Simon

Iceland has killed two polar bears since the U.S. Department of Interior formally listed the polar bear as a "threatened" species a few weeks ago. The first polar bear, named Björn Björnesson, came to Iceland in the beginning of June this year. The polar bear was shot as soon as he was spotted for fears he would get into the nearest village. According to the hunters, killing the polar bear was the only solution as it would take to long to get the anaesthetic that was on the other side of the island. The polar bear had probably travelled the 29 miles (47 kilometres) from Greenland on a flake of ice and swim the last miles to Iceland. And just two days ago another polar bear was discovered on Iceland. People from the nearest village who discovered the polar bear said "he was very calm and seemed to be very tired" and "fell asleep after half an hour." This polar bear was named Ófeig. The local authorities had received a lot of criticism for their handling of the first polar bear, so this time they wanted deal with it properly. But their plans to put Ófeig to sleep and transport him back to Greenland failed and they had to kill him, the second polar bear in less than two weeks. Eyewitness said that Ófeig tried to flee back to the sea when the veterinarian came. The authorities and the veterinarian then decided that the polar was to skinny and hungry and that killing it would be the most humane way. It's very rare that polar bears come to Iceland. Last time a polar bear visited Iceland was 20 years ago. That polar bear was also killed. But according to Tom Arnbom from WWF we will see more polar bears in wrong habitats. Tom Arnbom says the polar bears natural habitats are melting away because of climate change. "The worst case scenario everyone was talking about would happen in 20-30 years, is happening right now," Tom Arnbom said, and added that "no one contemplated that the warming would increase faster the more ice melted away."

DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 30JAN05 - Al Gore at the Annual Meeting 2005 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 30, 2005. Photo by Severin Nowacki. Al Gore has just sent out this email: "A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States. Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America. [...] Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action. With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems. [...] On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation. We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president and it begins by making a contribution to his campaign today." This means we won't see Al Gore run for the presidency this election. LIVE TONIGHT at 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan. Update: Watch the video of Al Gore's endorsement speech: ">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344">

The Australian Consumer Association recently published a list on Computer Energy Costs for various home gadgets such as your computer screen, DVD player, cordless telephone, gaming console, laptop etc. Interesting with this list is that it shows how much energy these gadgets consume weekly, monthly as well as yearly, even when they are supposed to be off. According to the study, the Sony PlayStation 3 consumes 33.34 kWh (weekly consumption) when on and playing a game. That is more than a Plasma TV who uses 29.68 kWh when on and playing a DVD. When the same game console is off (back switch on) it still consumes 0.30 kWh. Microsoft's Xbox 360 consumes 0.40 kWh when off and 26.00 kWh when on and playing. The Nintendo Wii is a bit better, it consumes 3.14 kWh when on and playing a game. But it consumes 0.32 kWh when off (WiiConnect24 is off). That is more than PlayStation 3. "Our tests also found that leaving a PlayStation 3 on while not in use would cost almost $250 a year in electricity bills (charged at 15c per kWh). This alone is around five times more than it would take to run a refrigerator for the same yearly period. The Xbox 360 was not far behind the PlayStation 3 in energy usage costs per year, serving as an important reminder to turn off videogame systems after use." The only way to be sure these energy hungry gadgets don't consume energy (and your money) is to make sure they are switched off and unplugged when you are not using them.