The groundswell of scientific and environmental concern over the increasing problem of ocean acidification gained further urgency today with the release of the Monaco Declaration. The Declaration, with a preface by Prince Albert of Monaco, was produced by over 150 scientists from 26 countries and expresses concern over the following problems:
-Ocean acidification is underway
-Ocean acidification is already detectable
-Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent
-Ocean acidification will have socioeconomic impacts
-Ocean acidification is rapid, but recovery will be slow
-Ocean acidification can be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric CO2 levels.
Interestingly, the declaration also mentions ocean fertilization and asserts that it would "enhance ocean acidification in some areas while reducing it in others still in its infancy." This statement should give those still pushing for further exploration into fertilization as a solution for atmospheric CO2 significant pause.
The Declaration proposes some common-sense solutions for the acidification problem, namely, that links between scientists and economists should be created so that the costs of action now and the costs of the impact of an acidified ocean can be adequately considered. We often hear about how "expensive" environmental solutions are as if there are no costs associated with pollution. For example, acidification could wreck most coral reefs by 2050, ruining tourism and fishing industries, not to mention altering a natural method of erosion control.
It's time to take ocean acidification seriously.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Ocean fertilization project is going ahead
LOHAFEX, the joint German-Indian project to dump twenty tons of iron sulfate into the Southern Ocean over a 300 square kilometer area, is going forward after a whirlwind environmental impact assessment (EIA). ASOC and the environmental community are disappointed to say the least, and you can read ASOC's press release here. The German Ministry of Research approved it even though the German Ministry of Environment strongly objected, citing that the project was probably in violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which Germany is a signatory. The German Environment Minister, furthermore, was chair of a CBD conference that passed a resolution discouraging ocean fertilization projects. In an English language press release following the Research Ministry's approval, the Environment Ministry stated that it believes LOHAFEX to be in violation of the CBD. It also states that it is unclear whether previous fertilization experiments have had any effectiveness, and that the risks to ecosystems are unknown. Without evidence of effectiveness, and uncertainty over impacts, it is hard to see why the project is going forward.
The Research Ministry's speed-EIA process has done little to allay the concerns of the environmental community and the Environment Ministry. ASOC first heard that belated environmental impact assessments would be performed (belated because they should have been done before the project's ship set out for the experiments site and were not) around January 15. The Research Ministry received and reviewed these assessments and issued a decision by January 26. Hardly enough time for the assessors and the Ministry to gather enough information. Also upsetting is the apparent position of the project's director, who has indicated that he believes that the project will pave the way for future fertilization projects to mitigate climate change. This is despite the clear international consensus (at least in the fora where such issues have been discussed) that any fertilization projects that DO go through after extensive EIAs should be small-scale and only for basic research at this point. Even if the project doesn't cause any environmental harm, the lack of consideration of potential impacts, and the desire to conduct rather hastily a project that could drastically alter an ecosystem are extremely troubling.
The Research Ministry's speed-EIA process has done little to allay the concerns of the environmental community and the Environment Ministry. ASOC first heard that belated environmental impact assessments would be performed (belated because they should have been done before the project's ship set out for the experiments site and were not) around January 15. The Research Ministry received and reviewed these assessments and issued a decision by January 26. Hardly enough time for the assessors and the Ministry to gather enough information. Also upsetting is the apparent position of the project's director, who has indicated that he believes that the project will pave the way for future fertilization projects to mitigate climate change. This is despite the clear international consensus (at least in the fora where such issues have been discussed) that any fertilization projects that DO go through after extensive EIAs should be small-scale and only for basic research at this point. Even if the project doesn't cause any environmental harm, the lack of consideration of potential impacts, and the desire to conduct rather hastily a project that could drastically alter an ecosystem are extremely troubling.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Antarctica is Warming
There's big news in Antarctic research this week. A study by several scientists and published by Nature magazine this week has found substantial evidence that the Antarctic continent has experienced an overall warming comparable to that occurring in the rest of the world. While some areas of the continent are in fact cooling, the general trend is heading in the opposite direction, particularly in West Antarctica. Previous studies have also indicated a warming trend in Antarctica, but this study is different and important because it combines old, sparse temperature records with satellite records to create an overall temperature picture from the past fifty years. Previous studies have only analyzed temperatures from between 20 and 30 years ago because of the insufficiency of temperature records. Because Antarctica is so huge, many of the temperature records from further back were from locations too far apart to present a clear picture. The combination of satellite records and older temperature records allowed the researchers to develop a longer, more comprehensive picture of Antarctic temperature trends.
Update: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday featured one of the lead authors of this paper on their 1/23/09 broadcast. Listen here.
NPR also has a good story on the study here.
In response to some criticisms of their study, two of the authors have posted further explanations of the implications of their research on the Real Climate blog. Their research doesn't contradict earlier research showing cooling trends in East Antarctica. It's helpful to remember that even though all of Antarctica is cold, it is big enough that weather patterns are going to vary widely, just as they do in other large countries. So trends in one region aren't necessarily the whole story. Much of the cooling in the east is theorized to be the result of the ozone hole, which developed in the 1970s and will no doubt grow smaller now that CFCs have been banned. They also note that their paper doesn't explore whether the warming of the past 50 years is part of a larger trend. In a sense, it may not need to. Since it has clarified that Antarctica has not escaped the global warming trend, it already contributes to reinforcing the idea that global warming is indeed global.
Update: Talk of the Nation: Science Friday featured one of the lead authors of this paper on their 1/23/09 broadcast. Listen here.
NPR also has a good story on the study here.
In response to some criticisms of their study, two of the authors have posted further explanations of the implications of their research on the Real Climate blog. Their research doesn't contradict earlier research showing cooling trends in East Antarctica. It's helpful to remember that even though all of Antarctica is cold, it is big enough that weather patterns are going to vary widely, just as they do in other large countries. So trends in one region aren't necessarily the whole story. Much of the cooling in the east is theorized to be the result of the ozone hole, which developed in the 1970s and will no doubt grow smaller now that CFCs have been banned. They also note that their paper doesn't explore whether the warming of the past 50 years is part of a larger trend. In a sense, it may not need to. Since it has clarified that Antarctica has not escaped the global warming trend, it already contributes to reinforcing the idea that global warming is indeed global.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Getting the Cats out of Macquarie Wasn't a Good Move
While not nearly as serious and alarming as the proposed iron fertilization experiment, human meddling with the ecosystem on Macquarie Island in the Southern Ocean has caused some problems that are proving difficult to fix. First rabbits were brought to the island to serve as a food source for sealers. Then cats were brought to the island to control the rabbits. Next, humans introduced a virus to kill off the remaining rabbits. Finally, humans got rid of the cats, who had started eating seabirds when the rabbit numbers declined. Without the cats, rabbit populations rebounded and destroyed seabird habitat. Sound like a mess? It is, and an expensive one that will cost the Australian government $16 million dollars to fix.
Mostly, though, it demonstrates the need for comprehensive evaluation of any human attempts to reshape the environment or ecosystems to fix environmental problems or suit our needs better. We know more now about ecosystems than we did when rabbits were introduced on Macquarie in the 19th century, and can recognize that cats and rabbits should have been eradicated simultaneously, but our knowledge is far from complete. We're far better at analyzing why these projects went wrong than figuring out how to carry them out successfully. When it comes to altering the environment to accomplish a particular goal, extreme caution should always be the rule. Finding less intrusive ways to accomplish the same results (i.e., stopping pollution into bodies of water instead of introducing filter feeders to clean up runoff) should be standard operating procedure.
Mostly, though, it demonstrates the need for comprehensive evaluation of any human attempts to reshape the environment or ecosystems to fix environmental problems or suit our needs better. We know more now about ecosystems than we did when rabbits were introduced on Macquarie in the 19th century, and can recognize that cats and rabbits should have been eradicated simultaneously, but our knowledge is far from complete. We're far better at analyzing why these projects went wrong than figuring out how to carry them out successfully. When it comes to altering the environment to accomplish a particular goal, extreme caution should always be the rule. Finding less intrusive ways to accomplish the same results (i.e., stopping pollution into bodies of water instead of introducing filter feeders to clean up runoff) should be standard operating procedure.
New Zealand Tries to Avoid a Rescue Bill
Tourism in Antarctica isn't like tourism in other extreme environments - in some ways, it's much more dangerous. Take any indicator - temperature, ocean conditions, accessibility - and Antarctica in a sense wins because it is colder, icier, and more difficult to get to than anywhere else. So it makes sense that New Zealand would try to block an adventurous rower from his plans to row around Antarctica by himself. Maritime New Zealand (MNZ), the branch of government responsible for marine safety, would be responsible for rescuing the rower, Oliver Hicks, in case of an accident. MNZ believes that an accident is almost inevitable because of the harsh conditions on the Southern Ocean. Hicks will be using a boat that is powered by rowing but has cabins in which he can sleep, prepare food, and store supplies. The boat is also allegedly designed to withstand Southern Ocean conditions.
MNZ has great reason to be skeptical of Hicks' plans, however. Previous attempts have resulted in accidents requiring rescue, and in one case an adventurer drowned. Rescue missions are costly and put rescuers themselves in danger. Hicks' journey would take him 500 days and would cover 24,000 square kilometers, or just under 15,000 miles. He plans to halt for a few months during the brutal Antarctic winter on the island of South Georgia.
Hicks' response to New Zealand's refusal to let him set out on his journey was to travel to Australia. Australian officials are hardly excited about the project, but unlike their New Zealand counterparts cannot stop him from leaving. If he needs rescuing, MNZ will still be on the hook. Hicks has already accomplished some impressive feats of solo rowing - he is the only person to have rowed from America to the United Kingdom alone - and feels confident that he is capable of completing his mission and staying safe.
This incident underscores the need for special tourism policies for Antarctica. The human desire to undertake difficult and dangerous adventures is admirable, but is disregarding the wishes of those who would have to rescue you also admirable? It's not as if MNZ could just ignore Hicks in the event of an accident, even if he wanted them to do so. It seems a shame that governments are hamstrung in this way. While this type of tourism doesn't represent the kind of environmental threat that we at ASOC are most concerned about, it does point to the overall lack of regulation for Antarctic tourism that would protect both people and the environment. Laws and rules no doubt deaden the souls of expeditioners, but they keep people safe and prevent unnecessary crises.
MNZ has great reason to be skeptical of Hicks' plans, however. Previous attempts have resulted in accidents requiring rescue, and in one case an adventurer drowned. Rescue missions are costly and put rescuers themselves in danger. Hicks' journey would take him 500 days and would cover 24,000 square kilometers, or just under 15,000 miles. He plans to halt for a few months during the brutal Antarctic winter on the island of South Georgia.
Hicks' response to New Zealand's refusal to let him set out on his journey was to travel to Australia. Australian officials are hardly excited about the project, but unlike their New Zealand counterparts cannot stop him from leaving. If he needs rescuing, MNZ will still be on the hook. Hicks has already accomplished some impressive feats of solo rowing - he is the only person to have rowed from America to the United Kingdom alone - and feels confident that he is capable of completing his mission and staying safe.
This incident underscores the need for special tourism policies for Antarctica. The human desire to undertake difficult and dangerous adventures is admirable, but is disregarding the wishes of those who would have to rescue you also admirable? It's not as if MNZ could just ignore Hicks in the event of an accident, even if he wanted them to do so. It seems a shame that governments are hamstrung in this way. While this type of tourism doesn't represent the kind of environmental threat that we at ASOC are most concerned about, it does point to the overall lack of regulation for Antarctic tourism that would protect both people and the environment. Laws and rules no doubt deaden the souls of expeditioners, but they keep people safe and prevent unnecessary crises.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Ocean Fertilization is Risky Business
It seems that the numerous lessons learned over the years about the riskiness of human attempts to re-engineer the natural environment by introducing new species or substances have not yet sunk in for some people. Last week, ASOC learned of plans by the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of Germany and the National Institute of Oceanography of India to conduct a large-scale ocean fertilization experiment in the Southern Ocean.
Ocean fertilization is proposed as a way to combat global warming. During fertilization, the ocean is seeded with large amounts of something that would engender the growth of large amounts of phytoplankton, which would absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, die quickly, and then sink to the ocean floor, essentially sequestering large amounts of carbon. For this experiment, the scientists would use iron sulfate to "fertilize" approximately 300 square kilometers of ocean.
However, there is considerable international opposition to the widespread use of these projects. Not only has the Convention on Biological Diversity urged signatories to delay implementation of ocean fertilization until their is clear scientific evidence in their favor, but the London Convention and the London Protocol, which concern marine dumping, have also urged that scientific projects be assessed on a case-by-case basis until a comprehensive framework could be developed. While the researchers involved in the current project have asserted that their experiment does not violate the CBD, they do not appear to have undertaken any sort of environmental impact assessment. Nor have the governments of Germany or India undertaken any review.
In fact, the German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who chaired the CBD conference that passed the resolution on fertilization, has asked the Science Ministry to withdraw its support of the project. The Science Ministry has apparently asked the researchers to halt their experiment pending review - not a moment too soon, as the ship carrying the iron sulfate is already en route to the Southern Ocean.
A 2007 study cast doubt on the scientific basis for ocean fertilization. Given that the implications on ecosystems or marine organisms are also unclear, it seems that we need to hold off on interfering with the oceans until we better understand what could happen when we do so.
Ocean fertilization is proposed as a way to combat global warming. During fertilization, the ocean is seeded with large amounts of something that would engender the growth of large amounts of phytoplankton, which would absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, die quickly, and then sink to the ocean floor, essentially sequestering large amounts of carbon. For this experiment, the scientists would use iron sulfate to "fertilize" approximately 300 square kilometers of ocean.
However, there is considerable international opposition to the widespread use of these projects. Not only has the Convention on Biological Diversity urged signatories to delay implementation of ocean fertilization until their is clear scientific evidence in their favor, but the London Convention and the London Protocol, which concern marine dumping, have also urged that scientific projects be assessed on a case-by-case basis until a comprehensive framework could be developed. While the researchers involved in the current project have asserted that their experiment does not violate the CBD, they do not appear to have undertaken any sort of environmental impact assessment. Nor have the governments of Germany or India undertaken any review.
In fact, the German Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, who chaired the CBD conference that passed the resolution on fertilization, has asked the Science Ministry to withdraw its support of the project. The Science Ministry has apparently asked the researchers to halt their experiment pending review - not a moment too soon, as the ship carrying the iron sulfate is already en route to the Southern Ocean.
A 2007 study cast doubt on the scientific basis for ocean fertilization. Given that the implications on ecosystems or marine organisms are also unclear, it seems that we need to hold off on interfering with the oceans until we better understand what could happen when we do so.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Ocean Acidification, Part 2
Yet another sobering story on ocean acidification. Previous research has suggested that the the so-called tipping point for ocean acidification would occur around 2050. The tipping point for acidification is defined as the pH level at which the calcium carbonate levels in the ocean would be depleted enough to effect marine life. Many animals need calcium carbonate, including some types of plankton, a key part of many marine food webs. Without calcium carbonate, they cannot form their shells and will die.
Recent research on CO2 emissions worldwide shows that they are much higher than predicted. The ocean can only absorb so much CO2 before reaching the critical tipping point, so higher emissions could mean that the oceans will reach the tipping point as early as 2030. Acidification is different in different ocean areas due to seasonal variations, but in areas with a lower, more acidic pH, scientists have already seen evidence of dissolved shells. In locations as varied as the Florida Keys, the coast of Washington State, and the Southern Ocean, scientists have seen significant trends toward acidification that have led them to believe that the tipping point is closer than previously expected.
Though at this point merely a mostly-unnoticed side issue to global warming, ocean acidification is serious and could have an enormous impact on marine food chains. At a time when global fish stocks are already in decline, we should be very concerned about the possibility of even greater damage to ocean life.
Recent research on CO2 emissions worldwide shows that they are much higher than predicted. The ocean can only absorb so much CO2 before reaching the critical tipping point, so higher emissions could mean that the oceans will reach the tipping point as early as 2030. Acidification is different in different ocean areas due to seasonal variations, but in areas with a lower, more acidic pH, scientists have already seen evidence of dissolved shells. In locations as varied as the Florida Keys, the coast of Washington State, and the Southern Ocean, scientists have seen significant trends toward acidification that have led them to believe that the tipping point is closer than previously expected.
Though at this point merely a mostly-unnoticed side issue to global warming, ocean acidification is serious and could have an enormous impact on marine food chains. At a time when global fish stocks are already in decline, we should be very concerned about the possibility of even greater damage to ocean life.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Battles over Whaling Heat Up
Once again, we're seeing confrontation over Japan's scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. As Sea Shepherd continues to harass the Japanese fleet, Japan is asking countries to prohibit the group's ship, the Steve Irwin, from refueling. This year, Sea Shepherd is the only group pursuing the Japanese fleet on the ocean. Greenpeace has also sailed to the Southern Ocean to try to interfere with the whale hunt in the past but according to the New York Times, finds Sea Shepherd's tactics, which include throwing butyric acid, "too confrontational." Japan also accuses the Steve Irwin of ramming one of its ships, which Sea Shepherd denies.
In the midst of all this, the New York Times' Dot Earth blogger asks if there are any similarities between whales and bison. Bison, after all, were nearly wiped out by American colonists but their populations are on the rebound because bison meat is enjoying a surge in popularity. Buffalo is leaner than beef, with lower levels of cholesterol and higher levels of iron, yet considered by many to be better tasting. So if whale species could also rebound, could they become like bison? Japan often claims that there are plenty of minke whales and that hunting them will not threaten the species. Other considerations aside, it's not really accurate to compare bison and whales. While buffalo aren't really domesticated in the sense that beef cattle are, they are herded and controlled, allowing farmers to monitor their herd size. There's no such thing as whale farming. A buffalo farmer knows exactly how many buffalo he has and how many calves are born every year. Whalers do not have information that accurate or complete and never will. Simply put, farmed animal populations tend to get bigger over time as farmers carefully balance the need to make a profit and the need to replenish the population. The opposite seems to be true for non-farmed animals that are valued as a food source. No one owns them, so no one has any long-term incentive in their survival- hence the collapse of the whaling industry and numerous fisheries.
So, to answer Andrew C. Revkin's question, no, commercial whaling could never be like commercial bison farming. Subsistence whaling practiced by indigenous people might have been sustainable, but commercial whaling never will be.
In the midst of all this, the New York Times' Dot Earth blogger asks if there are any similarities between whales and bison. Bison, after all, were nearly wiped out by American colonists but their populations are on the rebound because bison meat is enjoying a surge in popularity. Buffalo is leaner than beef, with lower levels of cholesterol and higher levels of iron, yet considered by many to be better tasting. So if whale species could also rebound, could they become like bison? Japan often claims that there are plenty of minke whales and that hunting them will not threaten the species. Other considerations aside, it's not really accurate to compare bison and whales. While buffalo aren't really domesticated in the sense that beef cattle are, they are herded and controlled, allowing farmers to monitor their herd size. There's no such thing as whale farming. A buffalo farmer knows exactly how many buffalo he has and how many calves are born every year. Whalers do not have information that accurate or complete and never will. Simply put, farmed animal populations tend to get bigger over time as farmers carefully balance the need to make a profit and the need to replenish the population. The opposite seems to be true for non-farmed animals that are valued as a food source. No one owns them, so no one has any long-term incentive in their survival- hence the collapse of the whaling industry and numerous fisheries.
So, to answer Andrew C. Revkin's question, no, commercial whaling could never be like commercial bison farming. Subsistence whaling practiced by indigenous people might have been sustainable, but commercial whaling never will be.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Undersea Video from Antarctia
A few weeks ago, we reported on the results of a study that determined that the area around the South Orkney Islands was more diverse than the Galapagos. Here's some video taken of this amazingly diverse area, courtesy of The New Scientist:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)