Earth Hour 2009: lights out on March 28th

Another NGO-sponsored event is World Wildlife Fund's Earth Hour 09, coming up this March, 28th. This is an event where, starting at 8:30pm local time, for one hour we turn off the power - your lights, your TV, your iPod. What began as a Sydney, AU-only statement of concern in 2007, became a global event in 2008. It's a symbolic gesture to show worldwide interest and support for curbing our insatiable demand for resources and the toll it is taking on the climate and the environment as a whole.



Now, there are those who dismiss these symbolic gestures as merely jumping on the bandwagon to feel good about ourselves for a brief moment before firing up the flat screen and revving up our SUVs to pick up more soda in the plastic liter bottles. Well, in terms of concrete proactive measures, they may have a point to some extant.

But generating public awareness is a fundamental step toward solid action, so let's hope that Earth Hour 09 is a bigger success than ever before. And hopefully, after the lights come back on, there will be data to show just what that brief respite meant in terms of emissions saved, resources saved, and more.

To learn more about Earth Hour 09, click here.

Ocean Conservancy's 2008 Coastal Cleanup Day: here's the dirt

For several years the Ocean Conservancy has been holding the International Coastal Cleanup Day in late September. On that day, people, from scuba divers to beachcombers, clean up beaches, shorelines, and local dive sites, collecting trash that is measured and listed in several categories - not only is it important to pick the trash up, but it is equally important to understand what kind of trash is making its way into our coastal waters.

For 2008, 400,000 participated worldwide and collected 6.8 million pounds of trash - that's 3,400 tons in one day! In terms of sheer numbers, the biggest culprits were cigarettes, plastic bags, and food wrappers/containers. Some items were perhaps not so surprising, like 1.3 million cigarette butts in the United States; others were a bit of a surprise, like over 11,000 diapers in the Philippines - even small countries can generate lots of trash from today's "modern convenience" items.

The Ocean Conservancy has issued several summary reports. There's an executive summary or the full report available in PDF (click here). As far as solutions go, the report offers several but nothing that is new or unique - it doesn't take a unique solution to fix what is an obvious problem: public and commercial participation, more recycling, better coastal management. Here are 10 suggestions from the Ocean Conservancy for any individual to consider:

	Volunteer for Ocean Conservancy's International Coastal Cleanup.
	Put trash in a secure, lidded receptacle - most marine debris starts out on land.
	Properly recycle everything you can in your area.
	When boating, bring your trash back to shore, and ask your marina to handle waste properly.
	Less is more: Don't buy stuff you don't need, and choose items that use less packaging.
	Inform and inspire your friends and co-workers to help stop marine debris at the source.
	Bring your own containers for picnics instead of using disposables. Take your own reusable bags whenever you go shopping.
	Write to companies or visit local businesses and encourage them to reuse, recycle, and generate less packaging.
	Put cigarette butts in ashtrays, not on streets, sidewalks, or beaches.
	Write to your elected officials and ask them to support policies that protect our ocean.

Congratulations to the Ocean Conservancy for another successful proactive environmental event. Let's look forward to the day when the International Coastal Cleanup Day is cancelled due to lack of trash!

Coral Reefs: usage zones to be set up in Nusa Pineda

Always nice to hear about measures being taken to protect coral reefs. Some people feel we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to marine issues, but coral reefs are extremely important to the health of the entire oceanic ecosystem. Just because you may not have coral reefs in your backyard, doesn't mean they have less impact.

The Coral Reef Alliance reported that in Nusa Pineda, near Bali, steps are being taken to establish various coral reef zones that will determine their use for activities like fishing and diving or snorkeling. It was recognized that the health of the reef impacts its value as a tourist destination. And the dollars brought in by tourism can offset or compensate loses in fishing or other aquatic farming activities.

Marthen Welly of The Nature Conservancy-Coral Triangle Center explained that what was proposed was three zones, namely the central, the utilization and the marine tourism zones, in the marine conservation area plan.

The central zone will cover areas that have the most breathtaking underwater view and are often visited by the world-famous Mola-mola fish and other types of marine life, including the manta ray and sperm whale. The utilization zone comprises offshore areas that can be utilized for seaweed farming and fishing; while the marine tourism zone, which also includes the central zone, can be used for water sports activities.

“Separating the zones is important because the activities in the islets are not well-managed now. People can plant seaweed anywhere, or fish in the snorkeling and diving spots,” Marthen said.

Balancing the interests of local fishermen or farmers with the economic benefits of tourism is an important goal for many tropical reef locales. Let's hope that was has been proposed for Nusa Pineda is successful and acts as an example to others. (Read article from The Jakarta Post.)

Cook Inlet Beluga Whales: Palin's latest target

While Alaska governor Sarah Palin generated a lot of interest during the presidential campaign, she also came under fire from conservationists due to her anti-conservation views regarding polar bears (opposed to a possible endangered species status) and timber wolves (approves aerial hunting by helicopter).

Seems she has not re-thought any of her views as she has taken a position against the pending endangered species listing of the Beluga Whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet. Feeling that enough is already being done, she has, on behalf of the state, filed an intent to sue in 60-days. But not every conservative supports her position. "Sarah Palin is a very gifted politician, she obviously has a future and she's going places," says Jim DiPeso, spokesman for Republicans for Environmental Protection. "And she is certainly within her rights to file litigation. But in this case she's on the wrong side of history and the American conservation movement, and of what's prudent and right."

The Cook Inlet is home to an isolated population of beluga whales that are exposed to pollutants from the oil industry - a leftover effect from a grandfather clause when the 1972 Clean Water Act was enacted, allowing the pollution to continue. That population has declined dramatically since the 1980s, from over 1,000 to about 375 now. More than 300 whales perished in one four-year stretch (1994 to 1998) alone, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Salon.com wrote an interesting and detailed piece on the entire flap and the Center of Biological Diversity plans to take decisive counter-action. Oddly, the belugas were listed as endangered candidates during the Bush administration. "It's hard to imagine that anyone could be more anti-environmental than Bush, but Palin is Exhibit A," says Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Here we had the most anti-environmental administration in U.S. history, and Palin still feels compelled to sue over one of the few environmentally positive things to come out of that administration."

Not hard to see where her intentions and allegiance lies - from the woman who echoed "drill, baby, drill."

Filmmaker's Journal: summer sea ice above the Arctic Circle

I had the pleasure and thrill of traveling above the Arctic Circle to the area known as the Northwest Passage. Working for the research organization InMER, I was tasked with documenting evidence of climate change through interviews with Inuit indian tribal elders and government officials, in addition to capturing images of the flora and fauna.

Flying from one location to another, we came across a vast field of sea ice - the very stuff that provides a floating base for animals like polar bears, penguins, and even seals. My first impression was that the ice was solid and impenetrable. But soon I could see that it was like a vast expanse of shattered glass.

At that very same moment, we learned that the summer ice levels had reached their lowest in recorded history. This made for a very sobering moment. Here I was, looking down on clear cut evidence of climate change, on a landscape as fragile as any you could imagine. With the loss of more and more sea ice, the opening of the Northwest Passage to commercial shipping traffic becomes an increasing reality. That spells serious environmental concerns for the region, not to mention what it says about the worldwide impact of climate change.

Here is a video that I put together for InMER that has been included in the new ocean layer of Google Earth (courtesy of InMER.org). Check it out and check out the new Google Earth!



Some of the footage I shot for InMER was also used in a segment of National Geographic Wild Chronicles series on PBS. The more that people learn about what is happening to our climate, hopefully the more we can do to improve the situation.

World Population: guess who is in the room?

When discussing conservation, the environment, or any number of global issues, there lurks in the background the 800-lb. gorilla that no one wants to talk about: human population. Not just populations in 3rd world countries, but global numbers and that includes industrialized countries as well.

If we look at this matter-of-factly, nature has over thousands of years developed methods of equilibrium, checks and balances as it were, all designed to maintain a healthy ecosystem. Whether through predation, disease, or life cycle, all plants and animals are given a chance to flourish within the boundaries of that system or face possible extinction. And humans are part of that equation. However, because of our intelligence (some cynics would say our self-importance) we have exceeded the boundaries of that natural system and are now facing many unintended consequences.

It's a touchy subject to be sure. Who wants to turn to a young child or a close family relative stricken with serious disease and say, "Sorry, it's nature's way." And who wants to consider an Orwellian future where governments control reproduction - regulations like China's one-child policy run amok like some futuristic sci-fi movie. But as long as populations increase, as long as life expectancies are increased, and mortality rates are lowered, then we have a responsibility to consider the consequences in terms of the demands we are putting on the planet as a whole.

There was a time when our ability to feed, clothe and house a growing population was accomplished through our intelligence and our ingenuity. But we are fast approaching the point where we are exceeding what the planet can provide us with in terms of food, resources, and clean air. We must act decisively to control the problems that we have brought upon ourselves and also find the compassionate means to manage a world population of 6.76 billion that has been predicted to increase by another 2+ billion in less than fifty years.

Or we can wait for nature to take care of it . . . coldly but effectively.

(Read press release from Center of Biological Diversity.)

AU Shark Fisheries: blames shark attacks on sustainability

Always on the hunt to increase their annual shark catch to satisfy the growing Asian demand, Australian fishery industry officials are continuing in their strategy to link three recent shark-human interactions with the need to expand on shark catch limits.

In an online article in The Australian, it was reported that in North South Wales, Australia's southeast territory and home to the three recent attacks, an increase in prey fish and Sydney Harbor's improved water quality may be a contributing factor to the number of attacks.

"NSW has worked very hard for the last couple of decades to try and ensure the sustainability of its fisheries. There is less fishing and the fishing is more controlled -- there is more abundant prey in Sydney Harbour and maybe more sharks because of this," said Rik Buckworth of the Northern Territories Fisheries Department. He also said other factors could be climatic changes and more swimmers at Sydney beaches. "The number of shark attacks doesn't mean there are more sharks around, per se, but they're localized on the feeding schools," said Taronga Zoo shark expert John West.

So, you improve the marine ecosystem by improving water quality and control fishing, which increases fish populations (ie: getting back to normal) . . . and that's a bad thing?

Well, according to fishery industry spokesman Duncan Gay, it is as he is blaming conservation-friendly policies for increases in predatory sharks in NSW waters - once again, the fear factor. He said high shark numbers could be linked to "bad government policy in closing up large amounts of the fishery and changing fishing habits."

In another related article, Dr. Gilly Llewellyn of the World Wildlife Fund says, "The calls for an increase to the shark fishing quota in NSW are driven by this opportunism. Some fishers are using the current media feeding frenzy around sharks to call for an increase in shark hunting levels and are making claims that have no scientific basis. They should be ignored." And other Australian fisheries department officials say there is no evidence that fishing restrictions have led to more shark attacks.

Could improved marine environments lead to a higher number of sharks? It's possible. Could the three recent shark-human interactions be simply a statistical anomaly? It's possible. Could the fishing industry be on a witch hunt, drumming up excuses so as to increase profits? Most definitely.

From Wolves to Sharks: undoing 11th hour damage from a prior administration

In December and January, I posted items regarding the previous U.S. administration's 11th actions to change or loosened environmental protections. These ranged from removal of the Gray Wolf from the endangered species list to allowing federal agencies to move forward on projects without consulting with environmental experts to looser air quality standards. (Read prior postings: Dec. '08 / Jan. '09)

• The challenge was that to undo the damage required a complex and lengthy process. But an amendment to a spending bill will empower President Obama to reverse the rule (one of the few times that something tacked on to a bill made any sense).
• Shortly after his inauguration, the president ordered all pending Bush regulations to be frozen. The Dept. of the Interior has cancelled oil and gas drilling leases near national parks (another piece of 11th hour chicanery).
• In addition, the president has directed the EPA to reconsider its denial of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles (California's proposed regulations are stricter than federal standards).

Shark News!

Additionally, the Shark Conservation Act (H.R.81), that was making progress in 2008 but ultimately languished and was reintroduced by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, was passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. H.R. 81 requires that all caught sharks must have their fins naturally attached. This will allow better enforcement of anti-finning laws and better management of catches (it's difficult to determine the number and species of sharks being taken when all there is for inspection is a hold full of fins).

The Senate must pass the legislation and many of the NGOs are lining up support efforts to make sure voices are heard. Check in with Oceana.org to see what you can do. (Oceana press release.)

Why Endangered Species Matter: WWF and Parade magazine address the basics

I am always interested in forms of communication to the general public - those teeming masses that need ecological and environmental enlightenment far more than the die-hard advocates that frequent conservation web sites and blogs like this one. So, this past Sunday I noticed a small insert in the Parade Magazine supplement that appears in many weekend newspapers - remember newspapers? Those archaic trumpeters of news and analysis that you used to ponder over, sipping your coffee while the Mrs. reminded you to take out the garbage? That was before news was replaced by abbreviated online sound bites or bloviating commentary?

Anyway . . . Parade ran a brief Q&A with Carter Roberts, president/CEO of World Wildlife Fund (WWF), about "Why Endangered Species Matter." It caught my eye because it addressed some very basic issues that the general public should consider, particularly when they hear a conservation advocate addressing a specific issue and might be thinking, "What's this got to do with me?" Here it is:

How do you justify spending millions to protect plants and animals when humans are struggling?
This is not an either/or choice. Our environment produces things that are fundamental to human life—and to saving human life. For example, many of the leading cancer drugs come from plants like the rosy periwinkle. If we only have species that coexist well with humans, we’ll be left with starlings, rats, pigeons, and a few dogs and cats.

Why does it matter if we lose a species?
There are incredible consequences when species disappear, consequences we can’t foresee. With the decline of predators such as wolves on the East Coast, the deer population exploded and we had an increase in Lyme disease.

Can we change the fates of endangered species?
We’ve reintroduced 120 species into the wild. When we succeed, as we did with the bald eagle, it gives the world hope. Right now, there are only a couple of thousand tigers left in the wild. But with the right protections, they can come back.

What are we doing right and wrong in terms of the environment?
The rush into biofuels has had unintended consequences, like the destruction of the tropical rain forest—20% of our CO emissions come from cutting down those trees. Our best path would be toward greater energy efficiency. The future of our planet rests on our ability to produce more with less.
— Lyric Wallwork Winik

And I confess, it's also available on Parade's online version. I just like putting my feet up on the coffee table and getting some ink smudges on my fingers.

Sharks Myths and Misconceptions: the hits just keep on coming

While NGOs are working to improve government and public opinion regarding the need for shark conservation and protection, we are still getting items popping up that either fuel the myths and fear that people have about sharks, perpetuate bad ecology, or are just plain dumb.

• A shark of, as yet, undetermined species bit a surfer at North Avalon beach in Sydney, Australia yesterday. This has been the third such incident in 18 days - the other two attributed to a bull and white shark. While the beach has been temporarily closed, the Australian press has done a pretty fair job of keeping a lid on the potential for shark hysteria. What has been interesting is to watch the news as it travels across the worldwide media: what becomes less newsworthy is the pronouncements for calm as the focus leans towards the recent frequency, subtly (or not so subtly) introducing the fear element. (Article.)
  

• Again using the element of fear: faced with a government mandated 40% reduction in their catch limits of sharks, Australia's Queensland Seafood Industry Association is claiming such a reduction will generate more shark attacks. But scientists, like Dr. Colin Simfendorfer, argue that the commercial catch primarily consists of smaller, harmless species, "Most of the commercial catch is things like milk sharks, black tips, spot tail sharks and scalloped hammer head, which are relatively small and really don't hassle the people." In opposition, fisherman are using inflammatory language. "The ramification from this decision is you are putting human life at risk," said fisherman Greg Radley. "People that allow their children to swim in the ocean deserve to know these things so they can make up their own minds about the dangers." Again, it would seem that, to some, when humans enter a foreign ecosystem, they trump all other considerations. (Article.)

• With the passing of Frank Mundus, famous (or infamous) shark fisherman, the fate of his vessel, the Cricket II, was determined through auction and the new owner plans to continue to use it for shark fishing (there are still shark fishing tournaments taking place in the New England area, taking sharks for no other reason other than trophies and prize money). My colleague at Shark Diver, Patric Douglas, had made a generous pre-auction bid to the Mundus estate which was refused; the auction ultimately brought in a figure much lower than Patric's. His intent was to use the vessel for shark ecotourism but it would appear that, for the moment, an infamous lineage will continue. (SharkDiver posting.)
  

Grumble, grumble, grumble. . .