2010 and the Environment: one of many reviews of the past year

The end of another year is fast approaching and there will be conservation recollections and retrospectives from a variety of sources. As I came across some that pique my interest, I will post excerpts and links so that you can peruse them and get a feel for whether we are moving forward or backwards. In 2010, there have been setbacks for sure, the Deepwater Horizon/Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill being probably the biggest, but I would like to think we have also made some progress in the right direction. Judge for yourself.

From the U.K.'s Guardian, here is an excerpt from John Vidal's compilation:

Biodiversity
2010 was UN's year of biodiversity and it culminated in 193 countries and 18,000 people meeting in Nagoya, Japan for a summit to address the alarming losses seen in forests, plant and animal species. Countries pledged to protect ecosystems, halve the rate of loss of natural habitats, protect marine, coral and coastal areas and restore at least 15% of degraded areas. Whether they have the political will to act and force though new laws is an open question. Meanwhile satellite imagery showed countries like China planting hundreds of millions of trees in 2010 but natural forests continuing to decline worldwide. Other research showed both the US and Canada with higher percentages of forest loss than Brazil, which in 2010 dropped its clearance rate almost 75%.

The stolen climate emails
What began in 2009 with the theft and the subsequent leaking online of hundreds of private emails and documents exchanged between many of the world's leading climate scientists, led to claims that they showed scientists manipulating and suppressing data to back up a theory of man-made climate change. This in turn threw serious doubts on the findings of the UN's Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its director Rajendra Pachauri. But four separate inquiries completed in 2010 cleared professor Phil Jones, head of East Anglia university's Climatic research unit, and his colleagues of the most serious charges. Instead, questions were levelled at the way in which they responded to requests for information. Pachauri survived attacks from right wing newspapers in Britain but proposed major reform of the Ipcc.

Fish
It was mostly a good year for oceans. The Obama administration reinstated a ban on offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast, Chile saved a marine reserve known for its rare Humboldt penguins, blue whales and sea lions from the construction of a coal-fired power plant and the US banned bottom trawling in a 23,000 square mile area off the Southeast Atlantic coast. Sea protection group Oceana also reported that Belize became the third country in the world to ban all forms of trawling, Morocco and Turkey ended the use of illegal drift-nets and Chile announced the formation of the world's fourth-largest no-take marine reserve. Britain also announced a massive new marine park around the Chagos islands in the Indian ocean but outraged Mauritius when it became clear that this was to prevent exiled islanders ever returning to their homeland. The bad news was that the EU failed again to stop exploitation of over-fished fishing stocks, reducing the allowable catch by only 5% in 2011.

Temperatures
2010 was, provisionally, the hottest year recorded worldwide but it also saw some of the coldest temperatures and heaviest snow ever witnessed in Britain. Seventeen countries broke heat records, with an unprecedented heatwave and forest fires gripping much of Russia and the Middle east for weeks. An Asian record temperature of 53.7C (129F) in Pakistan and the third greatest loss of Arctic sea ice were also recorded. Strangely, while overall sea and land temperatures climbed to their highest levels in places where people mostly did not live, the more heavily populated temperate zones, including much of Britain, Europe and the US, experienced below average temperatures. The year ended with CO2 levels at their highest level ever recorded.

Read the complete year-in-review in the Guardian.

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.

Persian Gulf: threats make it a microcosm for the world's oceans

Another pair of articles covering studies in recent academic journals, this time on the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf: "Protecting the Arabian Gulf: Past, present and future" (Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management [Vol. 12/4]) and "The Gulf: A young sea in decline" (Marine Pollution Bulletin [60/1]). Like the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf is a nearly enclosed body of water which can often amplify the impact of environmental changes. It can also serve as a microcosm of what can happen to larger bodies of water.

The Persian Gulf is bordered by several countries that are both experiencing significant industrial, residential, and tourism development and are hampered by a lack of cross-border cooperation in investigating and acting upon environmental issues key to the health of the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), and Iran are some of the key nations that surround the Gulf. Environmental impact studies typically depend on extensive background data, or a baseline, to determine potential impact from development activities. Due to a lack of intra-country cooperation, these baselines are limited or non-existent, thereby weakening the power and effectiveness of the studies.

Development around the Gulf ranges from dredging to provide new land areas for industrial, residential and tourism developments; to oil exploration and drilling; to dams and desalination plants. Sea bottom dredging removes large areas of productive, shallow water habitat. This destruction impacts sealife nurseries and feeder fish populations (a source of food for many local low-income communities) and the extended land for huge developments can alter the water flows which can adversely affect other productive marine areas.

The threat of oil spills from the region's oil operations, as happened in 1991, always looms as an environmental threat, just as we are seeing take place in the Gulf of Mexico today. And dams and desalination plants, designed to quench the thirst of growing populations, deprives or disrupts the Gulf of natural intakes of fresh water which rejuvenates marshlands and helps to balance overall salinity.

Then there is the impact of climate change and a marked increase in water temperature which has also contributed to changes in salinity levels and water quality, in addition to impacting coral reef communities and spurring the growth of various algi that compete and crowd out or overtake the corals.

The small, nearly enclosed nature of the Gulf exacerbates these environmental issues and without the political cooperation needed for comprehensive scientific research and multi-national strategies to preserve and protect the Gulf, one of the studies I reviewed said, "the prognosis for the Gulf continuing to provide abundant natural resources is poor."

What is happening in the Persian Gulf is also happening worldwide. Accelerated in the Gulf; perhaps more slowly on a global scale - but the end results can be the same. Will the citizens of the Gulf nations learn and respond to save the Gulf? Will the rest of us?

Earth Day 2009: something for today and the day after

It's April 22nd, Earth Day has arrived. And while it might appear more as a public relations stunt than something more substantial, it does have value in focusing attention on important environmental and conservation issues of the day. What becomes equally, if not more, important than the event itself, is what we do the day after.

There will be various events taking place worldwide today and through the upcoming weekend. You can check out what's happening at several web sites:

• The Earth Day Network (http://www.earthday.net/)
• Earth Day Television (http://www.earthdaytv.net/)
• Earth Day - U.S. Government Portal (http:www.earthday.gov/)
• Earth Day 2009 - Envirolink Resource Guide (http://earthday.envirolink.org)

Earth Day represents an opportunity for all of us to make a statement and then follow it up with sustained, proactive steps.

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.

EarthEcho International: carrying on the Cousteau tradition

There are several terrific non-profit conservation organizations (NGOs) doing good work in the name of ocean conservation. While often involved in many facets of marine issues, each organization tends to focus their energies where their particular expertise can do the most good: political, scientific, education, activism, and so on.

For many of us, our initial exposure to the oceans was through the work of Jacque-Yves Cousteau - his expeditions, films, and books and the organization or marine conservation empire that he built. With his passing, the ocean movement lost a recognizable celebrity figure head and the Cousteau organization slowly devolved into different factions, each with their own skills and accomplishments, but perhaps none as powerful as the original.

EarthEcho International is an environmental media and education non-profit founded by Philippe and Alexandra Cousteau (children of Philippe Cousteau, Sr. and grandchildren of Jacque-Yves Cousteau). In existence for several years, it is slowly coming into its own and beginning to flex its muscle. While involved in efforts to motivate governments to initiate better ocean policies, one of its goals to better educate the general public, in particular the youth, as they will be the next inheritors and caretakers of the planet.

Youth likes its heroes and icons, so keep an eye on Philippe. He is a young face with a famous heritage that could prove to be an important figure in reaching young people worldwide to embrace environmental issues and set new directions in public thinking. EarthEcho International has assembled an interesting group of advocates and educators. Let's wish them well for the future.

Learn more at the EarthEcho International web site.

Adminstration's Parting Gifts: rolling back environmental protections

In the U.S., outgoing administrations participate in a time-honored tradition of last minute skulduggery that has ranged from taking the White House linen and gluing the computer keys to issuing executive pardons and orders or rulings of dubious merit - Democrats and Republicans alike have been guilty.

Questionable orders can be overturned under the Congressional Review Act. However, the effectiveness of the act is hampered by the requirement that the order or regulation being overturned must be done in its entirety - and many bad rulings are attached to a good one, thereby providing a protective shield.

Whether you are an advocate or critic of the past administration, it can be a fair statement that its record on the environment has not been stellar. A concerted effort was made to avoid recognizing scientific advice and reports as required for determining species status under the Endangered Species Act if doing so would mean recognizing the existence of global warming (I have noted this in previous postings). In its closing days, the current administration has been generating a series of executive orders and/or rulings that roll back many environmental safeguards. Here are a few:

• Federal agencies would no longer be required to have government scientists assess the impact on imperiled species before giving the go-ahead to logging, mining, drilling, or other development.
• The rule would also prohibit federal agencies from taking climate change into account when weighing the impact of projects that increase greenhouse emissions.
• Finalized a rule that allows the coal industry to dump waste from mountaintop mining into neighboring streams and valleys
• A rule relaxes air pollution standards near national parks, allowing coal plants to be built next to many of our most spectacular vistas - a rule established over the objections of 9 out of 10 EPA regional administrators.
• Opening up 2 million acres of mountainous lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for mining oil shale, even though the technique consumes considerable water resources (and the administration has admitted it doesn't know if the technology is viable).
• A new regulation will allow animal waste from factory farms to seep, unmonitored, into our waterways. The regulation leaves it up to the farms themselves to decide whether their pollution is dangerous enough to require them to apply for a permit.
• A similar rule will exempt factory farms from reporting air pollution from animal waste.
• In the chemical industries, more than 100 major polluters have been exempted from monitoring their lead emissions and a rule is proposed to allow industry to treat 3 billion pounds of hazardous waste as "recycling" each year.

Now it's true that environmental safeguards have always been costly to big business and impose hardships on their established revenue models. But in light of an overwhelming and growing body of evidence, to ignore them or worse, circumvent them, is the epitome of shortsighted thinking, oriented towards only short-term goals - something that we as humans have been notorious at doing.

For the incoming administration, it will be difficult enough dealing with the challenges of climate change/global warming and developing an effective long-term energy policy. But it will also have to deal with the many environmental land mines the current administration has left in its path.

Life on the Edge Symposium: parting thoughts on marine conservation

A parting thought on the recent Life on the Edge Symposium: On the last day I attended a panel discussion on "Environmental Action Points for the Next Administration." The panel included Dr. Mark Bernstein, Managing Director of the USC Energy Institute, and Dr. Joshua Newell, Research Professor at USC's Center for Sustainable Cities. Much of the discussion focused on sustainability and climate change issues - the "big" issues that get so much press these days.

During the Q&A that followed the panel discussion, I asked the panel to prioritize their perceived environmental issues, and their answer surprised me. Even though their professional focus is on climate and energy, they felt that the most pressing and immediate issue was that of marine conservation and commercial over-fishing. They all felt that declining commercial fish populations and the subsequent drop in nutrition that loss will impose on many developing nations was a critical issue and one that would rear its head long before climate issues reach critical mass. And this coming from a group of climatologists!

It may not be "sexy" subject matter, as the journalists would say, but commercial fishing, declining seafood, and the future of aquaculture needs to be communicated to the general populace to prod our decision-makers into action.

Life on the Edge Symposium: premiere event in Southern California

I just returned from the inaugural first day of the Life on the Edge Symposium, a three-day environmental event in Laguna Beach, CA, put together by Endangered Planet.net. Covering a range of topics from fuel cells and solar to air quality and sustainability, the event features a wide range of distinguished speakers and environmental experts. Of course with my particular interests in marine conservation, I have been trying to buttonhole as many dignataries as possible to get their ideas and feedback on moving marine conservation issues forward.

I had the opportunity to talk with the symposium chair, Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General to the U.N. Being a worldwide political figure, he had something very interesting to say, "Governments will do nothing if left alone; they must be motivated." Motivated by commerce (the military-industrial complex) and/or (believe it or not) motivated by the people. This spoke to my interest in communicating marine conservation issues to the broadest possible audience; translating scientific data into usable issues, implications, and solutions that can add to a potential groundswell of public opinion; and trying to reach those, unlike you, who have not yet expressed a commitment or even interest in marine conservation.

I also spoke with Peter Bowler, Ph.D., professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine, about the cultural issues surrounding shark conservation. Shark conservation is less pragmatic than other marine conservation issues - for the most part, there are no issues of nutrition vs. overfishing (like, say, bluefin tuna, wherein you try to provide alternatives through aquaculture, different fishing techniques, or species rotation). The challenge here is cultural. The long-standing culture behind the demand for shark fins or other shark products, the culture behind trophy fishing, and in a larger sense, the long-standing culture of fear about sharks. Changing culture is always a more challenging task. Dr. Bowler's thoughts focused more on reaching the younger generation, the next generation that hopefully can be enlightened to a new culture, one that respects sharks and other marine animals, so many of whom are now poised on the edge of extinction.

I had a moment to bend the ear of Chris Jordan, world-renowned photographer and Eco-Ambassador for National Geographic. Chris has produced some amazing large-scale works, many of which are featured on his web site, that place our consumerism and environmental waste in glaring perspective. Though Chris' work highlights our ecological waste, he can be a very engaging individual to listen to, full of hope and encouragement. And sometimes you need that, to rev up your engine and keep moving forward.

This is Endangered Planet's first major event. It's a good start and hopefully many more will follow.

Decision 2008: The conventions are over; now comes the hard part

I don't wax political too often, but as we enter the last 8 weeks of our U.S. presidential election, I'll throw in my two cents worth. No, I won't tell you my choice; my opinion is my vote and you're smart enough to make your own call. Just be sure to get the facts.

Having finished their convention speeches, right now both candidates are talking a similar game: change. And when it comes to the environment, they're both throwing out pretty much the same promises. So, you're going to have to do some homework. We have a lot of important national issues to address, but in the big picture (something politicians are notoriously unable to deal with), Nature - the environment, conservation, climate change - will trump them all.

Former Vice President Al Gore has chosen to focus his efforts towards environmental issues, specifically global warming. Okay, cynics, it has brought him fame and some fortune, but he does realize that in the end, environmental issues make all other problems look like small potatoes.

So think hard about your choices: Who can bring together the people in a common purpose regarding the environment? Who can move the forces of politics and commerce in the right direction? Who is determined to set us on a new course beyond our 100-year old fossil fuel industrial model?

After all the cheers, balloons and confetti have subsided, where will we be? What happens in the next 4 to 8 years can have a lasting impact for decades or longer. Think hard. It's only the planet's future at stake.