30 Dec 2009

Nina in Pina sta diplomirali!

Nina Ražen in Pina Gruden, članici ekipe društva Morigenos, sta diplomirali na Oddelku za biologijo na Biotehniški fakulteti. Nina je pod okriljem Oddelka za biologijo preučevala rabo habitata in vzorce gibanja volka v Sloveniji, Pina pa pod okriljem Univerze v Aberdeenu (Škotska) uporabo akustičnih naprav za ugotavljanje dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na rabo habitata delfinov na Škotskem.


22 Dec 2009

Kit grbavec kandidat za Ime leta 2009

Poslušalci Vala 202 so v februarju kita grbavca (Megaptera novaeangliae), ki je takrat obiskal slovensko morje, izbrali za ime tedna. Na Valu 202 so (malo v šali, malo zares) Tilna Genova, ki je sicer predsednik društva Morigenos in je kita takrat prvi identificiral, izbrali kot kitovega »uradnega zastopnika« in ga povabili k nadaljnjemu sodelovanju. Kit grbavec je zatem postal še ime meseca februarja in se tako uvrstil med finaliste za Ime leta 2009. Včeraj, 21. decembra 2009 se je v Kinu Šiška odvila zaključna prireditev Ime leta 2009, kjer so razglasili zmagovalca. Nagrado je prejel dr. Erik Brecelj, kirurg z Onkološkega inštituta, Tilen Genov pa je v imenu kita grbavca in društva Morigenos prejel simbolično darilo za uvrstitev med finaliste. Poleg kita grbavca in dr. Breclja so bili finalisti še Petra Majdič, Tomo Križnar, Mercedes Lovrečič, Anton Lavrenčič, Tim Gornik, Primož Kozmus, Peter Kauzer, Sonja Lenarčič, Matjaž Kek in Dejan Zavec. »Našemu« kitu iz srca čestitamo in upamo, da varno plava nekje v širnih vodah Atlantika!

Foto: Tilen Genov, Morigenos

8 Dec 2009

Is population growth really the big environmental issue?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 29th Septeember 2009

It’s no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men: it’s about the only environmental issue for which they can’t be blamed. The brilliant earth systems scientist James Lovelock, for example, claimed last month that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”(1) But it’s Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational.

A paper published yesterday in the journal Environment and Urbanization shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three per cent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions(2).

Even this does not capture it. The paper points out that around one sixth of the world’s population is so poor that it produces no significant emissions at all. This is also the group whose growth rate is likely to be highest. Households in India earning less than 3,000 rupees a month use a fifth of the electricity per head and one seventh of the transport fuel of households earning Rs30,000 or more. Street sleepers use almost nothing. Those who live by processing waste (a large part of the urban underclass) often save more greenhouse gases than they produce.

Many of the emissions for which poorer countries are blamed should in fairness belong to us. Gas flaring by companies exporting oil from Nigeria, for example, has produced more greenhouse gases than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa put together(3). Even deforestation in poor countries is driven mostly by commercial operations delivering timber, meat and animal feed to rich consumers. The rural poor do far less harm(4).

The paper’s author, David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development, points out that the old formula taught to all students of development - that total impact equals population times affluence times technology (I=PAT) - is wrong. Total impact should be measured as I=CAT: consumers times affluence times technology. Many of the world’s people use so little that they wouldn’t figure in this equation. They are the ones who have most children.

While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth. I’ve been taking a look at a few superyachts, as I’ll need somewhere to entertain Labour ministers in the style to which they’re accustomed. First I went through the plans for Royal Falcon Fleet’s RFF135, but when I discovered that it burns only 750 litres of fuel per hour(5) I realised that it wasn’t going to impress Lord Mandelson. I might raise half an eyebrow in Brighton with the Overmarine Mangusta 105, which sucks up 850 l/hr(6). But the raft that’s really caught my eye is made by Wally Yachts in Monaco. The WallyPower 118 (which gives total wallies a sensation of power) consumes 3400 l/hr when travelling at 60 knots(7). That’s nearly one litre per second. Another way of putting it is 31 litres per kilometre(8).

Of course to make a real splash I’ll have to shell out on teak and mahogany fittings, carry a few jet skis and a mini-submarine, ferry my guests to the marina by private plane and helicopter, offer them bluefin tuna sushi and beluga caviar and drive the beast so fast that I mash up half the marine life of the Mediterranean. As the owner of one of these yachts I’ll do more damage to the biosphere in ten minutes than most Africans inflict in a lifetime. Now we’re burning, baby.

Someone I know who hangs out with the very rich tells me that in the banker belt of the lower Thames valley there are people who heat their outdoor swimming pools to bath temperature, all round the year. They like to lie in the pool on winter nights, looking up at the stars. The fuel costs them £3000 a month. One hundred thousand people living like these bankers would knacker our life support systems faster than 10 billion people living like the African peasantry. But at least the super wealthy have the good manners not to breed very much, so the rich old men who bang on about human reproduction leave them alone.

In May the Sunday Times carried an article headlined “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation”. It revealed that “some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly” to decide which good cause they should support. “A consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”(9) The ultra-rich, in other words, have decided that it’s the very poor who are trashing the planet. You grope for a metaphor, but it’s impossible to satirise.

James Lovelock, like Sir David Attenborough and Jonathan Porritt, is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). It is one of dozens of campaigns and charities whose sole purpose is to discourage people from breeding in the name of saving the biosphere. But I haven’t been able to find any campaign whose sole purpose is to address the impacts of the very rich.

The obsessives could argue that the people breeding rapidly today might one day become richer. But as the super wealthy grab an ever greater share and resources begin to run dry, this, for most of the very poor, is a diminishing prospect. There are strong social reasons for helping people to manage their reproduction, but weak environmental reasons, except among wealthier populations.

The Optimum Population Trust glosses over the fact that the world is going through demographic transition: population growth rates are slowing down almost everywhere and the number of people is likely, according to a paper in Nature, to peak this century(10), probably at around 10 billion(11). Most of the growth will take place among those who consume almost nothing.

But no one anticipates a consumption transition. People breed less as they become richer, but they don’t consume less; they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in Lovelock’s words, “hiding from the truth”. It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

So where are the movements protesting about the stinking rich destroying our living systems? Where is the direct action against superyachts and private jets? Where’s Class War when you need it?

It’s time we had the guts to name the problem. It’s not sex; it’s money. It’s not the poor; it’s the rich.



1. Optimum Population Trust, 26th August 2009 Gaia Scientist to be OPT Patron.

2. David Satterthwaite, September 2009. The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. Environment & Urbanization, Vol 21(2): 545–567. DOI: 10.1177/0956247809344361.

3. http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs-members/economic-justice/gasnigeria.pdf

4. For example, Satterthwaite cites the study by Gerald Leach and Robin Mearns, 1989. Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis – People, Land and Trees in Africa, Earthscan Publications, London.

5. http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20090802125307syb.html

6. http://www.jameslist.com/advert/5480

7. http://machinedesign.com/article/118-wallypower-a-high-end-power-boat-0616

8. 15 US gallons/nm = 56.775l/nm = 31 l/km.

9. John Harlow, 24th May 2009. Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation. The Sunday Times.

10. Wolfgang Lutz, Warren Sanderson and Sergei Scherbov, 20th January 2008. The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06516

11. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005. World Population Prospects. The 2004
Revision. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

Photo: Tilen Genov, Morigenos

1 Dec 2009

Darujte brezplačno! Nič vas ne stane, da ste dobrodelni!

Pri našem delu nam lahko bistveno pomagate, tudi če ne želite prispevati denarja ali aktivno sodelovati. Naj vam razložimo kako.

Ministrstvo Republike Slovenije za okolje in prostor je društvu Morigenos v letu 2006 podelilo status društva, ki deluje v javnem interesu na področju ohranjanja narave. To (poleg tega, da delamo dobro in da pomembnost društva presega zgolj interese njegovih članov) pomeni, da lahko vsak davčni zavezanec del odmerjene dohodnine (do 0,5 %) namesto državnemu proračunu nameni delovanju društva Morigenos.

S tem se država, v skladu s 142. členom Zakona o dohodnini – ZDoh-2 (Uradni list RS, št. 117/06, 10/08,
78/08), odpoveduje delu sredstev iz dohodnin v korist dobrodelnim in neprofitnim organizacijam, kot je naša.

Drugače rečeno, del dohodnine, ki ga boste v vsakem primeru morali dati državi, lahko namenite društvu Morigenos.

Seznam upravičencev do tovrstnih donacij je dostopen tukaj.


Postopek je enostaven in ne zahteva mnogo truda. Sredstva iz dohodnine nam lahko namenite na 3. načine:

1.) Zahtevo lahko podate preko sistema eDavki na spletni strani http://edavki.durs.si. Naši podatki so spodaj.

2.) Zahtevo lahko podate pisno, na obrazcu, ki ga najdete na tem naslovu: -> OBRAZEC.
Naši podatki so spodaj. Obrazec natisnite, izpolnite in ga pošljite na naslov:

Davčna uprava Republike Slovenije
p.p. 631
Šmartinska cesta 55
SI-1000 Ljubljana

3.) Zahtevo lahko podate tudi ustno pri davčnem organu.


Naziv upravičenca Davčna številka upravičenca Odstotek (%)

Društvo za raziskovanje in zaščito morskih sesalcev - Morigenos



Verjetno ni potrebno posebej poudarjati, kako dragocen bo vaš prispevek za nadaljnje in uspešno delo društva Morigenos.

Z zbranim denarjem bomo, kot vedno doslej, nadvse gospodarno in skrbno ravnali. Ves denar je namenjen izključno znanstvenemu preučevanju delfinov ter aktivnostim za varstvo morja.

Za vsak vaš prispevek se vam iskreno zahvaljujemo!