World News Blog
..for global affairs!
Worldblog.eu covers the latest world news - providing regional perspectives to current global affairs.
Australians to fortify coast homes against climate
Australians living beside some of the country’s finest beaches will be allowed to fortify their beach front homes against rising seas and storms, as climate change increasingly threatens the heavily-populated east coast.
Many Australians live within a short car-ride of the coast and are feeling the impact of more frequent storms blamed in part on global warming, prompting national soul-searching over whether to adopt a “retreat or defend” approach to beach living.
Environmentalists fear widespread coastal defenses could scar beaches and 
cause massive erosion, as the movement of sand is blocked by concrete and stone barriers.
But the government in New South Wales (NSW) state, home to a third of the country’s 22 million population, said it would override local planning and allow coastal fortification, with appropriate environmental safeguards.
“It’s not just, ‘I’ll build a wall’, it’ll protect me and I’ll be right mate,” Simon 
Smith, the Deputy Director of the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper.
Scientists say Australia is experiencing “accelerated climate change” because of its dry climate, resulting in more frequent storms, droughts and estimated average temperature rises of between 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100.
It is estimated that over 700,000 coastal properties in Australia are threatened by rising sea levels, with coastal flooding and erosion costing 
NSW A$200 million a year.
The NSW government said it would list 19 “hot spot” beaches where waterfront homes were at risk from rising sea levels, including several along Sydney’s upmarket northern coast, where the popular television series “Home and Away” was largely filmed.
Property owners in those areas would be given more rights to construct sea walls and barriers
, with the state government appointing itself as final judge over any barrier plans rejected by local councils.
The plan would also target the famous resort town of Byron Bay and the nearby international surfing mecca of Lennox Head, after legal wrangles between coastal homeowners and the council.
Source:
Reuters, “Australians to fortify coast homes against climate“, accessed October 20, 2009
Conservation: Minimum Population Size Targets Too Low To Prevent Extinction?
Conservation biologists are setting their minimum population size targets too low to prevent extinction.
That’s according to a new study by University of Adelaide and Macquarie University scientists which has shown that populations of endangered species are unlikely to persist in the face of global climate change and habitat loss unless they number around 5000 mature individuals or more.
The findings have been published online in the journal Biological Conservation.
“Conservation biologists routinely underestimate or ignore the number of 
animals or plants required to prevent extinction,” says lead author Dr Lochran Traill, from the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute. (Right: China’s Panda Bears)
“Often, they aim to maintain tens or hundreds of individuals, when thousands are actually needed. Our review found that populations smaller than about 5000 had unacceptably high extinction rates. This suggests that many targets for conservation recovery are simply too small to do much good in the long run.”
A long-standing idea in species restoration programs is the so-called 
‘50/500′ rule. This states that at least 50 adults are required to avoid the damaging effects of inbreeding, and 500 to avoid extinctions due to the inability to evolve to cope with environmental change. (Left: Congo Silverback Gorillas)
“Our research suggests that the 50/500 rule is at least an order of magnitude too small to effectively stave off extinction,” says Dr Traill. “This does not necessarily imply that populations smaller than 5000 are doomed. But it does highlight the challenge that small populations face in adapting to a rapidly changing world.”
Team member Professor Richard Frankham, from Macquarie University’s Department of Biological Sciences, says: “Genetic diversity within 
populations allows them to evolve to cope with environmental change, and genetic loss equates to fragility in the face of such changes.” (Right: Rocky Mountain Grey Wolf)
Conservation biologists worldwide are battling to prevent a mass extinction event in the face of a growing human population and its associated impact on the planet.
“The conservation management bar needs to be a lot higher,” says Dr Traill. “However, we shouldn’t necessarily give up on critically endangered species numbering a few hundred of individuals in the wild. Acceptance that more needs to be done if we are to stop ‘managing for extinction’ should force decision makers to be more explicit about what they are aiming for, and what they are willing to trade off, when allocating conservation funds.”
Source:
Science Daily, “Conservation: Minimum Population Size Targets Too Low To Prevent Extinction?“, accessed October 20, 2009
Iran Arrests Three Involving Deaths of Revolutionary Guard Commanders
Funerals for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards killed by bomb blasts in Sistan-Beluchestan on October 18, 2009. Three arrests have been reportedly made in the case.
Originally uploaded by Pan-African News Wire File Photos
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
00:35 Mecca time, 21:35 GMT
Iran arrests three over bomb blast
Mourners filled the streets of Tehran for the funerals of commanders killed in the blast
Three Iranians have been arrested in connection to Sunday’s suicide bombing attack in the country’s southeast that killed at least 42 people, authorities say.
A leading prosecutor on Tuesday said police detained the three on suspicion of involvement in the blast that struck the heart of the country’s security forces in Sistan-Baluchestan.
“Due to security reasons, I am not giving the details of their names, but these terrorists are Iranians,” Mohammad Marziah, the prosecutor in Zahedan, the provincial capital, told Iran’s Fars news agency.
Authorities are also seeking a man who accompanied the suicide bomber, Marziah said.
Fifteen members of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards were among those killed in the attack, which struck ahead of a meeting between Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal chiefs.
Guards mourned
Throngs of uniformed mourners paid their respects for the dead at a funeral on Tuesday in Tehran, Iran’s capital.
A Sunni group, Jundollah, has claimed responsibility for the attack, but Iranian authorities have accused Pakistan of having links to the bombers, a charge Pakistan denies.
Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister, said members of the group accused of mounting the attack regularly criss-cross the frontier with Pakistan.
“Members of this terrorist group regularly violate the border and launch attacks inside Iran,” he said, without naming the group.
“They cross into Iran illegally. They are based in Pakistan.”
Also on Tuesday, a senior commander called for permission to go into Pakistan to hunt for who he called “terrorists”, state television reported.
Brigadier-General Mohammad Pakpour, the head of the Revolutionary Guards ground forces, said his forces are ready to confront those believed responsible for the attacks.
“Counter-revolutionary sanctuary’
“So far Pakistan has not co-operated with us and today the main counter-revolutionary sanctuary is Pakistan,” the AFP news agency quoted Pakpour as saying.
“The terrorists are being trained in that country and Pakistani officials should have the ability to confront the elements on their own soil.”
Earlier, Major-General Muhammad Ali Jafari, the head of the Revolutionary Guards, named the prime suspect behind the bombing as Abd ul-Malik Rigi - who is believed to be based in Pakistan.
Jafari said Tehran would send a delegation to Islamabad to deliver “proof to them so they know that the Islamic Republic is aware of Pakistan’s support”.
He also expressed his belief that US and British intelligence services were involved and that there would “have to be retaliatory measures to punish them”.
But a Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman has rejected the claim.
“Pakistan is not involved in terrorist activities … we are striving to eradicate this menace,” he said.
Washington has also denied involvement with the group, which it has labelled as a “terrorist” organisation, and has condemned the attack.
Source: Al Jazeera and agencies
Afghanistan Election Runoff
Dr Abdullah Abdullah and President Hamid Karzai
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has agreed to a runoff presidential election in the wake of convincing evidence that as many as one quarter of the votes cast for him in the recent election were fraudulent. He really had no choice.
The perception of such wide ranging corruption - even for one of the most corrupt places on the planet - did not sit well with many international observers, not to mention the Americans who have over 65,000 troops in the country. The specter of such fraud and corruption plays into the hands of those who are attempting draw parallels between U.S involvement in Afghanistan with that of another corrupt government 40 years ago, that being in South Vietnam.
This election has far reaching implications for the future of Afghanistan. As long as there is no final outcome, the Obama Administration cites that as a reason to delay the President’s strategy determination. All the while, battles go on and the Taliban attempts to take advantage of the indecision in both Kabul and more importantly, Washington. Not only does the Afghan government appear to have no direction or commitment, neither does the American administration.
Both candidates are true Afghan patriots, even though one may be temporarily tainted by what we in the West consider corruption. We need to be very careful about focusing on Afghan culture and processes through a Western optic. Corruption and payoffs are a way of life - it always has been and from my observations, probably always will be.
Both Karzai and Abdullah opposed the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, and both were intimately involved in the American-supported operation to remove the Taliban after September 11, 2001. Abdullah’s credentials may be a bit stronger than Karzai’s but both were involved.
There is an ethnic factor to consider as well. Karzai is a Pashtun from an influential Kandahar family. Abdullah has always been considered a Tajik, although during the campaign he chose to reveal that his father had been a Pashtun. In any case, he was raised in the Panjshir valley, the Tajik heartland. Since only a quarter to one third of the population (there has never been a census), his declaration of Pashtun heritage is understandable. It will be difficult, but not impossible to overcome Pashtun solidarity.
Another overlooked but important factor may transcend the ethnic issue. This election runoff will be a referendum on the future structure of the Afghan government. Karzai prefers to continue the status quo with a presidential system - after all, he is the incumbent and likes the power concentrated in the executive.
Abdullah has stated a preference for a parliamentary system with a prime minister as head of government. To do this, he would have to convene a loya jirga and change the constitution, but it is possible.
I tend to favor Abdullah. He seems to be more above the corruption that has permeated the Karzai administration, and might have a broader power base throughout the country. That will be important as the improving Afghan security forces attempt to exert their control over the entire country. Of course, this control will come at the expense of the warlords. They might feel better dealing with Abdullah - he appeals to a wider audience.
In any case, the fact that there are elections in Afghanistan is a good thing. It will happen - there is no need for our president to wait for the results before he decides what our strategy will be. Make a decision and give the country a chance. If we wait to long, it may be a moot point.
Partner: