Environmental Leadership: some, but not enough, are looking to the future

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, I thought I would share a little observation I heard that reinforced my feelings regarding politics and the environment.  I was watching a political talk show the other day and on the discussion panel a conservative and a liberal were going at it regarding climate change.  The conservative, a former congressman, was questioning the validity of the science that supports climate change and the liberal was taking the standard position that the science is overwhelming - the usual standoff, positions and arguments that many of us have heard before.

The conservative than said something very revealing.  He acknowledged that temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere have changed but said, as a sort of counter-argument, that scientists have claimed that if we stopped producing CO2 today, it would take a hundred years for temperatures to cool down by a few degrees.  To which the liberal replied, "And so that is why you suggest that we don't need to do anything?  That it will take a hundred years to see any results?  That's why we should have been doing something decades ago, but we didn't know any better.  But today, we do."

One of the biggest challenges facing the environmental movement is that so much of what needs to be accomplished is long-term in nature.  Sometimes very, very long term.  The benefits of reducing overfishing, of restricting CO2 emissions and cutting back on ocean acidification - these may not be apparent in the short term.  We may not see it within a politician's term in office, we may not see it in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime.  Nature has an amazing ability to heal itself when given a chance, when not pushed to the point of no return.  But it can be a slow healing process and we have become a very impatient people.

Mankind seems to be a species that thrives on crisis.  We don't like it, yet time and time again we push ourselves to the edge before we act.  We've done it with our economies, we've done it with political conflict and wars, but we can't do it with the environment.  As Dr. Greg Stone of Conservation International is fond of saying (I heard him re-tell this again at a recent reception saluting the Phoenix Islands Protected Area), earth is a spaceship hurtling through the cosmos at thousands of miles per hour.  It is a spaceship that comes with a life support system that cannot be replenished or resupplied.  What we have is all that we have.

However, while current politicians cajole us with a chicken-in-every-pot promises and ignore the hard issues that won't garner them immediately positive poll numbers, there are some organizations, even government institutions, that are looking at long-term problems like climate change, considering the myriad of implications which lie ahead and taking steps to address them.

The World Ocean Observatory is an online information exchange that runs a series of weekly 5-minute podcasts.  I came across a recent podcast "Who's Thinking Ahead About Climate Change" that noted the efforts of two very different groups, the U.S. Navy and the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, in acknowledging the current state of climate change and preparing for the consequences.  Accepting the scientific data, they recognize the implications and are preparing to deal with the environmental changes that lie ahead.  Here is the podcast:  Click here.

We demand leadership from our politicians and decision makers, but true leadership goes beyond promises of quick fixes back to the "good old days" of expensive homes, SUVs, and mindless consumption.  It requires decisions that move beyond immediate gratification and look to a future where succeeding generations of earth-bound astronauts will have a life support system that they can depend on.  It's paying it forward on the grandest of scale and the most noble endeavor mankind can undertake.

Source: World Ocean Observatory

Blue Vision Summit 3: interview with organizer David Helvarg on ocean conference

The third Blue Vision Summit, which recently concluded in Washington, DC, brought together a diverse group of participants, ranging from noted ocean conservationists and scientists like Dr. Sylvia Earle and David Guggenheim, to government and regulatory agency representatives like NOAA head Dr. Jane Lubchenco and US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, to a host of filmmakers, artists, and concerned citizen groups.

These are people who, for the most part, know the issues at hand regarding ocean conservation; they are more interested in where we stand regarding solutions. Presentations and discussion panels were held that covered pressing ocean issues from a more policy and politics perspective. The two days of meetings and solution-oriented discussion were offset by more social events in the evening, including the Peter Benchley Awards Ceremony, presented to outstanding individuals in several categories - some of which included ocean science, policy, and youth activism. (Unbeknown to much of the general public, Peter Benchley, following the success of Jaws and seeing the misconceptions it fostered with the general public, devoted a large part of the remainder of his career to ocean and shark conservation.)

As an attendee, I found the Blue Vision Summit to be both a source of optimism and concern. There is progress being made on a variety of specific issues. However, the wheels of governmental progress move agonizingly slow and those involved and committed to ocean conservation must contend with the economic pressures and interests that can often prevent policy makers from making thoughtful long-term decisions regarding our marine resources - the Gulf of Mexico, ravaged by two hurricanes, a major oil spill, and now flooding from the Mississippi River, being a prime example. My hat is off to those who are relentless in their assault on Washington and other centers of government worldwide in defense of the seas.

To best summarize the event, I interviewed the architect behind the Blue Vision Summits, David Helvarg, director of the Blue Frontier Campaign.

RTSea: What was the genesis of the Blue Vision Summits?

DH: Shortly after I wrote my book Blue Frontier I was asked to speak to 1,000 ocean agency and academic types who meet regularly to discuss the status of ocean management. Afterwards, I thought that if you could get an equal number of "seaweed rebels" together you might really turn the tide. In 2003, I recycled my book into the non-profit Blue Frontier Campaign (BFC) hoping to provide an umbrella for local, regional and national groups in the U.S. and in 2004 we had our first Blue Vision Summit in Washington, DC with 250 folks.

RTSea: The timing for the three summits has been spaced out – 2004, 2009, 2011. Why is that?

DH: 2004 was timed to 2 major ocean commissions, the Pew Ocean Commission headed by Leon Panetta that reported in 2003 and the Bush Appointed U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that reported in 2004. They both suggested that the ecological collapse of our public seas posed a threat to our economy, environment and security and offered a host of solutions. We hoped to spark a BOB ("Big Ocean Bill") as Rep. Sam Farr referred to it, similar to the Clean Air and Clean Water acts of the 20th Century.

For the next 5 years, BFC continued to work on policy, journalistic reporting on the seas - including publication of the book 50 Ways to Save the Ocean, - and regional efforts. With the arrival of the Obama Administration we thought we had another chance to bring the ocean constituency together and more than 400 attended BVS2 two months after the inauguration. Out of that we saw a lot of momentum around a National Ocean Policy and also established the Peter Benchley Ocean Awards as an annual event. Following the BP oil disaster that I covered in the Gulf and the President's signing off on a National Ocean Policy, we thought we needed another Summit to focus on restoring the Gulf and implementing the Policy. If there is enough marine community support we will try and make the Summits a biannual (every other year) event.

RTSea: One of the key topics of this year’s summit was the legacy of the Gulf of Mexico’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Not to downplay that environmental disaster, but why the emphasis?

DH: After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the BP oil spill was just the latest insult to an ocean basin that has come to be seen as a national sacrifice area in terms of reckless exploitation. What the Summit focused on both in the "Voices of the Gulf" Plenary organized by the Gulf Restoration Network and the federal panel including NOAA's Jane Lubchenco and Admiral Thad Allen is that, along with low probability/high impact disasters like BP, we have to begin restoration efforts aimed at loss of wetlands, climate change impacts, pollution and a range of ongoing and cascading disasters that are being felt not only in the Gulf but across our living seas.

RTSea: There was a range of responses from the audience, some quite passionate, regarding the oil spill and its aftermath. How do you think the panelists representing government agencies handled themselves and what are your views on government action – federal and state – today in dealing with the spill’s after-affects?

DH: I think the government reps handled themselves well and expected a passionate response from Gulf residents and others. In fact, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco sent me a positive note on how well she thought the panel she was on went. The larger federal response, unfortunately, has been to work on the impacts from the BP spill while still promoting expanded offshore deep-water drilling. We need to begin a serious effort to transition from fossil fuels. Any new platform is a commitment to at least 30 years of additional greenhouse gas pollution as well as potential marine pollution. The Gulf states' response to the spill has been to try and hoard as much of any settlement fund as they can for themselves individually as states. Until there is a regional commitment to a shared fund focused on restoring the ecosystem and not local infrastructures like roads and convention centers, the state response remains problematic.

RTSea: The Blue Vision Summit was held in Washington D.C. and there was a slant toward policy and regulatory issues. This may not seem particularly “sexy” to some ocean conservationists, but it is, I believe, where many maturing ocean conservation issues ultimately reach a “rubber meets the road” level and either accomplish something concrete or fall to the wayside. How do you see it?

DH: I liked the panel titled "Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning - What's in it for me?" Until local activists (and coastal businesses) working on a range of marine issues understand how a common-sense national ocean policy benefits them, we won't have a large enough constituency to take the President's good words off the paper he signed and put them into the water column. At the same time the feds should be aiming to catch up with solution-oriented policies already being practiced in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, on the West Coast, and elsewhere. They should be moving towards implementing the national ocean policy through designated regional ocean councils. Instead, I'm left with the strong impression that the administration doesn't want to do this until after the 2012 elections and are using some right-wing republicans opposition as an excuse for not moving aggressively.

RTSea: You mention “coastal and marine spatial planning” and this may be a new term to many people reading this. Can you explain what marine spatial planning is in more detail?

DH: Not the most elegant phrase - Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) is, in the words of Admiral Thad Allen (USCG Ret.), "putting urban planning in the water column." I'd conceive it as working with all the stakeholders in our public seas to clean up our watersheds, green our ports and coastal infrastructure, and designate offshore areas for shipping, clean energy, fishing, national defense, marine wilderness parks and wildlife migration corridors - recognizing that everything needs to be integrated in a way that preserves the ecological services and wild qualities of our seas. This common planning approach also increases regulatory certainty for industry, protects resource dependent jobs and strengthens nationals security since, if you have a better sense of where all the players are, its easier to identify the bad actors like pirates, poachers and terrorists.

RTSea: Shark conservation is reaching a similar point where the emotional issue over the brutality of shark finning has propelled a grass roots movement to a level where now we have legislation and international regulations being implemented or, at least, considered. But this brings in a whole new set of players and agendas into the game – the politicians, economic interests, lobbyists, etc. - to whom or which the morality of shark finning does not necessarily resonate and a different strategy or mindset on the part of the shark advocates is needed. Do you find that to be the case with other ocean issues?

DH: Ocean protection is about more than protecting the ecosystem, which you need a certain science grounding to understand. It is also about protecting the ecological services we all depend on. Fortunately, things like marine spatial planning are also complimentary to maritime domain awareness, a key element of national defense. And of course, the Summit also emphasized the links between a healthy ocean and healthy economy. The role of sharks as keystone species that keep reefs and other habitats as healthy sources of coastal protection and tourist revenues suggest other potential allies including the tourist and insurance industries.

RTSea: President Obama has laid the foundation for a U.S. Ocean Policy. But in your view, where do we stand right now and what needs to be done to bring about concrete change?

DH: We as a community need to work on two fronts - One, to make sure the administration moves forward with the regional implementation of the policy before the 2012 elections. At the same time we have to push back against the oil and gas industry and their front groups, like the National Ocean Policy Coalition whose purpose is to destroy the national ocean policy. When Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA), whose major campaign contributor last year was the oil and gas industry, calls a common sense policy that will protect millions of jobs a "job killer," I'm reminded of Upton Sinclair when he wrote, "It's hard to understand something when your salary depends on your not understanding it."

RTSea: The Blue Vision Summit 3 culminated with a large group of participants meeting with government representatives at the Capitol building, a polite “storming of the Bastille” as it were. Meetings were scheduled with various senators and other officials. What were you hoping to accomplish and what were the results?

DH: We had over 70 meetings with Congressional staff and a few elected officials from many regions including the Gulf and the Rocky Mountain west (we had a contingent with us from the Colorado Ocean Coalition). We made a number of House and Senate offices aware of ocean policy and funding issues including the Ocean Trust Fund proposal introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). In just one example of increasing understanding we met with staff from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office. They commented on lack of communication issues between the White House and the Hill and said they were vaguely aware of the President's ocean policy but weren't clear who was behind it. We were able to explain that we were part of its constituency and provided the history and background of the policy that connected with their concerns.

RTSea: At the conference, it was mentioned that one of the problems with ocean conservation is that it does not have a constituency – at least one that government can or will respond to. There was an attempt circulating to form an Ocean Caucus. Can you explain what this is about and what it’s benefit would be?

DH: Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) is working with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and others to create a Senate Ocean Caucus similar to the bipartisan House Ocean Caucus to strengthen recognition among their fellow Senators that ocean issues are national issues and getting things right on our blue frontier is of concern to all Americans. By visiting our elected representatives on the Hill and in their home offices in their districts and states we seaweed (marine grassroots) folks at Blue Vision helped strengthen the position of our handful of ocean champions on the hill and hopefully have begun to elevate our public seas into the public policy arena, putting the blue back in our red, white and blue and impacting the larger blue planet beyond our 200 mile ocean borders.

RTSea: So, what’s next for David Helvarg?

DH: Along with the continued work of Blue Frontier including work with Associate Director Mary Kadzielski and our board of directors, I'll be getting back to researching my next book, Golden Shore - The Epic Tale of California and the Sea.

To learn more about the Blue Vision Summit, click here.
To learn more about the Blue Frontier Campaign, click here.

Politics and the Environment: legislative rider and other tricks can undermine environmental laws

One of politics' most insidious little inventions is the "rider" - an attachment to an unrelated piece of legislation that enables passage under the cover of radar of something that it's supporters would prefer to not see get much public exposure. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) is rightfully concerned how the rider is being used to undermine environmental laws and regulations. It's something that we all should be concerned about.

Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, recently wrote to President Obama expressing serious concern over the rider on the budget bill, signed by the president, which takes wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains off the endangered species list -- "a highly undesirable precedent," the governor noted, on an issue that "deserve[d] open and informed debate." Kitzhaber asked the president to "avoid repeating such an approach to policy decision-making" in the future. And indeed, the threat of special interests trumping species protection is great:

• Livestock interests and the anti-wolf Arizona Game and Fish Department are seeking legislative delisting of all gray wolves in the nation, including the approximately 50 Mexican gray wolves surviving in Arizona and New Mexico.
• The oil and gas industry is seeking to exempt greenhouse gases from regulation, despite their catastrophic effects on polar bears, walruses, coral reefs and much more.
• Agribusiness interests in California are seeking a rider to deprive the San Francisco Bay ecosystem of the water necessary to keep delta smelt and many other imperiled fish from extinction.

Please ask your governor to join in writing the president, expressing dismay that wolves were delisted via congressional rider and requesting presidential leadership to ensure that the Endangered Species Act will not be circumvented again.

CBD can help you send a message to your governor. Just click here.

Northern Rockies Gray Wolves: passing budget legislation could seal their fate

With important budget legislation needing to be passed, the machinations of tit-for-tat politics was in high gear this past week. Beneath the headlines of government shutdowns being avoided and federal funding for the remainder of the year being passed, there hides the legislative rider or amendment that gets slipped in to grease the wheels of political progress.

This week, the gray wolf, which has been the subject of a back and forth battle in the U.S. Rocky Mountain states over its status as an endangered species, appears to be once again in the cross hairs of state-approved eradication meant to satisfy cattlemen and sport hunters.

But of even greater potential concern is what the legislative rider's language seems to imply regarding the future ability of the Endangered Species Act to protect any animal or plant from economic or non-environmental interests that could threaten a species' survival.

As reported by Associated Press, " The White House is poised to accept a budget bill that includes an unprecedented end-run around Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves in five Western states — the first time Congress has targeted a species protected under the 37-year-old law.

Lawmakers describe the provision in the spending bill as a necessary intervention in a wildlife dilemma that some say has spun out of control. Sixty-six wolves were reintroduced to the Northern Rockies from Canada in the mid-1990s; there are now at least 1,650.

But legal experts warn the administration's support of lifting protections for the animals opens the door to future meddling by lawmakers catering to anti-wildlife interests.

The endangered act has long been reviled by conservatives who see it as a hindrance to economic development. Now, the administration's support for the wolf provision signals that protections for even the most imperiled animals, fish and plants are negotiable given enough political pressure, experts said.

'The president could have used some political capital to influence this and he didn't,' said Patrick Parenteau, a professor of environmental law from the Vermont Law School. 'The message to the environmental community is, don't count on the administration to be there for the protection of endangered species.'

Environmentalists still count Obama as an ally on other issues, ranging from climate change and wilderness preservation to oil and gas exploration. Yet experts in wildlife law say that in the scramble to pass the budget, the administration is circumventing one of the country's bedrock environmental laws."

This is an issue that dates back to the prior Bush administration and the many attempts it made to thwart or neutralize the Endangered Species Act or the EPA's Clean Air Act, often by trying to eliminate independent scientific research and recommendations from the process and putting the final determination of ecological or environmental decisions solely in the hands of politicians.

It would appear that, with a new administration, we are faced with that challenge once again.

"We are having the worst attack on the Endangered Species Act in 30 years while we have a Democratic Senate and a Democratic White House," said Kieran Suckling, Executive Director of the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). "They are trying to shut citizens and scientists out of the endangered species process."

Organizations like the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, and others have been fighting for the continued survival of the Northern Rockies' gray wolves. It has been a long battle but also a classic example of what can happen to an ecosystem when it loses a primary predator. When the gray wolf population was thinned out to protect cattle interests, rodent and deer populations exploded which threatened grazing land.

With environmental protections, the number of gray wolves has steadily increased. However, the total number does not reflect the isolated nature of individual or regional wolf packs. The loss of just a few wolves can have a disastrous effect on the fate of an entire pack, and so the fabric that makes up an entire wolf population is very fragile and not as resilient as politicians or the cattle industry lobbyists would have you believe.

“Tens of millions of dollars were spent building up the wolf population in the northern Rockies and giving wolves a toehold in Washington and Oregon," says CBD's Suckling. "Now, in one fell swoop, that investment is being swept away. Wolves in Washington and Oregon may disappear in a few years. Those in the northern Rockies will begin plummeting and may be lost in a few decades.”

Read about the gray wolf in Yahoo News.
Read a press release from CBD.
Send a letter to President Obama regarding preserving the gray wolves.

Oregon's Proposed Marine Reserves: politics in getting MPAs in the US northwest

Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are aquatic reserves that are designed to restrict or prohibit activities deemed harmful to the marine environment. This has typically meant strict regulations on commercial or sport fishing activities but in some cases it has extended further to include other industrial or recreational activities. What is or is not allowed depends on where the reserve is located, its size, and the environmental and economic considerations impacted by the reserve.

Some reserves are quite large, like the South Pacific's multi-national Pacific Oceanscape or Hawaii's Northwestern Islands. Or they can be smaller and localized, like California's central coast marine sanctuaries that include the Channel Islands. But as a global total, marine protect areas cover only a mere one percent of the world's oceans.

The challenge with all MPAs is that they are the end result of a political process, and to deal with that can be as exciting as watching paint dry. Thought-provoking pictures and images and reams of scientific data are all part of the process in considering a marine reserve, but ultimately it boils down to government officials, conservation and environmental interests, and economic interests all trying to hammer out a compromise that the interested or effected parties can live with. And this can be a drawn out process at best.

Along the U.S.'s Oregon coast lies some of the country's most rugged and beautiful coastline and marine ecosystems. Rugged, but just as fragile as any tropical reef system when faced with overfishing, pollution, or any other man-made abuse. The state has been at work to determine the scope of possible MPAs along the Cape Arago area, developing as many as eight different proposals. A recommendation committee has been formed to whittle that number down to just three for public comment.

MPAs follow a process very similar to our legislative process in the U.S. A proposal is put forth, much like a bill, and then it goes to a committee where it is tweaked and amended, then brought forth for public comment, and then ultimately voted on - that's it in a simplified nutshell. Anywhere along the way, it can be derailed by lobby groups or public sentiment and pushed from an internal governmental process to an open ballot initiative, which can be a more drawn out and openly politicized battle.

In 2008, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski asked the state's Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) for recommendations for coastal marine reserves. Thus began a lengthy process that included environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing interests. Oregon has several major commercial fishing industries, including salmon and crab, and so the delicate political maneuvering began to reach a suitable compromise. A committee was formed to try and develop proposals that would be at least close to acceptable to all involved.

As reported in the Oregon The World, OPAC committee chair Jim Pex said, "There's a strong political force trying to get as much area in reserves as possible, and a strong force wanting no reserves at all. . . As with any group that is diverse, it takes time to get everyone to move in one direction."

To insure that the process would move forward, the committee adopted several interesting rulings:

• No proposal would be considered that inhibited salmon fishing or crabbing.
• There is no known biological problem that a marine reserve would solve at this time.
• Additionally, funding for ongoing government research would be required to justify the reserve. No funding, no reserve.

Personally, I found these to be some interesting concessions. Once again, an economic consideration (salmon fishing and crabbing) was given a higher priority over the environmental benefit. If it's bad for business then nature will just have to wait. The problem is, as we have seen with other commercial fishing industries, nature doesn't wait; it continues to degrade until the industry collapses due to a decimated fish population.

The second point is a curious one. If the position is to not recognize any biological problem that a marine reserve would solve, then why have the reserve? Or is it a case of getting commercial interests to cooperate by not ascribing any problem specifically to their activities? MPAs have already been shown to increase sealife populations and this has even had a positive effect on commercial fish populations outside of the reserves boundaries. And as I have reported in previous posts, there is a growing issue of increased populations of Humboldt squid all along the eastern Pacific - a situation which possibly could be mitigated by marine reserves which would support an increase in natural predators to the squid (right now, Humboldt squid can pose a serious threat to a multi-million dollar salmon fishery).

In addressing the research funding issue, to insure that there will be continued research to justify any reserve established, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating ways of procuring funding, made difficult in a "no more government spending" climate. Non-governmental funding is being looked into through the use of foundations, trusts, and even federal appropriations.

OPAC is hoping that the final proposals will be brought before the public for comment by the end of the year. The process is an elaborate one and, as we have seen with other U.S. legislation, the end result can be considerably watered down from what was perhaps once envisioned. It certainly is not the "sexy" part of ocean policy but beyond all the fund-raising or issue-raising parties and events, after all the videos and slide presentations, this is what it boils down to: hard-fought negotiations and back room politics.

Hopefully the end result is something that provides the oceans with a real benefit. And, hopefully, mankind learns that by doing that, it too becomes a beneficiary.

Read about Oregon's MPA politics in The World.

Leaving a Good Legacy: authors say combating climate change should appeal to conservatives

I was reading an interesting editorial in the latest issue of TIME, Leaving a Good Legacy, written by William Antholis and Strobe Talbott, about the ethical case for combating climate change and how it should appeal to conservatives.

What, you say? Conservatives combating climate change - how could this be? Well, on the face of it, it would seem a stretch in this world of polarizing politics where so-called "liberals" are the ones dedicating themselves to the environment and "conservatives" are dedicated to ravaging it for profit. And there would certainly be some truth in that, particularly based on the shrill comments from the extreme ends of both parties.

But Antholis and Talbott make an argument that taking on climate change and preserving the environment are actually conservative values at heart. Recognizing that government and society are part of a legacy to future generations and that what debts we incur on our way of life should be paid within our own time and not placed on future generations - these are actually prudent fundamentals exposed by founding conservatives throughout history.

Perhaps, in the U.S., the conservative movement, personified by the Republican party, has focused its aim to conserve on merely maintaining the status quo and conserving financial assets - wealth. But, as Antholis and Talbott point out, there are some in the party who recognize where the future of their party lies: with a generation that is keenly aware of environmental issues and the kind of world they face if those issues aren't addressed. U.S. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is supporting new energy legislation, working with Senators John Kerry (Democrat) and Joe Lieberman (Independent), that addresses job growth in the alternative energy sector which would have a positive impact on the fight against global warming.

"Surprisingly, perhaps, it is Graham who has been most forceful in making the case for effective steps to counter climate change. 'I have been to enough college campuses to know — if you are 30 or younger, this climate issue is not a debate,' he told New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in February. 'It's a value ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them.'"

The Gulf oil spill is a consequence of our dependence on fossil fuels, one that is staring us in the face right now and whose effects will linger for decades. Global warming is also a consequence of fossil fuels, with effects that can be more far-reaching on many generations to come. If a true conservative is prudent, responsible, and less inclined toward excess, then the ramifications of our dependence on fossil fuels and what we are saddling future generations with, regarding the air we breathe and the water we drink, should be of major concern. In an ideal world, the environment should be a common cause for all politicians because it speaks to our living legacy to those who will have to carry on with what we did or did not do.

"We come into this world in debt to our ancestors, and we leave it an incrementally better place, believing our descendants will come up with means of fending off or coping with whatever their age throws at them," writes Antholis and Talbott. "Down through the years, that has been the narrative of the human family. But global warming alters it in a basic way. We cannot leave those who come after us to their own devices. If we do not get the process of mitigating climate change started right now, our descendants, however skilled, will not be able to cope with the consequences. If we do nothing, we will likely bequeath to them a less habitable — perhaps even uninhabitable — planet, the most negative legacy imaginable. That is why there is no time to lose."

Read entire editorial in TIME.
Antholis and Talbott are authors of Fast Forward: Ethics and Politics in the Age of Global Warming.

Hawaiian Shark Fin Ban: a great victory in the legislature, but what next?

SB 2169, the Hawaiian ban on the sale, trade, and distribution of shark fins, has passed the state legislature and awakes signature by Hawaii's governor. This is a significant moment on several counts:

• It eliminates Hawaii as a major distribution hub for shark fins
• It sets a new standard for other states or countries to emulate
• It places the social heritage of Hawaiians' respect for sharks over the lucrative economic interests of the commercial shark fishing industry
• It recognizes the importance of the shark as a vital member of a healthy marine ecosystem

In the final vote, the sole opposition came from Rep. Riki Karamatsu, who had opposed the legislation, then seemed to favor it, and then at the eleventh hour re-took his opposing position. Because of his apparent support from the shark fishery industry, I took the position that he would remain opposed to the legislation. While some commended the representative when he appeared in favor of it, I was skeptical and adopted a what-and-see attitude.

It usually feels good to be right, but not when it means that it confirms the undue influence that economic interests can have over politicians.

Hardy congratulations are well deserved to those legislators who initiated and supported SB 2169 and to the many citizens who worked hard to promote it through some difficult times. But we must still be vigilant.

• As Hawaii's shark fin distribution business is dismantled, will the business move to other potential sites: San Francisco, other Pacific islands, or back to Asian soil?
• Will Hawaii continue on this path and consider banning or limiting business in other shark products like cartilage, liver oil, or meat (at least from highly threatened species)?
• Will future legislation, spawned from backroom deals with industry lobbyists, weaken the current legislation?

For now, it is a time to celebrate a great victory and loudly commend Hawaii's decision makers for siding with sensible conservation. And then tomorrow we carry on.

Read Washington Post article.

Self-Preservation: of nature and the institutions we turn to

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. And so we must always be prepared to yank the sheets out from underneath to clean up the hankypanky. Basically, all these colorful metaphors reflect the need to maintain a healthy skepticism of political institutions, corporations, and, yes, even the non-profit organizations we often turn to who carry the cause of conservation.

Why? Self-preservation. It's fundamental, it's common to all living things. But I'm not talking about the self-preservation of nature, the cause that we are championing. Self-preservation is also a driving force behind less tangible or tactile entities - like, government, business, non-profits, and even public attitudes. Take these recent examples:

• President Obama opens up the possibility of offshore oil drilling off the east coast, in areas he had specifically vowed during his campaign that he would prevent. The California and Alaska coast were spared for the moment, but his actions set a dangerous precedent for future drilling in those areas. Why the turnaround? Self-preservation of possible energy/climate change legislation, of his presidency's effectiveness, his party's position of power and/or influence, and so on.

• Former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin has tentatively inked a deal for a limited series on the Alaskan wilderness. With Ms. Palin's track record regarding oil drilling, polar bears, beluga whales, and more; for many conservationists, this would be like Michael Vick hosting a canine puppy series. So, why? Self-preservation of a cable network sure to get ratings, of a politician/celebrity positioning herself for both monetary and political gain.

• The UN-based CITES conference walks away from taking a pro-conservation stance regarding a variety of marine species. Why? Self-preservation again. This time with the economic interests of certain nations exerting their influence to such a degree that to resist would have threatened the stability of the organization - something that has plagued many UN-based efforts.

It is this fundamental and understandable sense of self-preservation which propels us to be skeptical of the institutions that are supposed to provide, support, or protect us. Skeptical but not cynical, for that can lead to disillusionment and rejection - which can lead you to either stockpile ammunition and live in a cave or become an eco-terrorist, both of which are ultimately counter-productive.

So rather than throw in the towel when progress seems mired in institutional self-interest, I hope that conservationists - young or old, veteran or neophyte - can retain these attitudes and continue to press forward:

Determination: Remember that, while there are bound to be setbacks, the cause of conservation is also one of self-preservation - that of the entire planet - and that is a fundamental worth pursuing.

Reasonability: This is to say that if you want to convert or change someone's position, you had better have your arguments well-founded and indisputable. There will always be debate, so it behooves us to make accurate and rational arguments, devoid of acrimony or exaggeration.

Proactive: To get self-preserving institutions to act on behalf of a larger cause or greater good, such as conservation, requires relentless pushing and nudging. They may do so kicking and screaming or only doing so when they perceive it as also serving their own self-interests, but it can be done - at the ballot box, in the courts, at the check-out counter, and even at the grass roots level in the court of public opinion.

Do what you can when you can. And retain a healthy dose of skepticism.

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson

Political cartoon 2010 by Toles/Washington Post

CITES Conference: a major disappoinment for ocean conservation

Having been on location for the past two weeks, I am now getting caught up on some conservation issues. And I am finding myself to be a bit disappointed and discouraged. The CITES conference that concluded last week in Qatar was definitely a letdown for ocean conservationists as proposed trade measures to protect marine species ranging from bluefin tuna to sharks were defeated.

Regarding the bluefin tuna, Japan apparently waged a vigorous campaign to defeat the proposed Appendix I rating, which would have initiated a complete trade ban. The populations of bluefin tuna are considered so perilously low that many marine biologists question whether extinction can be avoided.

There was a long list of sharks that were up for various levels of protection ranging from the hammerhead species to the spiny dogfish. All were rejected. And proposals to protect coral species were similarly defeated.

There were proposals that were adopted for several terrestrial flora and fauna - those that basically had little commercial value. In the end, what became clear was that CITES was more interested in the short-term gain of propping up dwindling trade in endangered species than in the protection of those species in the long term. Preserving the status quo of market-driven economies was more important than preserving the very resources that are the foundations of those economies.

Renown shark researcher Leonard Compagno, Director of the Shark Research Institute said, "CITES seems to be primarily about promoting trade in endangered species, not regulating or preventing it. Its mode of operation seems to favor behind the scenes lobbying and power-politics with certain countries dominating by their wealth and power, and species seem to become protected in the breach when parties are not interested in opposing CITES protection. It addresses a tiny fraction of biodiversity, and seems reluctant to be engaged in battling the biotic holocaust that stalks the world."

Perhaps CITES will take steps in the future - when the tuna boats return to port with their holds empty, when there are no more fins for shark fin soup, and when the last great polar bear has sunk to the bottom of the Arctic ocean. But by then, their only recourse will be to hang their heads in shame for their greed and lack of foresight.

I'm generally an optimistic and determined person when it comes to conservation. I think I need to curl up with some comfort food and rally my inner forces. Tomorrow is another day.

Click here to read the latest press release.
Click here to read the results of the proposals.

Hawaii Shark News: prohibitions, good and bad

There are some interesting shark conservation and ecotourism developments coming out of Hawaii. I received emails from Stefanie Brendl, who operates Hawaii Shark Encounters, noting some good news and not so good news. Okay, bad news first. . .

Legislation To Ban Shark Encounters
For nearly a year now, Hawaii has been wrestling with the on-again, off-again issue of curtailing all shark ecotourism operations. It has become a political football between island council members and state legislators with arguments including appeals to fear-based public misconceptions, rebutting scientific studies, and projections of small business and tourism economic losses. (More background info from prior posts in April and July.)

The issue has resurfaced with legislation again designed to curtail all shark ecotourism operations. The shark ecotoruism opponents have complicated matters with a series of similarly worded pieces of legislation, blitzing the political landscape with as many as five separate legislative proposals. However, two amendments have been proposed that would "grandfather" in the two existing operations on Oahu's North Shore.

The text of all the proposed bills (HB2459, HB2664, HB2705, HB2483, SB2330, and the amendments HB2900 and SB2655) can be read at the Hawaii state web site (click here).

If you would like to express support to the Hawaii legislators that are championing for the continuation of the current shark ecotourism operators, you can email:
Senator Robert Bunda, senbunda@capitol.hawaii.gov
Representative Michael Magaoay, repmagaoay@capitol.hawaii.gov

Legislation To Prohibit Shark Fins
Here's the good news. Stefanie has relayed the announcement of proposed legislation to prohibit the sale and distribution of shark fins in the state. Specifically designed to address a loophole that has allowed containers of shark fins to be sold and shipped through Hawaiian ports, the legislation, SB2169, will address a long-standing issue in international shark conservation as Hawaii is a recognized distribution center for shark products. As an example, for my shark conservation speaking engagements, I use a can of shark fin soup as a prop - a product of Thailand, distributed in Hawaii and which I purchased from an online Hawaiian distributor/merchant. (The only such purchase I have ever made, by the way.)

Supporters of the legislation are also hoping to refine the wording so that it can expand the definition of shark fin products to include shark fin soup itself.

As often is the case with new legislation, there will be several public hearings. If you would like to provide public testimony (no rants, just solid reasonable commentary), there is an online process (click here).

Or you can email your support to the two senators who introduced the bill:
Senator Robert Bunda, senbunda@capitol.hawaii.gov
Senator Clayton Hee, senhee@capitol.hawaii.gov

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
  

Richard Clarke: recognizing climate as the top issue of the day

I was watching a political commentary/political satire television program the other night. A range of the hottest U.S. news issues were being discussed, from healthcare to Afghanistan to partisan politics. There was humor but there was plenty of solid, serious discussion taking place, too.

On the panel of guest commentators was Richard Clarke, a gentleman with an accomplished history of involvement in international and homeland security affairs for many years, working with the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations and currently a lecturer, author, and faculty member for the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

After a lengthy discussion of current events, the program moderator asked the panel what the most important issue facing us today really is. From Mr. Clarke, one might expect a political issue, terrorism perhaps, but his response was . . . global warming.

As many conservationists know, climate change is an issue that, in the end, trumps all others. But the challenge is we live in a world of short-term solutions and immediate needs first. Climate change requires long-term planning and actions that may not necessarily garner immediate or obvious results. Whether you are in the U.S. worrying about healthcare or in the African Savannah worrying about the next drop of water, it can be difficult to make the environment a front burner issue.

But make it we must because if we wait until it is a crisis priority, it just might be too late. As conservationists, our dedication must be towards outreach - making as many people aware of the importance of ecological issues as possible.
Compliments to Bill Day for the cartoon.