MILWAUKEE - Just when you thought it was safe to back in the water comes word that more than 2 billion gallons of untreated sewage and storm water was dumped into Lake Michigan.

Many beachgoers at Bradford Beach said they wouldn’t ever go back in the lake again.

In fact, the amount of sewage and storm water dumped in Lake Michigan last week is 10 times the amount of oil spilled by BP in the Gulf Coast.

The BP spill is estimated at 94 to 184 million gallons of oil.

The sewage and storm water runoff is estimated at 2.1 billion gallons.

Many beaches were closed for several days over concerns of E. coli contamination. Now, some beaches are reopening, and sure enough, we found people back at Bender Beach, jumping into the water.

Many were fully aware of the sewage dumping, and said it didn’t bother them.

“The water’s fantastic and I’m not worried about it whatsoever,” said Colleen McCann.

McCann said if tests show the water is safe, she doesn’t feel like she’s in danger. She doesn’t mind that other swimmers are staying away.

“Good, it makes it better for the rest of us to come swimming,” McCann said.

The lake at Bradford Beach remains closed to the public, though people are allowed to sit on the beach.

source: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/99503854.html

The timing could not be worse for the bluefin tuna. The majestic, deepwater giant — threatened by overfishing — had just lost a bid for protection as an endangered species when oil started gushing into its spawning grounds in the Gulf of Mexico. Now, a part of the emergency response to the oil — the large-scale use of dispersants — could further imperil the species bysinking the oil beneath the Gulf’s surface and into the zone where its eggs and larvae are floating, marine biologists say.

The chemical dispersants — a standard tool in the oil cleanup business — are being used by the Deepwater Horizon response team to break up the oil offshore in hopes of preventing thick crude from wrecking delicate marshlands, mangroves and pristine beaches.

The federal government — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard and other agencies — has signed off on BP’s use dispersants as a necessary part of the company’s damage-control strategy in the wake of the April 20 accident aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

But the chemicals, which are being used in unprecedented volumes and in previously untested ways, may come with a big tradeoff, scientists say. That’s because no one can accurately predict how large the impact will be on the mammals, fish and turtles that inhabit the open ocean.

“It’s a whole new ball game,” said Ted Van Vleet, a professor of chemical oceanography in the college of Marine Science at the University of South Florida. “People are totally unsure as to how it is going to affect the ecosystems.”

Dispersants themselves are toxic. But a bigger concern in the scientific community is what happens in dispersing the oil, which is far more hazardous to living creatures.

ypically, dispersant is sprayed on the surface of the water, where the oil naturally comes to rest, and works a bit like a dishwashing detergent on grease. It breaks down the slick into millions of tiny oil droplets that then become suspended below the surface, normally in the top 30 to 50 feet of the ocean. There, over the course of weeks and months, oil-eating bacteria, sunlight and wave action help break the oil downinto its chemical components, which are then diluted throughout the water.

Unprecedented, untested
In the Deepwater Horizon accident, the response team has used more than 670,000 gallons of chemical dispersants as of Friday — far surpassing any previous use in the United States. Most of it has been sprayed from airplanes, but the Deepwater Horizon response team also has applied at least 55,000 gallons in a completely untested way — injecting it at the well’s leaking riser, some 5,000 feet below the surface.

Tag-a-Giant Foundation

Dr. Steve Wilson of Stanford University tags a 700-pound bluefin tuna off Canada with a satellite monitoring tag. The fish was tracked in 2009 as it travelled to the Gulf of Mexico, where the fish spawn, now the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

While the dispersant may result in fewer oily egrets in the marsh, the bluefin is one of the creatures that may suffer greatly instead. The oil spill area overlaps with only known spawning area for one of two remaining bluefin populations. This bluefin population spends about 10 months of the year in the cold waters of the north Atlantic and then swims thousands of miles to reach an area near the Deepwater Horizon well to disseminate sperm and eggs in the warm Gulf waters between April and June. The larvae float about 10 to 15 feet below the surface in early stages of growth. No one is certain whether the oil will destroy the eggs or kill the larvae, but scientists fear that could happen.

“It is a critical habitat … and this is the most delicate life stage,” said Barbara Block, a professor at Stanford University studies bluefin tagged with sophisticated tracking devices. “The biodiversity of bluefin is at stake right now. … If we lose the year (of new bluefin) it will have a very large impact on a population of bluefin that is on the edge of extinction.”

This is the spawning ground for many other species, including marlin, swordfish and yellowfin tuna, which arrive in the summer.

Some of the chemical components distributed throughout the water will remain toxic for decades, and it’s not clear what the impact could be on future generations of bluefin or other creatures — sperm whales, Bryde’s whales, offshore dolphin populations and seabirds — that fish far from shore.

Monitoring the impact of oil and dispersant chemicals on open-sea fish and other creatures is difficult, experts say, because unlike shorebirds and oysters, they are hard to count.

“It’s hard to see them,” said Lee Crockett, director of U.S. Fisheries policy at the non-profit Pew Charitable Funds environmental group. “If they die, they are on the bottom of the ocean a mile down … For bluefin and marlins, it could be several years before you see what the impact was.”

Deep sea mystery and dead zones
One of the biggest unknowns is how the dispersants might affect the environment near the well head, a mile beneath the surface. BP and the EPA have said that initial monitoring of dispersants suggests the chemicals are helping to break up the crude.

But scientists say the monitoring plan has not been made available for outside review — raising a general complaint about a lack of transparency from the oil company and the government.

And some note that little is known about the deepwater ecosystem — or how the oil and dispersants will react under extremely high water pressure, very low temperatures, limited oxygen and virtually no light. Just getting good samples at this depth is a major challenge.

“There are a bunch of things in the deep sea that we don’t know very much about,” said Ed Overton, professor in the Marine Sciences Department at Louisiana State University. “What happens if those resources are damaged? How does that affect the ecology of the Gulf? It’s a crapshoot … an educated crapshoot.”

The conditions at the bottom of the Gulf also could affect the bacteria that help break down the oil near the surface, as they are less active in cold temperatures than in the warm surface waters, and they may be less abundant in the deep.

“We know that the surface material has been degrading,” says Ralph J. Portier, professor of environmental studies at LSU. “But what about the microbial population at depth?”

Lee Celano / Reuters file

Greenpeace staff member Lindsey Allen tests water in a heavily oiled marsh near South Pass, La., on May 19. Despite use of dispersants and thousands of feet of containment booms, some of the slick is beginning to wash up in the delicate coastal ecosystem.

If the oil on the ocean floor is not degraded by bacteria, the danger is that it will remain toxic for much longer than it would near the surface — potentially lingering for years instead of weeks or months — during which time it could be carried to deep coral reefs that provide shelter and nurseries to many species of fish.

There is a debate about the extent to which the Deepwater Horizon oil has entered the Loop Current, a warm flow that moves water — and any contaminants in it — southeast out of the Gulf, through the Florida Straits and into the Atlantic Ocean — potentially threatening the Florida Keys and other sensitive coral reef areas.

The massive use of dispersants in addition to oil may also be further depleting the water of oxygen contributing to “dead zones.”

“All chemicals do this,” said Portier. “If we poured in 400,000 or 500,000 gallons of buttermilk, we’d have a problem with oxygen,” he said.

The other unknown
The dispersant itself, while not the main concern, also is under scrutiny.

BP has used hundreds of thousands of gallons of Corexit, which is produced by Nalco, a Naperville, Ill.-based company.

About a third of the product, which is EPA approved, is a soap-like surfactant that breaks up the oil, according to Van Vleet, the chemical oceanographer. The surfactant is not considered toxic, though some studies suggest it may corrode fish eggs, made up largely of lipids, much as it dissolves oil.

Another third is a petroleum-based “carrier” that facilitates spraying. This component is somewhat toxic to plants and animals — though far less so than crude oil.

The final third of the ingredients are not publicly disclosed because the information is considered proprietary.

Shifting with the tides
On May 15, after some initial testing, the EPA and the Coast Guard approved BP’s use of dispersants at the well head, saying they had collected preliminary data showing it was helping keep some of the oil from reaching the surface.

The same day, however, The New York Times reported that a group of scientists aboard the research vessel Pelican had identified massive plumes of subsea oil — some as big as 10 miles long and 3 miles wide. The article said that scientists on the ship speculated that heavy use of dispersants had contributed to creation of the plumes.

NOAA challenged the report the next day, saying the release of the Pelican team’s data was premature, that the interpretation was misleading and that there was no information connecting subsurface layers of oil with the subsea dispersants.

“NOAA continues to work closely with EPA and the federal response team to monitor the presence of oil and the use of surface and sub-surface dispersants,” said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenko. “As we have emphasized, dispersants are not a silver bullet. They are used to move us towards the lesser of two environmental outcomes.”

On Thursday, the EPA issued a statement saying it had ordered BP to begin using a “less toxic” alternative to Corexit within 24 hours, even though the latter product is on a list of EPA-approved dispersants. The directive came a month after the Deepwater accident and after some 600,000 gallons of Corexit dispersants had been applied.

BP continued to spray Corexit on Monday.

“If we can find an alternative that is less toxic and available, we will switch to that product,” said Doug Suttles, BP’s chief operating officer. “To date, we’ve struggled to find an alternative either that had less risk to the environment or that was readily available.”

In an afternoon conference call on Monday, the U.S. government said it had ordered BP to “significantly scale back” its use of chemical dispersants in the oil spill response.

“The federal government, led by the Coast Guard, is today instructing BP to take immediate steps to significantly scale back the overall use of dispersants,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters on a conference call.

“Because of its use in unprecedented volumes and because much is unknown about the underwater use of dispersants, EPA wants to ensure BP is using the least toxic product authorized for use,” the agency said. “We reserve the right to discontinue the use of this dispersant method if any negative impacts on the environment outweigh the benefits.”

This is just one area in which the Deepwater Horizon oil mess has taken responders into uncharted territory.

“The science hasn’t caught up with the situation,” said Overton, the marine scientist from LSU and a member of the scientific support team for NOAA.

© 2010 msnbc.com source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37282611/ns/gulf_oil_spill/

The deep water of the ocean is the largest habitat on earth but it’s also the least understood, making the effects of this deep-sea spill without precedent.

MOREAU, N.Y. — Twenty-five years after the federal government declared a long stretch of the Hudson River to be a contaminated Superfund site, the cleanup of its chief remaining source of pollution began here Friday with a single scoop of mud extracted by a computer-guided dredge.  

Twelve dredges are to work round the clock, six days a week, into October, removing sediment laced with the chemicals known as PCBs. Mile-long freight trains running every several days will carry the dried mud to a hazardous-waste landfill in Texas. 

An estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, flowed into the upper Hudson from two General Electric factories for three decades before they were banned, in 1977, as a health threat to people and wildlife. In high doses, they have been shown to cause cancer in animals and are listed by federal agencies as a probable human carcinogen.

“Today, the healing of the Hudson begins,” George Pavlou, the Environmental Protection Agency’s acting regional administrator, said under bright skies in a riverbank ceremony here as federal, state and local officials, G.E. representatives and environmental campaigners looked on.

Those gathered scrambled from a white tent to get a good view as a blue clamshell bucket rose slowly from the riverbed holding the first five cubic yards of mud. A lone duck paddled downriver along the far bank.

The dredging operation is the first phase of an operation that, if it continues as projected through 2015, could largely eliminate the Hudson’s last significant toxic legacy from an era of unfettered industrial activity and dumping.

While the Superfund site itself is 197 miles long, stretching from Hudson Falls, N.Y., to the southern tip of Manhattan, the initial phase involves spots along a six-mile segment south of Fort Edward, the hamlet across the river from this industrial site.

G.E. is supervising and paying for the cleanup, which federal officials have estimated could cost more than $750 million. Industry experts say the ultimate cost could be many times than that, however. (G.E. declines to give an estimate.)

While most of the chemicals were dumped when such practices were legal, the Superfund law requires the responsible polluting party, when one can be pinpointed, to foot the cleanup bill.

Yet G.E has reserved the right, after a review of the operation in 2010, to reject the project’s much larger second phase. Federal environmental officials have said that if it did that, they would most likely order the cleanup to proceed and levy enormous penalties against the company.

The first phase is projected to remove 22 tons of PCBs from the riverbed; the second phase would remove 102 tons, the E.P.A. said.Even as it embarks on the cleanup, G.E. has a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Superfund law working its way through federal court. (The company is a responsible party in 52 active Superfund sites across the country, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.)

Please read the rest at the NY Times website.
Source: NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/science/earth/16dredge.html

By Eric Wolff

• Published Apr 24, 2006

Is New York flushing away its summer fun? Our century-old sewer system is already so overburdened that it overflows 70 days a year—dumping 27 billion gallons of waste into the city’s waterways, just as high-rises are going up on their banks. (Even the ever-fetid Gowanus Canal is being lined with housing.) Last summer, two city beaches were closed because of high bacterial levels; experts say all this building is going to make the problem worse. And while it’s still pretty safe to kayak on the Hudson this summer, within ten years, “I could easily see beaches closing for much of the summer season,” says biophysicist Paul Mankiewicz of the Gaia Institute.

All it takes is a tenth of an inch of rain falling in an hour—a tenth!—for the sewer system to start emptying into the rivers. It’s partly a problem of neglect: In 1992, the city’s treatment plants were in such disrepair that the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation sued under the Clean Water Act; the city has never allayed the DEC’s concerns, and the State Supreme Court upheld a $13.9 million fine against the city last April.

Meanwhile, the city’s population has edged over 8 million, and the Department of Planning is expecting at least 37,000 new apartments citywide in the next ten years. “We’re operating under the assumption the sewers can handle it,” says a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Environmental Protection. “If we didn’t think so, developers wouldn’t get a permit to connect to the system. And that’s all we have to say.”

But even developers seem to recognize the issue. In part to deflect the anger of neighborhood activists, the developers of the massive Atlantic Yards complex in Brooklyn promised to build underground tanks to collect up to 800,000 gallons of storm-water runoff, and to install newfangled “waterless urinals.”

Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia have a broader wastewater policy that relies more on soil and parks to manage flow, but such ideas have not made headway in New York. “Wet-weather flows are not something they’re requiring builders to deal with at all,” says Brad Sewell, attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council—instead, the city’s policy on sewage focuses entirely on projects whose cost is borne by the taxpayer: new pipes, new tanks, and improvements to treatment plans. “The city’s approach to this problem is not only irresponsible but a complete waste of taxpayers’ dollars,” says Basil Seggos of the environmental group Riverkeeper.

The combined impacts of climate change and increasing population pressures on coastal areas for living and recreation have placed beach ecosystems under severe pressure. New research suggests efforts to preserve the biodiversity of sandy beach ecosystems should be undertaken within the framework of Integrated Coastal Management(1). The aim is to integrate the physical protection of coastlines with the conservation of threatened ecosystems.

As key recreational sites, sandy beaches are of prime social, cultural and economic importance and dominate the world’s coastlines. They also provide critical and irreplaceable ecosystem services and there is a growing recognition of the ecological value of beaches. However, current beach management is largely concerned with managing sand budgets and erosion, while ecological aspects are rarely considered.

Co-operation between beach managers and ecologists is therefore important, according to the researchers. They produced 50 ‘key statements’ summarising how essential features of sandy beach ecosystems function and are structured, which include defining the physical features of beaches, the functioning of beaches as ecosystems and incorporating the protection of beach ecosystems with wider management practices.

The researchers suggest that climate change will have a significant impact on the ecology of sandy beaches. It is
anticipated that climate change will affect the following:

• Sea levels – Average sea levels have risen by 0.17 metres in the last century and there are more occurrences
  of damaging high seas during storms. Continued loss of beaches will severely impact on coastal habitats and
  communities.
• Extreme weather events – It is likely that changes in cyclone and storm behaviour will produce higher and more
  powerful waves, increasing beach erosion.
• Precipitation - the pattern of precipitation is changing with more incidences of floods and altered freshwater flow
  to the oceans and this will affect the ecology of the beaches.
• Changes in the ENSO (El-Niño-Southern Oscillation) events cause alterations to precipitation and this may
  affect beach ecosystems.
• Within decades, acidification of the oceans will negatively affect marine organisms that need calcium carbonate to form shells, such as urchins and snails.

Four principles have been proposed by the researchers to integrate the ecological and physical aspects of management strategies for sandy beaches, which will help beach ecosystems withstand the pressures of climate change. It is suggested that ecologists, managers and policy makers work together at all levels of decision making in implementing effective and enduring strategies to conserve coastal ecosystems. There is also a need for further development of modelling techniques to study the impacts of climate change on beach ecology and to combine this with the effects that various management strategies will have on beach systems.

A further issue highlighted by the study are the special difficulties caused by tidal conditions for scientists trying to study beach organisms. The researchers have consequently produced a code of ‘best practice’ which contains 11 recommendations to help ecologists develop the most appropriate methods when collecting samples.

Source: Schlacher, T.A., Schoeman, D.S., Dugan, J. et al. (2008). Sandy beach ecosystems: key features, sampling issues, management challenges and climate change impacts. Marine Ecology. 29(Suppl. 1): 70-90.
Contact: tschlach@usc.edu.au

The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation and its partners, launched the second phase of its Public Service Advertisement (PSA) campaign featuring characters from Disney’s film The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning (debuting on DVD August 2008), to encourage Americans to keep our ocean clean and free of debris. The first phase of the campaign, originally launched in 2006 with Disney’s Little Mermaid characters, proved such a success that the partners decided to continue the campaign in conjunction with Disney’s newest Little Mermaid film.

The campaign’s web site, www.KeepOceansClean.org. is part of a multi-media effort to help Americans understand just how massive the problem of marine debris is. Each year, an estimated 6.4 million tons of debris enters the ocean. Most of the marine debris that ends up in the ocean starts out as trash on land that isn’t properly disposed of, including consumables packaging, fast food packaging, cigarette butts/lighters, and beverage containers.

Something as innocent as balloons at a child’s birthday party that end up flying away, can end up deflated in our waterways and in the ocean. Turtles and other sea creatures mistake them for jellyfish they love to eat and often end up choking or starving to death. And when we don’t dispose of trash properly after a picnic or day at the beach, those bags and bottles and other bits of debris can end up in the water. Marine Mammals and turtle mistake them for the jellyfish they love to eat and end up choking or starving to death. Not only can sea creatures accidentally ingest this trash, they also get caught up in things like plastic soda can rings, monofilament line from abandoned fishing gear, and other types of trash.

“The good news is that the problem of trash in our oceans is one that CAN be solved,” said Lori Arguelles, President and CEO of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. “As this campaign points out, each one of us can make a huge difference by being more aware of how we dispose of trash. The ocean truly is ‘part of our world’ and The Little Mermaid characters help make that connection, especially to children, who have a huge impact on their parent’s actions, as previous land-based recycling efforts have shown.”

The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Beginning PSA, (2008)

To learn more about the campaign and what you can do to help, visit www.KeepOceansClean.org. ]]> http://saveourbeaches.org/?feed=rss2&p=51 http://saveourbeaches.org/?p=47 http://saveourbeaches.org/?p=47#comments Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:09:02 +0000 admin http://saveourbeaches.org/?p=47 by Catherine Brahic from http://www.newscientist.com

The increasing number of icebergs breaking off Antarctica may have an unexpected benefit. According to one team of scientists, the bergs could feed carbon-loving plankton. If they are right, melting icebergs could - theoretically - slow global warming. Just how great an effect this would have remains to be seen.

Rob Raiswell of the University of Leeds, UK and colleagues trained high-resolution microscopes on ice sampled from icebergs in the Southern Ocean and the Antarctic glaciers from which they are born.

They found nano-sized particles of iron, between five and 10 millionths of a millimetre across. The team believe that because of the size and structure of the particles, the iron could be assimilated by phytoplankton.

“Most of the ground-up rock carried by icebergs is thought to be inert,” says Raiswell. “However, the high resolution microscopy shows there are small amounts of iron nanoparticles. They simply could not be seen except by these techniques.”

Phytoplankton need iron in order to grow, and the Southern Ocean is generally thought to be low on iron. But there is evidence that some Antarctic glaciers are flowing into the ocean faster because of climate change. This means more icebergs. If Raiswell’s findings are correct, more icebergs would mean more dissolved iron, therefore more phytoplankton, and more carbon dioxide sucked out of the atmosphere and into the oceans.

Plankton boost

“Dust has been thought to be the main outside source of iron to the Southern Ocean,” says Raiswell. He and his colleagues calculated that existing icebergs could double the supply of iron to the region.

The researchers will need to prove that the nano-iron can indeed boost plankton growth. Ken Denman of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis says there is some debate over what form of iron phytoplankton can use. “For example, only a few percent of air-borne iron deposited in the oceans is believed to be readily utilisable by phytoplankton,” he says.

Denman also points out that climatologists think there is typically less iron in the oceans during warm inter-glacial periods. “Why would human-induced warming increase the iron supply whereas recent natural warming occurred at the same time as decreased iron and southern Ocean [phytoplankton], as far as we can tell from the ice cores?”

It is too early to say how much of an impact more icebergs will have. One problem is that not all plankton sinks to the bottom of the ocean and contributes to the deep-ocean carbon sink. Part of it is eaten by marine animals and returned to the water column in their excrement. Geochemists have only a poor idea of the amount of carbon that is cycled in this way.

Journal reference: Geochemical Transactions (DOI: 10.1186/1467-4866-9-7)

For a company whose business is rocket science Lockheed Martin has been paying unusual attention to plumbing of late. The aerospace giant has kept its engineers occupied for the past 12 months poring over designs for what amounts to a very long fibreglass pipe.

It is, of course, no ordinary pipe but an integral part of the technology behind Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), a clean, renewable energy source that has the potential to free many economies from their dependence on oil.

“This has the potential to become the biggest source of renewable energy in the world,” says Robert Cohen, who headed the US federal ocean thermal energy programme in the early 1970s.

As the price of fossil fuels soars, private companies from Hawaii to Japan are racing to build commercial OTEC plants. The trick is to exploit the difference in temperature between seawater near the surface and deep down (see diagram).

First, warm surface water heats a fluid with a low boiling point, such as ammonia or a mixture of ammonia and water. When this “working fluid” boils, the resulting gas creates enough pressure to drive a turbine that generates power. The gas is then cooled by passing it through cold water pumped up from the ocean depths via massive fibreglass tubes, perhaps 1000 metres long and 27 metres in diameter, that suck up cold water at a rate of 1000 tonnes per second. While the gas condenses back into a liquid that can be used again, the water is returned to the deep ocean. “It’s just like a conventional power plant where you burn a fuel like coal to create steam,” says Cohen.

Limitless Clean Energy from the Ocean

Ahead of next week’s meeting of governments in Poznan, Poland for UN climate talks WWF analysis of the latest climate science comes to the dire conclusion that humanity is approaching the last chance to keep global warming below the danger threshold of 2°C.

”The latest science confirms that we are now seeing devastating consequences of warming that were not expected to hit for decades,” said Kim Carstensen, WWF Global Climate Initiative leader.

“The early meltdown of ice in the Arctic and Greenland may soon prompt further dangerous climate feedbacks, accelerating warming faster and stronger than forecast.

“Responsible politicians cannot dare to waste another second on delaying tactics in the face of these urgent warnings from nature.

“The planet is now facing a new quality of change, increasingly difficult to adapt to and soon impossible to reverse.

“Governments in Poznan must agree to peak and decline global emissions well before 2020 to give people reasonable hope that global warming can still be kept within limits that prevent the worst.

“In addition to constructive discussions in Poznan we need to see signals for immediate action.”

The CO2 storage capacity of oceans and land surface – the Earth’s natural sinks – has been decreasing by 5 per cent over the last 50 years. At the same time, manmade CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have been increasing – four times faster in this decade than in the previous decade.

WWF is urging governments to use the Poznan talks for an immediate U-turn away from the fatal direction the world is heading in.

“We are at the point where our climate system is starting to spin out of control,” said Carstensen. “A single year is left to agree a new global treaty that can protect the climate, but the UN talks next year in Copenhagen can only deliver this treaty if the meeting in Poznan this year develops a strong negotiation text.”

Article copyright WWF