Synthesizing and databasing fossil calibrations: divergence dating and beyond

Divergence dating studies, which combine temporal data from the fossil record with branch length data from molecular phylogenetic trees, represent a rapidly expanding approach to understanding the history of life. National Evolutionary Synthesis Center hosted the first Fossil Calibrations Working Group (3–6 March, 2011, Durham, NC, USA), bringing together palaeontologists, molecular evolutionists and bioinformatics experts to present perspectives from disciplines that generate, model and use fossil calibration data. Presentations and discussions focused on channels for interdisciplinary collaboration, best practices for justifying, reporting and using fossil calibrations and roadblocks to synthesis of palaeontological and molecular data. Bioinformatics solutions were proposed, with the primary objective being a new database for vetted fossil calibrations with linkages to existing resources, targeted for a 2012 launch.

Review ["Telling the Evolutionary Time : Molecular Clocks and the Fossil Record" edited by Philip C. J. Donoghue and M. Paul Smith]

Determining the temporal scale of biological evolution has traditionally been the preserve of paleontology, with the timing of species originations and major diversifications all being read from the fossil record. However, the ages of the earliest (correctly identified) records will underestimate actual origins due to the incomplete nature of the fossil record and the necessity for lineages to have evolved sufficiently divergent morphologies in order to be distinguished. The possibility of inferring divergence times more accurately has been promoted by the idea that the accumulation of genetic change between modern lineages can be used as a molecular clock (Zuckerkandl and Pauling, 1965). In practice, though, molecular dates have often been so old as to be incongruent even with liberal readings of the fossil record. Prominent examples include inferred diversifications of metazoan phyla hundreds of millions of years before their Cambrian fossil record appearances (e.g., Nei et al., 2001) and a basal split between modern birds (Neoaves) that is almost double the age of their earliest recognizable fossils (e.g., Cooper and Penny, 1997).

Thorough assessment of DNA preservation from fossil bone and sediments excavated from a late Pleistocene–Holocene cave deposit on Kangaroo Island, South Australia

Fossils and sediments preserved in caves are an excellent source of information for investigating impacts of past environmental changes on biodiversity. Until recently studies have relied on morphology-based palaeontological approaches, but recent advances in molecular analytical methods offer excellent potential for extracting a greater array of biological information from these sites. This study presents a thorough assessment of DNA preservation from late Pleistocene–Holocene vertebrate fossils and sediments from Kelly Hill Cave Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Using a combination of extraction techniques and sequencing technologies, ancient DNA was characterised from over 70 bones and 20 sediment samples from 15 stratigraphic layers ranging in age from >20 ka to ∼6.8 ka. A combination of primers targeting marsupial and placental mammals, reptiles and two universal plant primers were used to reveal genetic biodiversity for comparison with the mainland and with the morphological fossil record for Kelly Hill Cave. We demonstrate that Kelly Hill Cave has excellent long-term DNA preservation, back to at least 20 ka. This contrasts with the majority of Australian cave sites thus far explored for ancient DNA preservation, and highlights the great promise Kangaroo Island caves hold for yielding the hitherto-elusive DNA of extinct Australian Pleistocene species.

Divest Harvard: Climate justice, higher education, and fossil fuel divestment

On the 19 November 2014, seven Harvard students — the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition — have brought a legal action against Harvard University to compel it to withdraw its investments from fossil fuel companies. The plaintiffs include the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition; Alice Cherry, a law student; Benjamin Franta, a physics student interested in renewable energy; Sidni Frederick, a student of history and literature; Joseph Hamilton, a law student; Olivia Kivel, a biologist interested in sustainable farming; Talia Rothstein, a student of history and literature; and Kelsey Skaggs, a law student from Alaska interested in climate justice. The Harvard Climate Justice Coalition also bringing the lawsuit as ‘next friend of Plaintiffs Future Generations, individuals not yet born or too young to assert their rights but whose future health, safety, and welfare depends on current efforts to slow the pace of climate change.’ The case of Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, is being heard in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The dispute will be an important precedent on the ongoing policy and legal battles in respect of climate change, education, and fossil fuel divestment.

Fossil free Stanford: Universities, climate ethics, and fossil fuel divestment

There has been an international movement led by 350.org, Bill McKibben, and student groups to encourage schools, universities, and educational institutions to divest their endowments of fossil fuel stocks. The decision of Stanford University on coal divestment should an inspiration for elite universities around the world.

The fossil calibration database - A new resource for divergence dating

Fossils provide the principal basis for temporal calibrations, which are critical to the accuracy of divergence dating analyses. Translating fossil data into minimum and maximum bounds for calibrations is the most important, and often least appreciated, step of divergence dating. Properly justified calibrations require the synthesis of phylogenetic, paleontological, and geological evidence and can be difficult for non-specialists to formulate. The dynamic nature of the fossil record (e.g., new discoveries, taxonomic revisions, updates of global or local stratigraphy) requires that calibration data be updated continually lest they become obsolete. Here, we announce the Fossil Calibration Database (http://fossilcalibrations.org), a new open-access resource providing vetted fossil calibrations to the scientific community. Calibrations accessioned into this database are based on individual fossil specimens and follow best practices for phylogenetic justification and geochronological constraint. The associated Fossil Calibration Series, a calibration-themed publication series at Palaeontologia Electronica, will serve as one key pipeline for peer-reviewed calibrations to enter the database.

Four mammal fossil calibrations: Balancing competing palaeontological and molecular considerations

With the introduction of relaxed-clock molecular dating methods, the role of fossil calibration has expanded from providing a timescale, to also informing the models for molecular rate variation across the phylogeny. Here I suggest fossil calibration bounds for four mammal clades, Monotremata (platypus and echidnas), Macropodoidea (kangaroos and potoroos), Caviomorpha-Phiomorpha (South American and African hystricognath rodents), and Chiroptera (bats). In each case I consider sources of uncertainty in the fossil record and provide a molecular dating analysis to examine how the suggested calibration priors are further informed by other mammal fossil calibrations and molecular data.

Future Fund drops tobacco: Should fossil fuels be next?

After a year long public campaign, the Future Fund has today announced plans to end its $222 million investment in tobacco.

Can the Gates Foundation be convinced to dump fossil fuels?

This week, The Guardian newspaper has campaigned for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to divest its fossil fuel investments – which the newspaper claims are worth US$1.4 billion. The foundation can and should address the climate crisis, particularly given the threat it poses to food security, public health, human rights, and the development agenda.

Mary Robinson's declaration of climate justice: Climate change, human rights and fossil fuel divestment

In her biography, Everybody Matters: My Life Giving Voice, Mary Robinson explained how she became interested in the topic of human rights and climate change, after hearing testimony from African farmers, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Greenwashing the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Fossil fuels, the environment, and climate change

There has been much controversy over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a plurilateral trade agreement involving a dozen nations from throughout the Pacific Rim – and its impact upon the environment, biodiversity, and climate change. The secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, and Japan; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Canada, Mexico and the United States. There was an agreement reached between the parties in October 2015. The participants asserted: ‘We expect this historic agreement to promote economic growth, support higher-paying jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and to promote transparency, good governance, and strong labor and environmental protections.’ The final texts of the agreement were published in November 2015. There has been discussion as to whether other countries – such as Indonesia, the Philippines, and South Korea – will join the deal. There has been much debate about the impact of this proposed treaty upon intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity and climate change. There have been similar concerns about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a proposed trade agreement between the United States and the European Union. In 2011, the United States Trade Representative developed a Green Paper on trade, conservation, and the environment in the context of the TPP. In its rhetoric, the United States Trade Representative has maintained that it has been pushing for strong, enforceable environmental standards in the TPP. In a key statement in 2014, the United States Trade Representative Mike Froman insisted: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative maintained: ‘Our proposals in the TPP are centered around the enforcement of environmental laws, including those implementing multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in TPP partner countries, and also around trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals that will raise standards across the region’. Moreover, the United States Trade Representative asserted: ‘Furthermore, our proposals would enhance international cooperation and create new opportunities for public participation in environmental governance and enforcement.’ The United States Trade Representative has provided this public outline of the Environment Chapter of the TPP: A meaningful outcome on environment will ensure that the agreement appropriately addresses important trade and environment challenges and enhances the mutual supportiveness of trade and environment. The Trans-Pacific Partnership countries share the view that the environment text should include effective provisions on trade-related issues that would help to reinforce environmental protection and are discussing an effective institutional arrangement to oversee implementation and a specific cooperation framework for addressing capacity building needs. They also are discussing proposals on new issues, such as marine fisheries and other conservation issues, biodiversity, invasive alien species, climate change, and environmental goods and services. Mark Linscott, an assistant Trade Representative testified: ‘An environment chapter in the TPP should strengthen country commitments to enforce their environmental laws and regulations, including in areas related to ocean and fisheries governance, through the effective enforcement obligation subject to dispute settlement.’ Inside US Trade has commented: ‘While not initially expected to be among the most difficult areas, the environment chapter has emerged as a formidable challenge, partly due to disagreement over the United States proposal to make environmental obligations binding under the TPP dispute settlement mechanism’. Joshua Meltzer from the Brookings Institute contended that the trade agreement could be a boon for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim: Whether it is depleting fisheries, declining biodiversity or reduced space in the atmosphere for Greenhouse Gas emissions, the underlying issue is resource scarcity. And in a world where an additional 3 billion people are expected to enter the middle class over the next 15 years, countries need to find new and creative ways to cooperate in order to satisfy the legitimate needs of their population for growth and opportunity while using resources in a manner that is sustainable for current and future generations. The TPP parties already represent a diverse range of developed and developing countries. Should the TPP become a free trade agreement of the Asia-Pacific region, it will include the main developed and developing countries and will be a strong basis for building a global consensus on these trade and environmental issues. The TPP has been promoted by its proponents as a boon to the environment. The United States Trade Representative has maintained that the TPP will protect the environment: ‘The United States’ position on the environment in the TPP negotiations is this: environmental stewardship is a core American value, and we will insist on a robust, fully enforceable environment chapter in the TPP or we will not come to agreement.’ The United States Trade Representative discussed ‘Trade for a Greener World’ on World Environment Day. Andrew Robb, at the time the Australian Trade and Investment Minister, vowed that the TPP will contain safeguards for the protection of the environment. In November 2015, after the release of the TPP text, Rohan Patel, the Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, sought to defend the environmental credentials of the TPP. He contended that the deal had been supported by the Nature Conservancy, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, the World Wildlife Fund, and World Animal Protection. The United States Congress, though, has been conflicted by the United States Trade Representative’s arguments about the TPP and the environment. In 2012, members of the United States Congress - including Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and John Kerry (D-MA) – wrote a letter, arguing that the trade agreement needs to provide strong protection for the environment: ‘We believe that a '21st century agreement' must have an environment chapter that guarantees ongoing sustainable trade and creates jobs, and this is what American businesses and consumers want and expect also.’ The group stressed that ‘A binding and enforceable TPP environment chapter that stands up for American interests is critical to our support of the TPP’. The Congressional leaders maintained: ‘We believe the 2007 bipartisan congressional consensus on environmental provisions included in recent trade agreements should serve as the framework for the environment chapter of the TPP.’ In 2013, senior members of the Democratic leadership expressed their opposition to granting President Barack Obama a fast-track authority in respect of the TPP House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said: ‘No on fast-track – Camp-Baucus – out of the question.’ Senator Majority leader Harry Reid commented: ‘I’m against Fast-Track: Everyone would be well-advised to push this right now.’ Senator Elizabeth Warren has been particularly critical of the process and the substance of the negotiations in the TPP: From what I hear, Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, telecom, big polluters and outsourcers are all salivating at the chance to rig the deal in the upcoming trade talks. So the question is, Why are the trade talks secret? You’ll love this answer. Boy, the things you learn on Capitol Hill. I actually have had supporters of the deal say to me ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed. Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people across this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen. The Finance Committee in the United States Congress deliberated over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in 2014. The new chair Ron Wyden has argued that there needs to be greater transparency in trade. Nonetheless, he has mooted the possibility of a ‘smart-track’ to reconcile the competing demands of the Obama Administration, and United States Congress. Wyden insisted: ‘The new breed of trade challenges spawned over the last generation must be addressed in imaginative new policies and locked into enforceable, ambitious, job-generating trade agreements.’ He emphasized that such agreements ‘must reflect the need for a free and open Internet, strong labor rights and environmental protections.’ Elder Democrat Sander Levin warned that the TPP failed to provide proper protection for the environment: The TPP parties are considering a different structure to protect the environment than the one adopted in the May 10 Agreement, which directly incorporated seven multilateral environmental agreements into the text of past trade agreements. While the form is less important than the substance, the TPP must provide an overall level of environmental protection that upholds and builds upon the May 10 standard, including fully enforceable obligations. But many of our trading partners are actively seeking to weaken the text to the point of falling short of that standard, including on key issues like conservation. Nonetheless, 2015, President Barack Obama was able to secure the overall support of the United States Congress for his ‘fast-track’ authority. This was made possible by the Republicans and dissident Democrats. Notably, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden switched sides, and was transformed from a critic of the TPP to an apologist for the TPP. For their part, green political parties and civil society organisations have been concerned about the secretive nature of the negotiations; and the substantive implications of the treaty for the environment. Environmental groups and climate advocates have been sceptical of the environmental claims made by the White House for the TPP. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, the Australian Greens and the Green Party of Canada have released a joint declaration on the TPP observing: ‘More than just another trade agreement, the TPP provisions could hinder access to safe, affordable medicines, weaken local content rules for media, stifle high-tech innovation, and even restrict the ability of future governments to legislate for the good of public health and the environment’. In the United States, civil society groups such as the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, WWF, the Friends of the Earth, the Rainforest Action Network and 350.org have raised concerns about the TPP and the environment. Allison Chin, President of the Sierra Club, complained about the lack of transparency, due process, and public participation in the TPP talks: ‘This is a stealth affront to the principles of our democracy.’ Maude Barlow’s The Council of Canadians has also been concerned about the TPP and environmental justice. New Zealand Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the agreement showed ‘minimal real gains for nature’. A number of organisations have joined a grand coalition of civil society organisations, which are opposed to the grant of a fast-track. On the 15th January 2013, WikiLeaks released the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP - along with a report by the Chairs of the Environmental Working Group. Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' publisher, stated: ‘Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetener in the TPP is just media sugar water.’ He observed: ‘The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism.’ This article provides a critical examination of the draft Environment Chapter of the TPP. The overall argument of the article is that the Environment Chapter of the TPP is an exercise in greenwashing – it is a public relations exercise by the United States Trade Representative, rather than a substantive regime for the protection of the environment in the Pacific Rim. Greenwashing has long been a problem in commerce, in which companies making misleading and deceptive claims about the environment. In his 2012 book, Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams, Guy Pearse considers the rise of green marketing and greenwashing. Government greenwashing is also a significant issue. In his book Storms of My Grandchildren, the climate scientist James Hansen raises his concerns about government greenwashing. Such a problem is apparent with the TPP – in which there was a gap between the assertions of the United States Government, and the reality of the agreement. This article contends that the TPP fails to meet the expectations created by President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States Trade Representative about the environmental value of the agreement. First, this piece considers the relationship of the TPP to multilateral environmental treaties. Second, it explores whether the provisions in respect of the environment are enforceable. Third, this article examines the treatment of trade and biodiversity in the TPP. Fourth, this study considers the question of marine capture fisheries. Fifth, there is an evaluation of the cursory text in the TPP on conservation. Sixth, the article considers trade in environmental services under the TPP. Seventh, this article highlights the tensions between the TPP and substantive international climate action. It is submitted that the TPP undermines effective and meaningful government action and regulation in respect of climate change. The conclusion also highlights that a number of other chapters of the TPP will impact upon the protection of the environment – including the Investment Chapter, the Intellectual Property Chapter, the Technical Barriers to Trade Chapter, and the text on public procurement.

Investing in the future: Norway, climate change, and fossil fuel divestment

The fossil fuel divestment movement has undergone explosive growth over the last few years - expanding from encouraging educational institutions to adopt ethical investment policies to focusing upon cities, pension funds and philanthropic charities. The fossil fuel divestment movement has attained global ambitions - challenging sovereign wealth funds and national governments to engage in fossil fuel divestment, and pushing for fossil fuel divestment at international climate talks - such as the Paris Climate Summit in 2015. By exploring and analysing a key campaign to 'Divest Norway', this chapter considers the efforts to globalise and internationalise the fossil fuel divestment campaign. Part 1 explores the origins of the fossil fuel divestment movement, and the application of such strategies in a variety of contexts. Part 2 looks at the campaign to divest Norway's sovereign wealth fund of fossil fuel investments. There has been much discussion as to whether the bold decision of Norway to engage in coal divestment will encourage and inspire other sovereign wealth funds to engage in fossil fuel divestment. The conclusion considers the efforts to introduce fossil fuel divestment as a policy initiative for nation states as a policy option in international climate law.

Promoting the use of cycling as an environmentally and socially sustainable form of transport.

Solar Cities Congress 2008 “Energising Sustainable Communities – Options for Our Future” THEME 3: Climate Change. Impact on Society and Culture. Sub Theme: planning and implementing holistic strategies for sustainable transport Abstract Promoting the use of cycling as an environmentally and socially sustainable form of transport. We need to reduce carbon emissions. We need to reduce fuel consumption. We need to reduce pollution. We need to reduce traffic congestion. As obesity levels and associated health problems in the developed nations continue to increase we need to adopt a healthier lifestyle. Few if any would argue with these statements. In fact many would consider these problems to be amongst the most urgent that our society faces. What if we had a vehicle that uses no fossil fuel to power it, creates no pollution, takes up far less space on the roads and promotes an active, healthy lifestyle. What if this machine would have energy efficiency levels 50 times greater than the car? This is a solution that is here, now and ready to go and many of us already own one. It is the humble bicycle. Although bicycle sales in Australia now outnumber car sales, bicycle use as a form of transport (as opposed to recreation) only constitutes around 3% to 4% of all trips. So, why are bicycles the forgotten form of transport if they promise to deliver the benefits that I have just outlined? This paper examines the underlying reasons for the relatively low use of bicycles as a means of transport. It identifies the areas of greatest potential for encouraging the use of the world’s most efficient form of transport. Tim Williams - May 2007

Sustainable transport and the impact on the built environment : Future trends and directions

We love the automobile and the independence that it gives us. We are more mobile than we have ever been before in recorded history. In Australia 80% of journeys are by private motor vehicle. But it is becoming increasingly obvious that this era has a very limited lifespan. Fuel prices have skyrocketed recently with no end in sight. In spite of massive amounts of road construction, our cities are becoming increasingly congested. We desperately need to address climate change and the automobile is a major contributor. Carbon trading schemes will put even more upward pressure on fuel prices. At some point in the near future, most of us will need to reconsider our automobile usage whether we like it or not. The time to plan for the future is now. But what will happen to our mobility when access to cheap and available petroleum becomes a thing of the past? Will we start driving electric/hydrogen/ethanol vehicles? Or will we flock to public transport? Will our public transport systems cope with a massive increase in demand? Will thousands of people take to alternatives such as bicycles? If so, where do we put them? How do we change our roads to cope? How do we change our buildings to suit? Will we need recharging stations in our car park for example? Some countries are less reliant on the car than others e.g. Holland and Germany. How can the rest of the world learn from them? This paper discusses many of the likely outcomes of the inevitable shift away from society’s reliance on petroleum and examines the expected impact on the built environment. It also looks at ways in which the built environment can be planned to help ease the transition to a fossil free world. 1.