U.S. Energy Policy: CA governor to assess President's first-year accomplishments

The Los Angeles Times' Greenspace environmental blog reported today on an interesting web cast taking place on Tuesday, January 19th at 7:00pm Pacific Standard Time. California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will assess President Obama's first year accomplishments in energy policy as part of an Energy Task Force conference panel.

Why listen in? Well, for one thing, it would be interesting to hear a conservative with a less-than-conservative approach when it comes to the environment, discuss the energy track record of a so-called liberal who has been criticized by many environmental groups for not following through on campaign promises - quite an odd blend of positions and attitudes. And for another, it's important to know what direction our decision-makers seem to be heading, regardless of how maddening listening to political verbosity can be.

Here's Margot Roosevelt's post from the Los Angeles Times:

On Tuesday night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will join a panel, along with former Secretary of State George Shultz, to talk about President Obama's first-year record on energy policy. The moderated question-and-answer session is part of an Energy Task Force conference at Stanford's Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank.

It will be webcast live at 7 p.m. Pacific at www.gov.ca.gov.

Schwarzenegger frequently boasts that California leads the nation in environmental and energy policy. The state enacted a law to curb global warming emissions in 2006, and it is on the verge of adopting regulations to implement a roughly 15% cut in greenhouse gases below today's level. Meanwhile, Obama has also pressed ahead on climate issues, pushing for congressional legislation. He has backed the Environmental Protection Agency's recent declaration that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, and can thus be controlled under the existing Clean Air Act if Congress fails to adopt a climate-specific law.

The Schwarzenegger and Obama administrations cooperated on mileage standards for new cars, after the Golden State passed the country's first rules to control greenhouse gases from vehicles. Last week, California adopted a first-in-the-nation mandatory green building code.

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.

U.S. and Climate Change: a need to get the eye on the ball

There has been a lot of politics flying around the U.S. of late with considerable attention being placed on the healthcare reform debate. While complicated, it is an issue that the current administration would like to see resolved soon, as there is another strategic issue looming on the horizon that President Obama would like to address: climate change and the related issue of a national energy policy.

What's putting the pressure on the administration are several events coming up soon that will require the U.S. to take definitive steps and have concrete positions or policies. Without the proactive participation of the United States, there can be significant international implications that could hamper overall progress.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, President Obama is in need of shifting the national focus because, first, he has a major climate change speech scheduled at the United Nations tomorrow (Tuesday). Then he meets with the G-20 later in the week in Pittsburgh, where climate change and energy will be a major economic topic. Then there is a major international conference in Copenhagen in December, charged with developing an international agreement on how to deal with climate change. Should the U.S. not be properly focused on the issues at Copenhagen, it could be very disruptive to the conference's potential for success.

The administration is also having to tackle a related issue having to do with whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic, which was first proposed by the Bush administration near the close of its term (300,000 signatures opposing the drilling along with support of over 400 scientists were delivered to the Department of the Interior today as part of a public comment period).

While there are many conservationists, ecologists, and environmentalists that all agree on the need for a sound strategy to deal with climate change and its related issues, it's not all quite so rosy throughout the international diplomatic community. Major industrial nations and 2nd/3rd world countries can have competing or conflicting interests or agendas, based on issues of cost, responsibility for emission levels, demand for economic development - either with new energy sources and power plants or with deforestation. Many countries recognize the problems but have different ideas as to what they can economically do about it.

It is a global issue and a complicated one in finding the necessary common ground or solutions to move forward effectively, to really make a difference. But it is one that can't be ignored, whether you believe that climate change is solely mankind's fault, part of a cyclical natural change, or a little of both.

Read L.A. Times article.

Today's Adventurers: evolving from daredevil to enlightenment

Over the past few years, I have been fortunate to conduct speaking engagements with many ocean-conservation minded institutions regarding great white sharks, shark conservation, and shark ecotourism. Sometimes it entails a screening of my white shark documentary, Island of the Great White Shark, other times it's sharks in general and their related issues. Whether speaking to adults or children, there is always a fascination with sharks but also some progress is made in making people aware of what is threatening these important predators.

Tonight, I have been invited to speak to the Los Angeles Adventurers Club, an interesting group that wants to know what it is like getting up close with the magnificent great white shark. Of course, I will have some interesting stories to tell but I hope they won't be disappointed when I begin to deflate the monster image of this animal and also turn their attention away from the adventure thrill-seeking persona of what I do to the more important work of research and conservation.

Being an adventurer today has certainly changed from the "climb it because it's there" mentality of the past. It's an evolution taking place, and the idea of breaking records or simply challenging yourself in some extreme fashion without deriving some environmental or ecological benefit is slowly vanishing. Today, if we travel deep into the ocean or high into the atmosphere, it should be done to learn more about this amazing planet we live on. The devil-may-care adventurer has given way to the wide-eyed explorer who is searching for knowledge to benefit the planet and, in so doing, ourselves.

Whether we like or not, the fate of the oceans and the earth have come to that. We owe it to ourselves, our children, and the many generations to come.

Wind Turbines: part of rethinking energy policy

Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current demand. A conclusion drawn by a pro-wind environmental group or wind turbine lobby? No, it comes from the U.S. Interior Department in a recent report on wind turbine potential. (Read Los Angeles Times article.)

The report cited that wind turbines in the shallow waters off the eastern coast could produce up to 1,000 gigawatts of electricity - enough to handle 25% of the nation's demand. But it's not all a bed of roses. West coast wind turbine potential is hampered by the underwater terrain - primarily deeper waters that make the placement of turbines more difficult.

The report also touched on a sensitive issue with many environmental groups: offshore oil reserves and the possibility of more offshore oil drilling. This points to the need for a comprehensive and cohesive energy policy - no easy task and one that has eluded us to date because it was always easier to just keep drilling for more oil.

My thoughts . . .

A national energy policy is faced with having to address several important issues: the economic/political ramifications of our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil; the need to develop a wide range of alternatives - some of which may not be as cost effective but may benefit the environment; the need to address the environmental safety issues in developing any and all forms of energy; and the reliance on objective science to determine the impacts of any new or existing form of energy. It's a mouthful any way you look at it.

The "drill, baby, drill" contingent that would like to see offshore and Arctic drilling resume or begin in earnest are opposed by many in the environmental movement. But a middle ground may have to be found here. I sense that germ of compromise in many of the comments from eco groups stating that objective scientific research is needed to determine the impacts of drilling (in other words, they are not entirely opposed to the idea as long as we don't repeat the oil spill disasters and environmental mistakes of the past). That holds true for many other forms of energy development. We need to focus our technological capabilities toward ensuring the highest degree of environmental safety for every form of energy under consideration - wind, solar, and yes, even nuclear and oil.

I'm not sure that our society can beat its addiction to oil by going cold turkey; we'll need to ween ourselves off of it. But if any new drilling does take place, it can't be for the purpose of returning to the status quo. Whatever oil is used, it must be done more efficiently - it becomes a two-fold issue: where we get it and how we use it. The underlying goal being to eliminate as much use of carbon/CO2 producing energy sources as possible.

Science and technology must play a massively critical role in all of this, in both developing the technologies that will provide efficient energy use that is economically reasonable while also determining what is safe for the environment. The two go hand in hand - with one caveat: to sacrifice the environment for the sake of expediency or the dollar would lead to irreparable damage. We are at that critical ecological tipping point.

Arctic Methane: from theory to harsh reality

In mid-December of last year, I posted information regarding the potential for climate change in the Arctic to allow for the release of possibly vast amounts of methane gas from warming permafrost. The info came from scientific and academic journal articles and posed a serious but little publicized consequence of global warming.

It looks like the issue caught the eye of mainstream media with an article in last Sunday's edition of the Los Angeles Times. What caught the attention of the Times was research taking place in Alaska and Siberia that documents the actual effect that was once theorized.

Melting permafrost is producing sinkholes that fill with water and rapidly become ponds which ultimately merge into small lakes. In these bodies of water organic matter decomposes and releases methane - a greenhouse gas considered to be more potent than many of the other gases, like CO2, that are typically known to the public. Scientists have found streams of methane bubbles emanating from these lakes and have actually been able to ignite these bubbles streams to form a "methane flare."

The extant of the impact of Arctic methane gas is not completely clear at this time, so research will continue in Alaska and Siberia, funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. But Alaskans have seen the effect of warming permafrost with houses collapsing and trees falling from softened soil. It has been estimated that repairs to affected schools, roads and bridges will cost $6 billion over the next two decades.

In December, I described the issue as a potential land mine right under our feet. It may becoming harder to watch where we step. Time to act.

Click here for online L.A. Times article and excellent video.

Whaling in Japan: Japanese activists find resistance at home

Much of the challenge in addressing shark conservation issues with Asian countries centers on the strength of the cultural history behind the use of shark products. This is also true with the efforts to curtail whaling in Japan. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times addresses these challenges that range from a society that has long valued seafood and whale products to cherished beliefs in trust in government and commercial enterprises.

Many of you are probably aware of the number of whales taken by Japan in the Antarctic region under the auspices of "lethal research." Many conservation organizations consider this a fraudulent loophole in international whaling regulations, allowing Japan to continue to take whales to meet the demands of a few coastal villages and upscale restaurants.

Generally, those opposing Japanese whaling have been from the United States, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand and much of their efforts are met with resistance because they are viewed as outsiders in what is perceived as an internal policy decision. Additionally, the actions of more extreme radical groups like Sea Shepherd and the less radical Greenpeace seem to exacerbate the problem and, in a culture that prizes polite discourse, complicates diplomatic efforts.

Enter into the picture,Toru Suzuki and Junichi Sato, two Japanese activist members of Greenpeace who have been trying to bring the issue to the attention of their fellow countrymen in Japan. Last spring, the two uncovered a shipment of whale meat bound for the black market and sourced from a ship sanctioned under the government's whale research/non-profit policy. With a subsequent news conference, the two activists hoped for media support to bring the issue into the open but, instead, found themselves arrested for theft and, according to their lawyers, have experienced prolonged confinement and harassment.

Japan is an interesting culture. With a centuries-old dependence on seafood, combined with an ingrained trust in the integrity and support of government and commercial institutions, getting the general populace to question or level any degree of scepticism regarding official policy can be daunting and met with considerable resistance not only from the government but also from the media.

"We expected the media to support us," said Toru Suzuki. "But they turned against us." "They [Suzuki and Sato] took a stand against national policy," defense attorney Yuichi Kaido said. "So they are being harshly punished."

Many of the advances in Asian shark conservation have come about from a more "top down" approach, where political and media-focused efforts have induced government officials or the commercial users of shark products to adopt more conservation-minded policies and prohibitions. It can be a diplomatically delicate and slow process. But, can what has succeeded in some Asian countries succeed in a country like Japan - a country with an ancient history in isolationism and devout trust in authority which still shadows their thinking in today's world? Two Japanese countrymen are finding that it may not be so easy to prove that the emperor has no clothes.

Read the Los Angeles Times article.

Derelict Fishing Net: divers dive deep to remove sealife hazard

Interesting artice in today's Los Angeles Times: In 2006, a fishing trawler sank off the southwestern tip of Catalina Island - one of the Channel Islands situated about 25 miles off the coast of Los Angeles/Long Beach. Sitting upright on the bottom, its haul of fishing net drapes over the ship like a billowing circus tent and has been responsible for the death of endless numbers of marine life, ranging from small fish to seal lions, dolphins and sharks. The sandy bottom around the base of the wreck is littered with the bones and skulls of many of the net's victims.

In come the Ocean Defenders Alliance, a Huntington Beach, CA-based non-profit committed to protecting offshore reefs and seabeds from dangerous man-made objects, particularly fishing nets which, when torn or lost at sea, often pose an ongoing hazard to marine life - as in the case of the sunken trawler at Catalina.

This past weekend, volunteer divers working with the Ocean Defenders Alliance made a series of deep dives, breathing a Nitrox blend to limit the possibility of decompression sickness, to cut away the derelict netting and haul it to the surface - not an easy task due to the depth, limited visibility, and shear bulk of the fishing net. As much as 800 square feet of netting was recovered, but organizers believe it will take many more dives to retrieve it all.

Congratulations to the Ocean Defenders Alliance for taking this proactive step regarding abandoned, derelict fishing nets - a worldwide problem that contributes to the death of many tens of thousands of marine animals. (Read entire L.A. Times article.)

The Terminator: moving climate change to the front page

California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to push environmental issues to the forefront - this time by holding a conference in Los Angeles with governors and international representatives (see link/video). Preparing for hoped-for progress from a new administration, the Governor is looking for consensus that will help push the U.S. into a more leadership position in the battle to address global warming. That would most likely mean a new Kyoto Protocol treaty - one in which the U.S. plays a more positive role.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the conference was presented with a video message from President-elect Obama. Regarding the upcoming Kyoto Protocol talks to resume in Poland, Obama said:

"Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations. . . . Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response."


On the flip side, the L.A. Times also reported that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to weaken the exisiting regulations regarding clean air in national parks, making it easier for the construction or operation of nearby coal and oil refineries - all to the objection of many of the EPA's own senior officials and experts. For some time, the current administration has been using the EPA to run roughshod over the objections of its own experts. Hopefully that will change with the changing of the guard.

Couple steps forward; couple steps back. Let's make sure the new administration moves forward in the right direction. They seem well-intentioned but we must be vigilant.

Understanding Apex Predators: the truth shall set them free

In making a case for conservation and protection of important predators, we must always stick to the facts, understanding the true role and behavior of the animal in question. In generating sympathy for the animal's plight, we must not succumb to the temptation to paint an alternative distorted image that decieves the public and does not do justice to the complexity and balance of Nature's eco-systems.

Tonight, Animal Planet is airing "The Grizzly Man Diaries" about Timothy Treadwell, the young man who spent many years closely observing Grizzly Bears in the wild and promoting these apex predators of the forest as benevolent creatures, communing with them on a quasi-spiritual level. In posturing these important animals outside of their role as predators, he and his girlfriend paid the ultimate price as they were attacked and killed by a bear who was probably on the hunt and whose natural predatory instincts kicked in.

I have seen this same sort of misrepresentation by some well-meaning but misguided shark advocates. We must not swing the pendulum from one extreme - as malevolent man-eaters - to another extreme - as innocent puppy dogs. This does a disservice to these predators and assumes that the public is unable to appreciate these animals for the critical role they play.

And it can put people in harm's way, people who have chosen to enter the natural domain of these animals with a misguided understanding of the role and behavior of an apex predator. In interacting with sharks, eco-tourism/shark diving operations have a responsibility to do so in a controlled environment. And the print and broadcast media have a responsibility to present these animals in their proper context.

It is abundantly clear that the populations of many of our larger species of reef and pelagic sharks are being decimated in staggering proportions. But to combat that commercial slaughter, we must not resort to "humanizing" these animals. In a Los Angeles Times review of the Treadwell program, staff writer Mary McNamara wrote:
"..it is impossible to walk away from "The Grizzly Man Diaries" without thinking about the place of humans in the natural world, of how we impose our definitions of love and friendship on creatures who may not be able to reciprocate and why we need to do so at all."

The truth is, one, animals like large sharks and grizzly bears are magnificent, beautiful creatures worthy of our awe and respect. And two, they play a critical role in maintaining the health and balance of the natural ecosystems in which they exist. And three, they are apex predators - and because of that, if we interact with them, either deliberately or accidentally, we must understand their natural behavior and not unfairly "humanize" them. If we do not, we misrepresent them and ultimately betray their cause for survival.

Check your local TV listings for air dates of "The Grizzly Man Diaries."

Reactions to Shark Week: a shark "hater's" POV

So here is a follow up posting regarding Discovery's Shark Week and attitudes towards sharks in general. In today's Los Angeles Times there is an editorial from write Joe Queenan titled "I Hate Sharks" - can't get more direct than that.

Joe's position is that, even though he realizes the political correctness in recognizing the endangered status of sharks, he still can't get over the impact they have on him as the voracious man-eaters portrayed for centuries. In all fairness, much of his position is satirical. He humorously goes through a laundry list of potential substitutes to dread - from vultures to hyenas to anacondas, and more.

"I only hope that if a shark ever does eat me, he does so because he detects that I am a shark-loathing reactionary and deserve to die. I'd hate to get eaten just because some shark mistook me for a seal."

It's a humorous read but it does touch on some real points: for many there is a deep-seated, almost primal fear of ocean predators (undersea and therefore unseen). And it is those fundamental feelings that much of today's shark programming taps into, despite whatever mantle of pseudo-science it might wrap itself in. Are you there to see the car races - or the car crashes? You decide.

New study shows that Hawaiian reef fish are in decline - Los Angeles Times

Another great article in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times from Ken Weiss (read online version). Ken has a great knack for taking scientific data and putting into laymen's terms while also fairly presenting all sides of an issue.

Here we have a study from the International Coral Reef Symposium that documents that the Hawaiian Islands are clearly showing reef fish in decline, with as much as 75% of the species critically affected. The populations of reef fish play a critical role in maintaining healthy coral reefs "by grazing on algae that can quickly overgrow the stony corals and cause them to collapse." The primary culprit appears to be overfishing. Of additional concern is the fact that international authorities and local governments have not been effectively monitoring the take by recreational and small-scale subsistence fishermen, only the commercial operations - a bit like monitoring gas consumption among commercial trucks and ignoring the passenger vehicles.

If ever there was a need for better regulations and setting aside protected reserves, this is it. Then of course there is one of my favorite solutions: investing in more and better aquaculture. If you're a US citizen, remember: Hawaii is our 50th state, part of the team. So, check with the Oceanic Institute and NOAA to see what you can do to help our Pacific Paradise maintain its aquatic beauty.

Growth of oxygen-poor zones in the Pacific Ocean

On 05/18/08, RTSea wrote: Interesting but disturbing article in the Los Angeles Times regarding the growth of oxygen-poor zones (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/05/threatening-mar.html). Noting the expansion of the Pacific's zone along Mexico/Central America/South America, these zones are typically deep water but have been increasing in size, extending further north and south and becoming more shallow. These zones are different from equally dangerous "dead zones" caused by fertilizer-fed algae blooms, but have the same effect on sealife, pushing fish populations into different regions or oceanic stratas that can impact their health or expose them to a greater potential for over-fishing as their numbers increase in shallower waters.

The culprit behind this expansion, according to scientists from Germany to California, is global warming. As ocean temperatures increase due to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the water's ability to retain oxygen is compromised. One more domino effect that we must address and that proves that the health of the oceans is undeniably linked to our actions on the land.

Los Angeles Times publishes alarming article/DVD: Altered Oceans

On 06/02/07, RTSea wrote: One of the issues we must address is how we are impacting our marine environments with methods that we have, in the past, thought were ecologically safe. Treated sewage discharged miles of shore is now found to be producing excess nitrogen which is fueling the growth of algaes, some of which are highly toxic and cause everything from rashes and coughing spells to advanced neurological problems and even death.

The Los Angeles Times wrote a sobering series of award-winning articles in August of "06 about this situation, titled "Altered Oceans." You can view an online multi-media presentation of the articles and/or purchase a DVD of the series by logging on to http://www.latimes.com and typing in Altered Oceans in the Search window.

We stand at an aquatic precipice, pushing our marine ecosystems to various tipping points and we are seeing the effects now - in Florida reefs denuded of coral and covered by algae and seaweed, ailing seal populations in Southern California crippled by domoic acid - an algae byproduct, and in "Fire Algae"-infested areas of Australia"s Great Barrier Reef.

The time to act is now.