats to endangered animals are the expansion of livestock and agricultural developments, illegal hunting, deforestation and human population growth. Large wildlife species are extremely vulnerable to these threats because of their need for extensive spaces to live and low population densities, particularly for carnivores.”

Panthera President and Chief Conservation Officer and co-author Dr. Luke Hunter, said: “Among the world's largest animals, apex predators like the tiger, lion and leopard are increasingly under assault. The protection of these big cats the great white sharks of our terrestrial Earth and other large mammals is paramount to the health and survival of thousands of animals and their ecosystems.

“Today, 59 percent of the world's largest carnivores and 60 percent of the world's largest herbivores are categorized as threatened with extinction on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. This situation is particularly dire in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, home to the greatest diversity of remaining large mammals.

“Yet the resources for effective implementation of conservation strategies are seldom available in regions with the greatest needs. The onus is on developed countries, which have long ago lost most of their large animals, to support conservation initiatives where the world's most celebrated wildlife still remain.”

"Graphic — Graphic courtesy of BioScience

Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna Authors

WILLIAM J. RIPPLE, GUILLAUME CHAPRON, JOSÉ VICENTE LÓPEZ-BAO, SARAH M. DURANT, DAVID W. MACDONALD, PETER A. LINDSEY, ELIZABETH L. BENNETT, ROBERT L. BESCHTA, JEREMY T. BRUSKOTTER, AHIMSA CAMPOS-ARCEIZ, RICHARD T. CORLETT, CHRIS T. DARIMONT, AMY J. DICKMAN, RODOLFO DIRZO, HOLLY T. DUBLIN, JAMES A. ESTES, KRISTOFFER T. EVERATT, MAURO GALETTI, VARUN R. GOSWAMI, MATT W. HAYWARD, SIMON HEDGES, MICHAEL HOFFMANN, LUKE T. B. HUNTER, GRAHAM I. H. KERLEY, MIKE LETNIC, TAAL LEVI, FIONA MAISELS, JOHN C. MORRISON, MICHAEL PAUL NELSON, THOMAS M. NEWSOME, LUKE PAINTER, ROBERT M. PRINGLE, CHRISTOPHER J. SANDOM, JOHN TERBORGH, ADRIAN TREVES, BLAIRE VAN VALKENBURGH, JOHN A. VUCETICH, AARON J. WIRSING, ARIAN D. WALLACH, CHRISTOPHER WOLF, ROSIE WOODROFFE, HILLARY YOUNG, AND LI ZHANG

This post was compiled from materials sent by Panthera and published in BioScience

gaia