Ocean Acidifcation: Center for Biological Diversity initiates new campaign

Ocean acidification is garnering more and more attention within the ocean conservation community.  And well it should.  It was only a few years ago that the issue started to reach a state of critical mass within the ocean advocacy community.  And as more and more research is taking place to understand its causes and effects, we are more and more coming to understand its insidious impact on the marine environment.

With today's massive amounts of CO2 being discharged into the atmosphere, the ocean itself is absorbing more and more of the carbon as it settles to earth.  Where once we thought that the ocean could actually be a storage facility for large quantities of carbon (called carbon sequestration), we now find that the amount far exceeds what the seas are capable of handling.  The result is a decrease in the pH of the ocean, making it more acidic.  That is the essence of ocean acidification.

“The havoc wreaked by ocean acidification is unfolding faster and more severely than anyone thought it would. Coral reefs are collapsing, and food chains may break apart as our oceans go through a dangerous transformation,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we’re going to stop this crisis from getting far worse, we’ll need national leadership at the top levels of our government.” 

The effects of ocean acidification is a reversal of many of the other threats imposed by man.  Overfishing, particularly of pelagic predators like tuna, billfish, and sharks, among other fish commercially sought after, is a top down assault on marine ecosystems.  Ocean acidification, on the other hand, works primarily from the bottom up.  The decreased pH level destroys many of the microscopic animals that make up plankton, a basic building block in the aquatic food chain.  Also animals like shells and coral that use calcium carbonate in the making of their exoskeletons are put at risk as the increased pH retards or breaks down the growth of calcium carbonate.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has started a new ocean acidification campaign, Endangered Oceans.org.  CBD specializes in taking conservation issues to the doorsteps of government agencies by wielding the power of the courts.  Working in consort with other organizations, the Center has initiated many lawsuits and other legal actions to force U.S. government agencies to abide by the mandates that currently exist, but are often ignored, within federal and state environmental laws.  And they have a track record of many successes.

However, ocean acidification is a challenging nemesis for CBD to take on as it is a truly global issue.  The CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere - from factories, automobiles, energy plants, just to name a few - does not recognize political or geographic boundaries.  Every nation has a responsibility to act not only for they sake of their own people but for humankind as a whole - not to mention the oceans themselves.

While I was attending the BLUE Ocean Film Festival and Ocean Conservation Event last month in Monterey, California, another important conference was also taking place in the same hotel and conference center.  It involved over 500 scientists who had come together to discuss the current state of ocean acidification, where it's heading, and what needs to be done about it.

"Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil and gas are causing the oceans to acidify more and more rapidly than at any time since the extinction of the dinosaurs. It's time for actions that reduce carbon pollution in our oceans before it's too late,” said Ken Caldeira, climate scientist in the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University. 

Learn more about CBD's Endangered Oceans campaign and circulate their new infographic (shown above, click on the image to enlarge) among your friends and colleagues - those who may not be aware of ocean acidification and the threat it imposes on the oceans and ourselves.

Source: Endangeredoceans.org
Source: CBD Press Release              

Wind Farms: North Sea alternative energy is damaging ocean carbon sinks

The earth is a very crowded place. Maybe not for many animal and plant species that have been battered by overfishing, hunting or harvesting, but for we humans and the many ecological systems we impact, we're rubbing shoulders in a very big way. Just ask Struan Stevenson, Member of the European Parliament and president of the European Parliament's climate change, biodiversity, and sustainable development group.

Stevenson's concern is that in our attempts to address some of our energy needs and reduce our output of carbon into the atmosphere - in particular, the development of wind farms - we are damaging other natural systems that can also contribute to reducing or storing some of the 2.2 million tons of carbon being expelled into the air daily.

In Europe, wind farms are being constructed along shallow shorelines in places like Scotland to help reduce some of the continent's dependence on fossil fuels. Sounds good at first blush, but wind farms won't completely solve the carbon issue. In these cold northern waters, nature itself can lend a hand in the form of carbon sinks or carbon sequestering in sea grasses and salt marshes. Ocean acidification - the raising of the ocean's pH or acidic level through the dissolving of excess CO2 emissions into the ocean - is being accelerated by increases in ocean water temperatures, but in the North Atlantic, shallow aquatic flora can help to slow down the process.

That is, unless these vital marine ecosystems are being destroyed by well-intentioned builders of wind farms.

"Recent research has indicated that a tiny part of the marine environment – the mangrove swamps, salt marshes and seagrasses that cover just 0.5 per cent of the seabed – account for the capture of at least half, and maybe three-quarters, of this blue carbon [carbon stored in ocean environments]. They are our blue carbon sinks and keeping them in good shape could be one of our most important undertakings to control climate change. While most mangrove swamps are in the tropics and subtropics, the United Kingdom possesses large areas of the other blue carbon stores with its seagrass meadows and salt marshes. Government agency Scottish National Heritage has noted that the vast majority of the UK's seagrass meadows are located in Scottish waters, accounting for some 20 per cent of Europe's total," said Stevenson in Public Service Europe.

Due to the northern water's overall reduced visibility, salt marshes and sea grasses tend to grow in fairly shallow waters, less than 16 feet in depth. So, it would seem reasonable that offshore wind farms should be constructed and placed in deeper water. Apparently though, in a rush to establish wind energy technology as a viable alternative, the farms are being located in shallow areas and destroying a vital source of natural carbon storage. Stevenson says nearly 200 turbines have already been built in shallow waters in the North Sea.

"At present, a number of developers are preparing applications to site huge wind farms in the Moray Firth development area as the Scottish Government has noted that the region 'has favourable conditions and significant potential for the development of offshore wind both within Scottish territorial waters and beyond into Scottish offshore waters'. The government does not mention either saltmarshes or seagrasses in its 'sectoral marine plan for offshore wind energy in Scottish territorial waters', though they do note that there are potential adverse effects on bottlenose dolphins," Stevenson said.

Of course, the development off alternative energy sources like wind and solar needs to be maximized to help reduce the level of CO2 emissions. But it can't be at the expense of the planet's natural carbon sinks that help to sequester excess carbon. We wouldn't level a forest to build a solar energy farm, and so it is the same for offshore alternative energy and the ocean's natural devourers and holders of carbon. Mankind has assaulted nature with this problem of its own invention and now, as we struggle to come up with solutions, we must ensure that we give nature enough room to do its thing and be part of the solution, too.

"The message to policy-makers is clear - we cannot afford to sanction the continued destruction of our remaining blue carbon habitats merely to fast-track wind farm development. Blue carbon sinks are far more effective in the battle against climate change than turbines can ever be and it is time they received full protection."

Source: Public Service Europe

Preserving Coastal Ecosystems: study shows loss of mangroves and salt marshes releases long-stored CO2

Surfbird News reports on all things related to coastal surfbirds and the environments that support them. The site recently reported on the findings of an international consortium of scientists on the impact on CO2 sequestration with the loss of coastal ecosystems like mangroves and marshlands.

Urgent Action Needed To Halt Increasing Carbon Emissions from Destroyed, Degraded Coastal Marine Ecosystems

The destruction of coastal carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves, seagrasses and tidal marshes, is leading to rapid and long-lasting emissions of CO2 into the ocean and atmosphere, according to 32 of the world’s leading marine scientists.

That key conclusion highlights a series of warnings and recommendations developed by the new International Working Group on Coastal “Blue” Carbon, which convened its first meeting in Paris last month. The Working Group was created as an initial step in advancing the scientific, management and policy goals of the Blue Carbon Initiative, whose founding members include Conservation International (CI), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO.

Much of the carbon emitted when mangroves, seagrasses or tidal marshes are destroyed is estimated to be thousands of years old because the CO2 stored in these ecosystems is found not only in the plants, but in layer upon layer of soil underneath. Total carbon deposits per square kilometer in these coastal systems may be up to five times the carbon stored in tropical forests, due to their ability to absorb, or sequester, carbon at rates up to 50 times those of the same area of tropical forest. The management of coastal ecosystems can supplement efforts to reduce emissions from tropical forest degradation.

Dr. Emily Pidgeon, Marine Climate Change Director at Conservation International, and a leading blue carbon conservation scientist emphasized, “We have known for some time the importance of coastal ecosystems for fisheries and for coastal protection from storms and tsunamis. We are now learning that, if destroyed or degraded, these coastal ecosystems become major emitters of CO2 for years after the plants are removed. In the simplest terms, it’s like a long slow bleed that is difficult to clot. So we need to urgently halt the loss of these high carbon ecosystems, to slow the progression of climate change.”

“The capacity of coastal wetlands to reduce climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide is considerable, but has been overlooked” says Jerker Tamelander, Oceans and Climate Change Manager for IUCN. “If valued and managed properly, coastal ecosystems can help many countries meet their mitigation targets, while supporting adaptation in vulnerable coastal areas.”

Read the entire article in Surfbird News.

Tinkering with Geoengineering: more consideration as scientists seek answers to climate change

Geoengineering is in the news again. USA Today ran an article that summarized some of the latest proposed geoengineering concepts. Each appears to have its pros and cons - like the side effects of any medication - but with scientists continuing to document the impact of CO2 emissions and the overall climate change effect it produces, geoengineering is getting more and more attention as a concept that must be seriously considered now rather than later.

RTSea Blog ran two posts on the subject in 2009, and the concerns over the side effects of geoengineering expressed then by scientists still exist today.

• Geoengineering: big ideas to change the planet
• Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Says Scott Barrett, environmental economist, "We're moving into a different kind of world. Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity."

Geoengineering is the process where global steps are taken to counter the effects of global warming, as opposed to addressing the source of the problem - like treating a disease symptomatically. It has been said that geoengineering is not the "silver bullet" solution but may have to be considered along with other measures aimed at the root of our global warming problem, that of excessive CO2 emissions (which, ironically, is a geoengineering process unto itself).

Many of the proposals seem petty grandiose or something right out of a science fiction novel but, in most cases, the technology is there; it will need international cooperation to ramp it up to a global scale. Here are a few of the latest proposed techniques listed by USA Today:

•Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials. [Also mentioned in my prior posts.]

•Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air.

•Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost-effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed.

•Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes. [Also mentioned in my prior posts]

•Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees.

Just as CO2 emissions and rising overall world temperatures disrupt currents, winds and other weather patterns, thereby producing more storms, droughts, and even cold spells in some parts of the world; counteracting global warming through geoengineering can do the same. In fact, it can have political or national security implications: what if one nation has the means to manipulate geoengineering so that it could produce droughts or alter storm tracks in another part of the world? Now there's something that seems right out of a DC/Marvel comic book.

While "most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," according to an August Congressional Research Service report, geoengineering is slowly gaining acceptance as a viable approach worth pursuing. "I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."

Read the article in USA Today.

10/10/10 Global Work Party: this Sunday's international event for climate change awareness

350. This is a number that has great significance with many climatologists and supporters of positive steps to slow down, if not arrest. global warming. The number 350 stands for the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, in parts per million, that many scientists believe must be attained if we are to have any control over the issue of climate change - and it needs to be reached sooner than later (we currently stand at around 390ppm and rising).

To help get that message out, to policymakers and the general public, is the mission of 350.org. And to do that, 350.org has in the past staged worldwide events that included everyone from children to students to politicians. Last year they held an International Day of Climate Action that encouraged people of all ages to recognize the need to reduce carbon emissions. It was a grass roots event that saw participation from Sydney to San Francisco, from South Africa to Sweden.

Coming up this Sunday, October 10th, will be the organization's 10/10/10 Global Work Party: A Day to Celebrate Climate Solutions. Once again, across the globe, 350.org has rallied folks at the grass roots level in over 150 countries with thousands of local events taking place, all designed to not only bring awareness to the problem of carbon emissions but to also promote what we can do about it.

According to 350.org, "We’re calling it a Global Work Party, with emphasis on both 'work' and 'party'. In Auckland, New Zealand, they’re having a giant bike fix-up day, to get every bicycle in the city back on the road. In the Maldives, they’re putting up solar panels on the President’s office. In Kampala, Uganda, they're going to plant thousands of trees, and in Bolivia they’re installing solar stoves for a massive carbon neutral picnic."

350.org's goal with this one-day event is not to solve the issue of climate change in one grand sweeping gesture - they are too pragmatic for that. Instead, 10/10/10 Global Work Party is designed to send a strong political message to the decision-makers of the world, that people recognize the importance of managing carbon emissions in a demonstrable way and are prepared to do what it takes.

"On 10/10/10 we'll show that we the people can do this--but we need bold energy policies from our political leaders to do it on a scale that truly matters. The goal of the day is not to solve the climate crisis one project at a time, but to send a pointed political message: if we can get to work, you can get to work too--on the legislation and the treaties that will make all our work easier in the long run."

350 parts per million. This is something that needs to be much more than a long-range, near-mythical goal for the world's energy policies. It is a very real objective that must be met quickly, before we find ourselves at a point of no return.

10/10/10. More than just a clever twist of the calendar; it's a day to show your support. Check out the 350.org website to see what events are taking place in your area. There's even still time to start an event of your own for this Sunday.

Visit the 350.org website.
Learn more about 10/10/10 Global Work Party.

Whales & Carbon Sequestering: new study shows potential carbon storing by large whales

Following up on my recent post about whalers being early and unintentional environmentalists, here's some interesting news coming out of the University of Maine. A study conducted by researchers from the university, in addition to the University of British Columbia and the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, outlines the enormous carbon sequestering ability of whales and other large marine species; an ability that puts these animals on a par with other carbon storing organisms like peat bogs, grasslands and trees.

As an example, a blue whale can store up to 9 tons of carbon, surpassed only by large trees. But since the populations of blue whales have been reduced by as much as 99 percent, the planet has lost a vital source of carbon sequestration. Andrew Pershing, one of the Maine research scientists, describe the loss of potential carbon storage due to a century of whaling as the equivalent of burning more than 70 million acres of temperate forest or 28,000 SUVs driving for 100 years.

Many scientists have proposed "iron fertilization" as a method for sequestering carbon in the oceans. This process bonds iron particles with carbon and then, as the iron sinks into deep ocean depths, it takes along with it an amount of carbon. Pershing, whose research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation, sees whale conservation as equally if not more effective.

Pershing noted, “The big surprise was in our calculations comparing carbon exported by sinking whale carcasses to the carbon exported by iron fertilization. If we had all the whales we used to have, they would remove the same amount of carbon in a year as 200 of the most efficient iron fertilization events. What that tells me is that we can get significant carbon savings by conserving resources in the ocean, protecting whales, larger fish and sharks.”

Additionally, The larger whale and marine species prove to be more efficient at carbon storage than smaller species. While all animals absorb some measure of carbon (we're carbon lifeforms, remember?), the larger animals require less food (which equates to carbon) per unit of weight. The same amount of food can support more whale tonnage than, say, compared to penguins.

As the University of Maine reported in a recent press release, according to Pershing, “In many ways bigger is better.” Any whale could have told us that.

Read the University of Maine press release.

Petition Drive: keeping the Clean Air Act strong at 350ppm

In the past several months, with the poor results coming from the COP15 conference in Copenhagen and the CITES conference in Qatar, environmental issues have taken a few lumps. It would seem that the policymakers and the industrialists have their own agendas and these don't seem to be aligned with the long-term interests of the planet. So, what to do? We take back the initiative!

It may sound a little 60's-ish corny, but it's time for the people to be heard again. If we can't depend on our institutions to do the right thing then the least we can do is let them know where we stand and that we are watching. If we can vote you out, we will. If we can refuse to buy your products, we will. And we will support those groups that actively promote the long-term interests of the planet - and by "planet" I mean plants, animals and humankind.

350.org and The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are starting a petition drive to keep the Clean Air Act strong by having greenhouse gases designated as "criteria" pollutants under the act and to get the 350ppm standard for CO2 emissions adopted by the EPA. If you recall, leading climate scientists have cited the 350ppm level as the point that must be attained if we are to have a fighting chance in getting a handle on climate change and insuring a manageable future for generations to come. Ambitious? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. It will require a major commitment on the part of governments and industry. And there won't be 100% consensus within the scientific community that this is the right approach. Accept when we ask this simple question: what's wrong with reducing carbon emissions to that level? Will it harm the environment? Would we be moving in the wrong direction environmentally?

350.org and CBD are hoping to get 500,000 to sign on to the petition. No reason why not. Click here to read about it and add your name. And check out 350.org's web site, too. Lots of good information there.

Click here to sign the petition.
Click here to visit 350.org.

The Ocean Web: studies explore its complexities

I was reviewing the latest Marine Science Review from SeaWeb.org on Habitats and Ecosystems. These reviews are always interesting, being full of abstracts and summaries of research studies from around the world (but the academic language can sometimes leave you with your head spinning). Here are a couple of items I found interesting:

Disruption of the Top-Down Predator/Prey Relationship
There is the common analogy of the predator-prey pyramid, often used when discussing the role of sharks in the marine ecosystem, where a layered pyramid is used to describe not only the relationship of larger predators feeding on smaller animals (top down) but also how the triangular shape represents the reproductive rates (from slow-reproducing top predators down to more prolific prey, like feeder fish or plankton).

A study published in the Journal of Animal Ecology discussed some of the challenges faced by top-down or apex predators when their numbers are reduced, say by overfishing. As one might expect, there are shifts that take place in the numbers of smaller predators (those that were once prey to the larger predator), but there can also be changes that impact the larger predators' ability to recover even when the outside influence (overfishing) is removed.

Without the natural balance afforded by the top-down relationship, lower level predators can become both a predator of the larger predator when it's a juvenile and a competitor for the same prey the youthful apex predator needs to feed on. As an example, we think of great white sharks feeding on seals and large fish like tuna, but as juveniles these sharks feed on smaller fish and can, if reduced in significant numbers, find themselves in competition more and more with predators who would someday possibly be prey to the shark if it can survive to maturity. Predation and competition - two of the cascading effects that occur within the predator-prey relationship when it is disrupted.

Blue Carbon Sinks and the Importance of Coastal Habitats
An assessment originating from Norway for the United Nations Environment Programme emphasized the importance of our coastal vegetated habitats (mangrove, salt marshes, and seagrasses) as repositories for carbon emissions, or Blue Carbon Sinks. Here are some numbers that illustrate how important these coastal marine environments in the climate change debate:

• They make up less than 0.5% of the ocean seabed, but account for 50-70% of the total carbon storage of the ocean's sediments.
  
• They consume 235 to 450 tons of carbon each year, nearly half of the 1,000 tons produced by the transportation sector globally.
• Preventing further loss of these coastal habitats would reduce carbon by up to 7% in two decades and be equal to 10% of the CO2 reduction necessary to remain under 450ppm.
• However, the ongoing loss of these ecosystems is greater than any other on earth, as much as 4 times that of rainforest deforestation.
• Loss of coastal vegetated habitats is currently at 2-7% annually, a seven-fold increase from 50 years ago.

As important as these habitats are as homes for various birds, fish, insects, and even manatees; they also have a critical role as blue carbon sinks to counteract climate change.

The Challenge of Understanding Ocean Ecosystem Resilience
Finally, an article in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London discussed the challenges in forecasting the limits of resilience in marine ecosystems. Resilience being either the ability to resist subtle changes in an environment until a tipping point is reached or by the environment's ability to make subtle - and sometimes not so subtle - changes in a quest to find or sustain a new equilibrium. To study these effects requires both long-term data and an understanding of some very subtle links and interactions taking place - not something that is easy to tackle and so forecasting and projecting accurate models has lagged behind other studies in theory and management or policy.

Yet the need for this information is critical in the development of those very theories and management and policy requirements if their results are to be accurate and sustainable. The article stresses "the challenge to theoretical and field ecologists is to make the shift from hindsight to a more predictive science that is able to assist in the implementation of ecosystem-based management." As we have seen with continually revised projection models regarding climate change, it's not easy but the need is absolute.

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

China and the Environment: Alibaba CEO indicates a change may be in the wind

Alibaba.com is a leading online source for small to medium-size Chinese businesses to get their goods to market. The parent company, the Alibaba group, owns several online properties to assist Asian businesses, from retail to wholesale. It is also a company that felt the wrath of conservationists because the web site was a source for the sale of shark fins and other shark-related products.

Recently, Alibaba.com commendably removed all shark fin products from its web site. Did the company cave-in to outside pressure from shark advocates? Well, I'm sure it played a role. And they still have a long way to go, as the site continues to offer other shark-related products such as oil and cartilage. According to an interview with Alibaba Group founder and CEO, Jack Ma, he was not aware that shark fins were being harvested directly from the sea.

"Well, honestly speaking, before [the shark fin issue] I had never thought about the environment. That was the first environmental issue I dealt with. In the beginning, I did not understand those anti-shark fin guys because I had never given much thought to where shark fin came from and thought it was cultivated."

This lack of awareness is also illustrated in the reactions of Asian people who see footage of shark or dolphin kills (The Cove) - amazing as it may seem, it's all new to them.

But the change is also indicative of a subtle groundswell that is brewing in China. For the past decade, China has been growing as a economic powerhouse. Whatever long-term effects it will have on their communist system of government remains to be seen, but there definitely is a growing level of wealth, a growing middle-class, and the people would like that to continue. And while that new-found wealth has greatly increased the demand for shark fin soup in certain segments of the Chinese populace, what is also slowly beginning to grow in China is a greater appreciation as to their environmental responsibility. It's not perfect by any means; there are still plenty of industrialists who would prefer to utilize their natural resources at the expense of the environment (Western civilization did it. Why can't we?). But the seeds are there and they may just take root.

China is beginning to realize that to be a long-term industrial and economic leader, it must consider the environment. In fact, if it can solve its own environmental problems technologically; if it can establish itself as a leader in alternative energy implementation, then its position as a global superpower will undoubtedly be secured. But it will be a struggle: new clean factories and reduced CO2 emissions are one thing; a long standing cultural history in utilizing endangered species is another.

The world must watch China. They could very well be at the commencement of a long-term strategy that realizes the benefits of development which does not tear down the environment or deplete its own resources. They could be embracing what other industrial developed nations are so slow to adopt. And it could benefit developing nations while sending shivers of paranoia through the halls of powerful nations who have prided themselves as masters of the world for the past several decades.

Click here to read the entire interview with Jack Ma. Mr. Ma has been working with The Nature Conservancy and has some very interesting and heartening things to say about his environmental approach to his business and what is beginning to happen in China. If it's real and it continues, the world could have a new superpower to look up to and emulate.

"What we want to do is to raise awareness among as many people as possible on the seriousness of the environmental situation in China, and let them know that everybody can contribute something to make things better. The better we educate people on the issues, the more will happen. With more and more young people joining the government, they will bring an understanding on the importance of the problem and take action. So it is about influencing a whole system.

I think we are in the process to building it up right now. We cannot expect change overnight. We need to create the change over time, say 5 or 10 years. That's called a long-term strategy, and is necessary for sustainable action and results."

COP15 Summary: what the public and science can do next

The end result of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15) was an agreement hammered out by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and recognized, but yet to be voted on, by the remaining participating nations. While the agreement would seem to recognize the importance and impact of climate change, the specifics - or lack thereof - has left many, from governments to NGOs to scientists, wanting and disappointed. No specific percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, no guarantees for proposed financial support to underdeveloped countries currently dealing with the effects of climate change, in fact nothing is particularly binding in the agreement.

International strategy: the human element
So was it a wasted exercise? Well, not entirely. Certainly, going in expectations were incredibly high. As more and more research data slowly filters into the discussion (not fast or effectively enough, but more on that later) and as increased public awareness and media coverage puts more pressure on the decision-makers, meetings like COP15 place international diplomacy under a microscope and can give conservation strategists new insight as to what motivates international policy and how best to approach these political bodies in the future.

Since I was not in attendance at the conference, I can only comment on what I read and saw in the media. What struck me was the emphasis and subsequent turmoil over the human costs of climate change. Not that these are unimportant matters, but I think many were surprised that the emphasis seemed less on the actual degradation of the global environment and more on the impact in human terms: the polluters vs. those impacted, developed countries vs. poor or developing countries, and moral responsibility or blame equating to financial compensation. Those were the issues that seemed to take center stage or at least generated the most controversy (and a momentary walkout of delegates). It all seemed to say, "Damn the polar bears, the corals, and the weather - what about me?" And perhaps that is where we must realize that international policy will always be focused: on the human consequences; personally, politically, and economically.

I have mentioned this in other posts; talk about the human terms of climate climate change - how people are starving and dying right now, how water supplies and crop yields are declining right now, how the migration of peoples will threaten other nation's resources and security - and you can often get people's attention. In a similar vein, I am beginning to see shark and dolphin advocates place a greater emphasis on the human cost of consuming these ocean animals due to their high mercury content. Just wanting to protect shark and dolphins may not be enough; making people want to protect theses species because it will protect themselves may be the answer.

Making a difference at home
So, how can we influence international diplomacy? By tackling the issues right at home. When your community, state, or country can address the challenge of climate change - becoming more "green", developing alternative energy sources, substantially reducing C02 emissions (350ppm and below) - then you set a new benchmark; you show it can be done and a new tipping point looms on the horizon, a positive one that, by example, prods and propels the international community to collectively go beyond tentative measures.

Although COP15, according to Alden Meyers of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting . . .," the World Wildlife Fund declared, “on a more positive note, attention will now shift to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from the base up.”

Science: moving beyond the data
Working on my first white shark documentary and subsequently working with InMER.org in the Arctic Circle, I soon realized there is a lot of research taking place within the scientific community, with considerable amounts of data and detailed studies or papers being generated. But there the trail begins to thin. What is reaching the general public? What is being brought to the attention of the policymakers? Not enough.

As a filmmaker and former marketing communications executive, I appreciate the value of effective messages, of connecting with the masses to gain consensus. And this is why I am interested in working with scientific research organizations: media communications needs to be an integral part of the research discipline, right up there with hypotheses, methodology, and analysis; it must not end in a scientific journal destined for the academic hinterlands. With many of the environmental issues facing the planet, it has been said that science will provide the answers - but only if science can communicate effectively so as to moderate behavior and influence policy.

Understandably, media communications is not something that most scientists and researchers are comfortable or familiar with, but there are several strategic components to consider in developing an effective media communications plan. One key piece is the translation of detailed data and analysis into three sequential steps that the layperson can understand: issues, implications, and solutions.

What is the problem, what does it mean to me, and what can I do about it? When research can address these points and make a personal connection, the better the work will be absorbed and appreciated by a broader audience. And in today's world, with so many environmental and conservation issues looking to science for the answer, this is imperative.

COP15: a rough start to Week Two

This is definitely one of those times when you hate being right. The second and pivotal week of the COP15 conference got off to a rocky start with the G77, representing 130 poor nations including many African nations, digging in regarding binding obligations set forth in the Kyoto Protocol for richer, developing nations to cut back on their CO2 emissions.

Several hours were lost in bickering and even a walk-out of delegates. But apparently, things are calming down as I write this and hopefully discussions can return back to something more productive. However, as I mentioned in the previous posting on the COP15, the whole issue of rich & poor, the polluters & those impacted by climate change continues to grow in importance.

Here are a couple of links to breaking news sites:

• Huffington Post
• Reuters

COP15: summary of Week One of climate conference

Well, the first week of the Copenhagen Climate Conference is coming to a close and it has been an interesting but perhaps frustrating and disappointing week. And maybe that was to be expected, given the range of issues at hand and the number of players and various agendas involved.

The expectations placed on this event have been monumental. On the face of it, here was an opportunity for many nations - big and small, rich and poor - to come together and discuss issues that transcend those of boundaries or international status, to address problems of a truly worldwide magnitude. Add to that, though, the behind-the-scenes politics of various interested parties: energy industries, oil and coal, retail corporations - all those that could be impacted by more stringent environmental regulations, and the pressure is on.

Going into the conference, some of the low points were the U.S. Senate's watered-down version of climate change legislation (recommending what amounts to only a 4% cut in CO2 emissions), the stink about tainted climate change data (whether actually exaggerated or simply comments taken out of context), and the fact that several leaders from major countries were delaying their arrival until next week.

So this first week consisted of presentations and discussions involving leading scientists, ecologists, economists, and some government representatives, in addition to a lot of positioning on the part of many nations - including smaller, poorer nations that are already feeling the impact of climate change - in preparation for what will hopefully be some serious headway regarding a meaningful treaty.

And one of the biggest roadblocks to reaching that accord appears to be growing between the concerns of the larger, more wealthy and developed nations (those that have been responsible for generating most of the climate changing effects) and the smaller or poorer nations (who have been feeling the impact the most on their lands and their people). For the more developed nations, it's an issue of the economic impacts in changing their ways; for the less-developed nations, it's more a matter of survival. (Read related TIME article on the issue of water coming from the Himalayan glaciers, known as the "third pole", and how it's loss could destabilize the entire Asian region.)

As an example, the Alliance of Smaller Island Nations has put forth very strong climate change proposals as they see a greater threat to their existence with rising sea levels. There is also an ongoing debate between nations regarding compensation from the chief "polluting" nations to those smaller nations that will be most impacted. Culpability, responsibility for the past, and equating such into monetary terms - a touchy subject indeed. This rich/poor, polluter/victim divide may be a major issue in the conference's concluding week.

If you want to catch up on what's going on in Copenhagen, here are a couple of articles or news sources:

• Copenhagen Climate Council
• Euronews - videos and news briefs
• Grist.org - articles and recaps
• Guardian.co.uk
  

Geoengineering: changing the earth's climate for better or worse?

Geoengineering - this is a concept that we will be hearing more and more about with regards to managing climate change. It doesn't necessarily involve us on a personal level, like buying fluorescent light bulbs or driving more fuel-efficient cars; this is large-scale proactive approaches where science and commerce are utilized to directly counter the effects of climate change and CO2 emissions rather than deal with root causes.

Basically, we are talking about taking the CO2 we have in the atmosphere and finding some other place to park it, often referred to as CO2 sequestration. There have been proposals to store it underground while others have focused on methods of increasing absorption by the oceans where it is stored at deep depths.

I was reading several reports on ocean sequestration and there are many techniques that have been studied and even experimented with on a small scale. The results and/or recommendations have been conflicting - in part due to the fact that none of this has been undertaken on a large, truly global scale so we are walking into unknown territory with only projections and theories to guide us. Here are some of the current concepts regarding ocean CO2 sequestration:

Ocean Fertilization: Using the addition of iron particles to induce greater phytoplankton blooms which will, as part of their normal biological process, consume more CO2 and then sink to the ocean bottom. Some scientists say this is a viable approach, others say that the results are not substantial enough compared to the costs and related effects that would impact the ocean ecosystem.

Ocean Nourishment: A variation on ocean fertilization wherein additional nutrients are added to the process that could enhance the growth of feeder fish populations, thereby providing additional benefits with an increased food source and potential commercial value to developing countries.

Alkalinity Change: A land-based process where a CO2 source is combined with limestone and sea water. Basically the reaction alters the pH level and binds the CO2 to the sea water, which is then discharged back into the ocean. The use of limestone, which introduces calcium carbonate, is expected to neutralize acidification and therefore have minimal impact on the marine ecology.

Direct Injection: When ocean sequestration is discussed, the storage of CO2 is to take place at great depths where CO2 actually forms a liquid more dense than seawater (below 3000 meters). There are proposals for direct injection that involve piping CO2 directly from sources like industrial plants or energy refineries into the ocean depths where it is trapped at depth, forming a kind of deep sea lake of near-solid CO2.

These are techniques that are currently being experimented with, but whether they ultimately prove to be physically or financially practical on a large scale remains to be seen. And what of the unforeseen ecological implications? Attitudes range and proposals are hotly debated within the scientific community. There are those that say that geoengineering represents "doing something rather than nothing" with the current and future volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, regardless of what preventive steps are taken. (Remember the Carbon Bathtub analogy I cited earlier this week? Even if we radically cut back on CO2 emissions, we will have excess amounts in the atmosphere to deal with for centuries.)

Geoengineering is not a silver bullet solution nor does it free us from addressing the ongoing sources of CO2 emissions. At best it could work in concert with CO2 reduction strategies, but it is technology that is new with unforeseen consequences and perhaps must operate on unimaginable scales worldwide. However, it may find its place because we don't have a choice.

The Carbon Bathtub: MIT professor makes a clear climate analogy

There's a brief but interesting article in the December issue of National Geographic that describes a simple analogy for looking at CO2 emissions. In The Carbon Bathtub, writer Robert Kunzig reports on a concept that John Sherman uses with his grad students at MIT: a bathtub filling up with CO2.

Imagine the faucet represents the CO2 emissions we are putting into the atmosphere - currently, around 9.1 billion (that's with a "b") metric tons per year, most of that coming from fossil fuels. The drain represents the approximate 5 billion metric tons of CO2 being absorbed - 30% absorbed by plants and soils, 25% by oceans, 1% by sediments and rocks, and the rest remains in the atmosphere adding to the rise in temperature.

Because we have been putting more into the tub than it can drain out, the tub has been steadily filling up. Currently, the tub is at the 385 ppm level, heading towards the 450ppm level by mid-century. The 350 ppm that has been recommended by some scientific groups still represents 745 billion metric tons of carbon! So, how do we drain the tub and how long will it take?

Unfortunately, with the bathtub analogy, it will take a long time. Even if we were to stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, the drain works slowly - plant and soil absorption can get maxed out, ocean absorption is slow and rocks and sediments are even slower. It's been estimated that to go from 450 ppm to 350ppm could take centuries.

Discouraging? Well, perhaps, but it can also be viewed as a reason for saying "no time like the present" for making some significant changes. The CO2 emissions issue is not a light switch - flip it and it all goes away. It is our responsibility to future generations to act now and act decisively.

MIT's John Sherman will be at the international Copenhagen Climate Conference in December to help diplomats better understand the problem by illustrating the bathtub analogy (in much greater detail than I have done here). Hopefully, he will have an impact least a potential sensible climate treaty goes down the drain.

Read the article online.

Conservation & Politics: climate bill and species protection lagging

Getting caught up on my backlog of environmental and conservation email, I ran across some interesting and disturbing items from the Center of Biological Diversity, one of the most proactive organizations in wielding the power of the law to effect change. According to CBD:

Senate Climate Bill Spells Disaster

The Senate took a disastrous step backward on climate legislation last week, passing a loophole-ridden global warming bill with unacceptably low pollution-reduction goals that would also work against our most effective existing law to fight global warming. First, the bill has no target for atmospheric CO2 levels; in fact, it would let CO2 increase to about 600 parts per million -- while science shows we must reduce levels to 350 ppm to avoid climate catastrophe. Second, the bill eliminates the Clean Air Act's requirement for federal scientists to determine the safe level of greenhouse gas concentrations. Third, the bill's carbon-offset provisions are so many and poor that they undermine its own pathetic emissions-reduction goals.

The second point CBD lists is one that concerns me because it is the scientists - not the political or commercial interests - who should be the objective source for determining greenhouse gas limits. Industry may not like what they have to say and it may involve considerable financial cost - but nature is not interested in what is financially expedient and further delay will only guarantee greater financial and human costs later.

Read more from CBD/New York Times.

Obama Trailing Bush on Species Protection

Late last week, the Obama administration released its first review of animals and plants deemed deserving of federal protection that are still languishing without it -- and there are a whopping 249. On average, these candidates for Endangered Species Act protection have been waiting for safeguards for 20 years; at least 24 candidate species have gone extinct due to delays in protection. The Center for Biological Diversity and allies have a lawsuit pending in D.C. to stop the illegal and fatal stall in protecting all 249 candidate species, from the Oregon spotted frog to the Florida semaphore cactus.

After 10 months in office, the Obama administration has granted federal protection to only two species, including the Hawaiian plant Phyllostegia hispida, which had been on the candidate list for more than a decade. The Bush administration -- with the worst species-protection record in history -- put an average of about eight species per year on the endangered list. Obama administration, you'd better get cracking.

Many of us welcomed this new administration with hopeful expectations but were fully aware of the enormity of the problems it faced. Expectations were high and maybe, to an extant, unreasonable. But with such a backlog of candidate species and only two granted protection so far, CBD is right on target. Even with health care and foreign policy issues capturing so much attention, those within the administration in charge of federal protection of species to need to get cracking.

Read CBD press release.

350 Reasons: new web site promotes species protection from climate change

In anticipation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meetings to be held in December at Copenhagen, the Center for Biological Diversity has launched a new web site: 350 Reasons.

The site provides information on 350 species of flora and fauna subject to decline or extinction due to climate change. The significance of the number "350" is that it ties in with the level of atmospheric CO2 emissions (350 parts per million) that has been proposed by many leading scientists as the goal we all should be striving for. Currently, we are averaging 387ppm and it's increasing.

The web site allows you to look up specific species or families - or you can select your home state or region on a map and see what species are at risk.

The web site is all part of an effort to bring more awareness to the importance of the December meetings. You can review the site and sign a petition to President Obama, urging him to follow the proposed 350 ppm guideline as an international objective and mandate in climate change policy.

Check it out here.

Saving Rainforests: international offsets or shell game?

Tropical rainforests, currently subject to deforestation for lumber and grazing land, are a major storehouse of carbon dioxide - when left alone - and a major producer of CO2 emissions - when destroyed. According to the Los Angeles Times, if American corporations were to utilize international offsets being proposed in current climate change legislation, both the forests and U.S. corporations could benefit environmentally and economically.

Times reporter Margot Roosevelt reports that a blue-ribbon panel, consisting of government, corporate, and environmental experts, has issued a report that ascribes some dollar figures to the concept of international offsets - part of the cap and trade concept, whereby polluters can pay for preserving forests in developing nations rather than pay for expensive equipment to deal with their own pollution. The report states that an investment of $9 billion by 2020 would save corporations up to $50 billion that they would have to spend on their own pollution. Given that deforestation accounts for a disproportionate amount of the carbon emissions in the world, that would appear to be a good deal.

The good news is that it would appear that government officials and particularly corporations, notorious for stonewalling efforts to address global warming, are now facing up to the reality and becoming participants in the solution.

The bad news is whether the entire concept of offsets and cap-and-trade is a viable one environmentally. There are many who feel that cap and trade is nothing more than a industrial shell game, where corporations are skirting their responsibilities to address the mess in their own backyard by borrowing against the efforts of those who either have succeeded in their efforts to curb pollution or are in need of financial support to do just that.

"Some environmental groups are critical of forest offsets, tarring them as a scheme to let corporations off the hook for cleaning up their own emissions. Others worry about bogus schemes claiming false preservation credits, since forest carbon is difficult to measure.

The 71-page report is timed to influence the U.S. Senate as it takes up climate legislation. It recommends that the U.S. government invest $1 billion in tropical forest preservation in the next three years. And it pushes to have tropical forest emissions included in a new international treaty to be considered in Copenhagen in December."

My personal jury is still out on the subject. But the concept of cap and trade does beg the question: what are we looking for, an acceptance of our ecological responsibility or an economic advantage? I'm not sure that you can have both, at least initially. Nature is negatively impacted by our pollution - period. And it doesn't postpone those negative effects for one company or industry as a consolation prize for supporting the elimination of pollution somewhere else. Nature doesn't play that game.

Perhaps cap and trade and international offsets were conceived as a transitional approach. My concern is that governments and corporations will latch on to it as the ongoing standard, and the serious measures regarding CO2 emissions that need to be met will remain an elusive goal.

Read entire Los Angeles Times article.