California's Cap-and-Trade: guest post looks at proposed economic solution to carbon pollution

Beginning in 2013, a major component of AB 32, California's climate change legislation, will commence: cap-and-trade regulations. California will lead the United States in the initiation of cap-and-trade policies and much of the country will be watching as to whether it proves to be a viable approach to stemming carbon emissions.

Cap-and-trade has it proponents, and at first blush it does seem to look good on paper. But it has its detractors, too - from businesses opposed to more government regulations to environmental groups opposed to the idea of polluters buying their way out of trouble. (Nature does not take into account a polluter's ability to pay for its own mess and then simply mitigates the negative impacts accordingly.)

One encouraging note is that, whether or not the cap-and-trade provisions of AB32 succeed and continue or fail and are discarded, the legislated overall reduction in carbon and greenhouse gas emissions will continue. At least that is what the politicians are currently saying.

Reported in the Los Angeles Times, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "Today's adoption of a cap-and-trade program is a major milestone for California's continued leadership on reducing the world's greenhouse gases. As I said both when we signed the legislation in 2006, and when we fought to protect it last year when Texas oil companies attempted to overturn it with Proposition 23, the most critical phase in the fight against climate change is diligently, aggressively, and correctly implementing this law."

Elaine Hirsch, writer and affiliate with MastersDegree.net, a clearing house for online degree programs, has contributed the following guest post on the subject of California's cap-and-trade program. In it, she examines how cap-and-trade hopes to find an economic motivator to address an environmental issue.

Why Cap-and-Trade in California Should be Given a Chance

Scientists , policymakers, and academics have intensely argued about the validity of climate change since the late 20th century. With over seven billion humans inhabiting the Earth, the negative externalities of consuming energy and polluting the atmosphere are becoming increasingly pertinent problems. Regardless of arguments over climate change or increasing energy prices, it doesn't take a master's degree in climate science to realize that the amount of energy consumed is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Either consumption needs to be capped from excessive use or alternative resources must be found. California recently announced that it's pioneering a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, which will help exacerbate both problems mentioned above.

Benefits of Cap-and-Trade
Starting in 2013, California's Air Resources Board will dole out carbon credits to carbon emitters in the state. Companies can use all of their credits on emissions or buy/sell credits to others. The idea behind this system is that California will be able to control how much total emissions businesses will be able to produce as a whole, allowing the state to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. Furthermore, policymakers expect this system to become a $10 billion market by 2016. Essentially, California would be creating a market out of thin air while cleaning the state's air quality.

Although a cap-and-trade system is ultimately dictated by the state government, it retains a market approach which will please many businesspeople. Theoretically, allowing parties to dictate the costs of negative externalities is the most efficient way to find a true cost for a good. Since valuing the price of carbon is a little-researched topic, allowing businesses to essentially bid on the price will be a simple way to value the substance.

In addition to financial benefits, capping the amount of carbon emissions would act as an incentive for companies to innovate alternative energy methods. Say, if the price of a carbon credit would be too expensive for start-up companies, these companies would increase the demand for alternative energy forms such as solar, wind or nuclear. This demand would help fund initiatives for energy companies to seek cheaper alternative energy sources, creating a sustainable future for the state (and the world!).

Far From a Solution
With that said, cap-and-trade is nothing close to a panacea for our energy woes. A classic argument opposing cap-and-trade stems from disdain towards government interventions in the marketplace. Removing government intervention from markets theoretically allow businesses to most efficiently allocate their capital. Imposing the extra costs of buying carbon credits would drive up business costs and create inefficiencies for businesses.

For less free-market adherents, an alternative proposition would be a carbon tax in lieu of a cap-and-trade model. Although it would set no hard limit for how much emissions are released into the atmosphere, the state will gain tax revenue and create an incentive for businesses to find alternative energy sources to relieve taxes.

Obviously, non-believers of climate change will also be against a cap-and-trade policy. Both economists and policymakers admit that cap-and-trade would create business inefficiencies and dead-weight-losses, which will be a central focus during a time of stagnant economic growth and dismal unemployment numbers.

Hopefully, this article has illuminated many of the tangible and ideological arguments for and against a cap-and-trade system. With the cost of pollution being a hard commodity to value, implementing a cap-and-trade system in California is a great way to test how the system would work in a real-world setting. California is a large state with a vibrant economy and prominent businesses, which provides a solid framework for such a social experiment. The upside of this project would lead to less carbon emissions, higher tax revenues, and innovations in energy ideas. The downside would be an increase in government control in private enterprise and further economic stagnation. Finally, if the experiment were to fail, the costs of reversing the policy would be much less than if the United States were to reverse policy on a national level. Regardless, the entire country will be watching this social experiment, so it may be wise for both proponents and opponents to wait for the results before citing arguments based solely on economic and/or scientific models.
Elaine Hirsch, MastersDegree.net

Read more about cap-and-trade in the Los Angeles Times.
And you can read more in FastCompany.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

COP15 Summary: what the public and science can do next

The end result of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (COP15) was an agreement hammered out by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and recognized, but yet to be voted on, by the remaining participating nations. While the agreement would seem to recognize the importance and impact of climate change, the specifics - or lack thereof - has left many, from governments to NGOs to scientists, wanting and disappointed. No specific percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, no guarantees for proposed financial support to underdeveloped countries currently dealing with the effects of climate change, in fact nothing is particularly binding in the agreement.

International strategy: the human element
So was it a wasted exercise? Well, not entirely. Certainly, going in expectations were incredibly high. As more and more research data slowly filters into the discussion (not fast or effectively enough, but more on that later) and as increased public awareness and media coverage puts more pressure on the decision-makers, meetings like COP15 place international diplomacy under a microscope and can give conservation strategists new insight as to what motivates international policy and how best to approach these political bodies in the future.

Since I was not in attendance at the conference, I can only comment on what I read and saw in the media. What struck me was the emphasis and subsequent turmoil over the human costs of climate change. Not that these are unimportant matters, but I think many were surprised that the emphasis seemed less on the actual degradation of the global environment and more on the impact in human terms: the polluters vs. those impacted, developed countries vs. poor or developing countries, and moral responsibility or blame equating to financial compensation. Those were the issues that seemed to take center stage or at least generated the most controversy (and a momentary walkout of delegates). It all seemed to say, "Damn the polar bears, the corals, and the weather - what about me?" And perhaps that is where we must realize that international policy will always be focused: on the human consequences; personally, politically, and economically.

I have mentioned this in other posts; talk about the human terms of climate climate change - how people are starving and dying right now, how water supplies and crop yields are declining right now, how the migration of peoples will threaten other nation's resources and security - and you can often get people's attention. In a similar vein, I am beginning to see shark and dolphin advocates place a greater emphasis on the human cost of consuming these ocean animals due to their high mercury content. Just wanting to protect shark and dolphins may not be enough; making people want to protect theses species because it will protect themselves may be the answer.

Making a difference at home
So, how can we influence international diplomacy? By tackling the issues right at home. When your community, state, or country can address the challenge of climate change - becoming more "green", developing alternative energy sources, substantially reducing C02 emissions (350ppm and below) - then you set a new benchmark; you show it can be done and a new tipping point looms on the horizon, a positive one that, by example, prods and propels the international community to collectively go beyond tentative measures.

Although COP15, according to Alden Meyers of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "clearly falls well short of what the public around the world was expecting . . .," the World Wildlife Fund declared, “on a more positive note, attention will now shift to a host of initiatives by countries, cities, companies and communities that are starting to build low carbon economies from the base up.”

Science: moving beyond the data
Working on my first white shark documentary and subsequently working with InMER.org in the Arctic Circle, I soon realized there is a lot of research taking place within the scientific community, with considerable amounts of data and detailed studies or papers being generated. But there the trail begins to thin. What is reaching the general public? What is being brought to the attention of the policymakers? Not enough.

As a filmmaker and former marketing communications executive, I appreciate the value of effective messages, of connecting with the masses to gain consensus. And this is why I am interested in working with scientific research organizations: media communications needs to be an integral part of the research discipline, right up there with hypotheses, methodology, and analysis; it must not end in a scientific journal destined for the academic hinterlands. With many of the environmental issues facing the planet, it has been said that science will provide the answers - but only if science can communicate effectively so as to moderate behavior and influence policy.

Understandably, media communications is not something that most scientists and researchers are comfortable or familiar with, but there are several strategic components to consider in developing an effective media communications plan. One key piece is the translation of detailed data and analysis into three sequential steps that the layperson can understand: issues, implications, and solutions.

What is the problem, what does it mean to me, and what can I do about it? When research can address these points and make a personal connection, the better the work will be absorbed and appreciated by a broader audience. And in today's world, with so many environmental and conservation issues looking to science for the answer, this is imperative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read L.A. Times article.

Center for Biological Diversity: making change with the rule of law

My recent posting about domoic acid brought a comment from a reader about the proactive stance taken by the Center for Biological Diversity regarding ocean acidification - one of the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Here are some other climate change/global warming issues that CBD is pursuing:

In a smiley-faced ending to a CBD lawsuit against the U.S.'s largest retailer, last Thursday a judge overturned the approval of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter near Joshua Tree National Park because the project wrote off the impacts of its greenhouse gas emissions.

"Wal-Mart talks a lot about fighting global warming, but when it comes to actually taking action, it bent over backwards to avoid incorporating cost-effective features like solar panels to reduce its carbon footprint," said CBD attorney Matt Vespa. "The enormous disconnect between Wal-Mart's stated environmental goals and its actions is classic greenwashing."

In response to a suit brought by CBD (represented by Earthjustice), a federal judge last week sent the California Fish and Game Commission back to the drawing board on its assessment of the plight of the American pika, a tiny mammal threatened by climate change. In 2007, CBD petitioned the Commission to protect the pika under the state's Endangered Species Act, and after it rejected the petition, CBD filed suit the next year. Last Friday, a judge issued a written order to the Commission invalidating its rejection of the petition and ordering it to think again about protecting the pika.

The American pika, adapted for the cold climate of mountain peaks in the U.S. West, is directly endangered by global warming because it can die when exposed to temperatures as low as 78 degrees Fahrenheit for just hours. Climate change exposes pikas to summer heat stress, lowers food availability, reduces food-gathering time, and decreases snow pack they need for winter insulation. I get encouraged by these legal actions not only for the sake of the pika, but because it's forcing governments, albeit a step at a time, to face the big issue: climate change.

This Monday the tusked, blubbery, and highly imperiled Pacific walrus moved closer to Endangered Species Act protection when a federal judge approved a settlement between the CBD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service compelling the agency to decide on protections for the species. The Pacific walrus is in danger as global warming melts the Arctic sea ice it needs for resting, breeding, raising young, and foraging activities. CBD petitioned to protect the pinniped in February 2008 and sued in December to force a response; now the feds must voice their first thoughts on protection this September, with a final decision due next year.

Even while the Pacific walrus's icy abode across its range is melting away, its habitat in the Chukchi Sea is being auctioned off to oil companies seeking to extract fossil fuels to further accelerate global warming and the melting of the Arctic -- imperiling not just the walrus but also the polar bear, ice seals, and other species. In responding to several lawsuits, including CBD's, regarding Arctic oil drilling, according to CBD's Rebecca Noblin, "Unfortunately for the walrus, the polar bear, and the entire Arctic ecosystem, [Interior] Secretary Salazar seems more inclined to protect Big Oil than America's imperiled wildlife."

As I have said before, the Center for Biological Diversity takes a very proactive stance, using the power of the law whenever necessary. Good to have them on nature's side but don't let them carry the water bucket alone. Do your part as a proactive individual and also support active NGOs when you can.

Domoic Acid: ocean toxins generated from several sources

The ocean is being bombarded from several directions and the effects can be not only predicted with computer models but can be seen right now first-hand. Some time ago I ran a post on the impact of domoic acid on wild life (and potentialy humans, too). Domoic acid is a toxin produced by phytoplankton algae and the issue presented in the post was that man's "treated" sewage waste products, pumped far off shore were, in essence, over-fertilizing the algae and thereby increasing the level of algae-based toxins.

We know about avoiding consuming shellfish during certain months due to annual concentrations of these and other shellfish toxins. And we avoid swimming in the ocean during periods of "red tides" when the phytoplankton population explodes. Unfortunately, sealife does not know or cannot avoid exposure and so there has been an increase in poisoned animals, in particular seals and sea lions which are susceptible to domoic acid's neurological effect..

Just this past weekend, a diver friend of mine opted for a hike at Palos Verdes peninsula in Southern California when dive conditions were not good. In just one hike around the point, he came across eight dead mature sea lions. All dead due to shellfish neuro-poisoning? Perhaps. in fact, based on reports from local marine mammal centers, very likely.

But treated sewage is not the only source of the problem. Algae can also be fed by the increasing levels of CO2. On the positive side, there are blueprints for algae-based alternative fuel plants to channel the greenhouse gases they produce during processing back into their algae crop. But outside of those controlled environments, in the open sky and open ocean, CO2 produces ocean acidification, which is gaining a lot of attention lately, and feeds the phytoplankton algae, adding to a vicious cycle.

Another example of the cascade effect of our actions, greenhouse gas emissions not only disrupt global temperatures and raise the ocean's ph level above acceptable limits, but also over-feed phytoplankton which impacts sealife and our commercial use of shellfish.

California: sets a new standard for clean fuels

California took a solid step today in dealing with reducing the state's carbon footprint with the state Air Resources Board voting 9-1 in favor of adopting new regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from fuel.

The regulation requires producers, refiners and importers of gasoline and diesel to reduce the carbon intensity of their fuel by 10% over the next decade. And it launches the state on an ambitious path toward ratcheting down its overall heat-trapping emissions by 80% by mid-century — a level that scientists deem necessary to avoid drastic global climate disruption.

This is a first for any U.S. state and could set the standard worldwide. Regulations like this promote the development of alternative fuels, nudging the major energy companies to invest in greener alternatives like cellulosic ethanol made from trash, as opposed to the popular corn ethanol that is, in many ways, no better than petroleum-based fuels.

The regulation also is a positive step for entrepreneurs who are looking for new opportunities in alternative fuels. California will soon have its first cellulosic ethanol plant in Southern California's upper desert. The facility will process 170 tons of garbage a day to produce 3.7 million gallons of ethanol a year. Estimated cost per gallon: about $2, according to Arnold Klann of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels.

"California's low-carbon fuel standard is going to set the standard for the U.S. and, I expect, the standard globally," said Graeme S.S. Sweeney, a Shell executive vice president. "There will be a series of commercial-sized plants in the next five years. There will be different technologies. It will be good to see competition."

And that coming from one of the major energy/oil companies! I've always said that for energy companies to fully embrace a paradigm shift to alternative fuels, they will need to see the commercial advantage in it. Apparently, they are getting the message . . . and planet Earth should be the better for it.

A Sea Change: important new film on ocean acidification

A while back, I posted info on ocean acidification. (Click here.) This is one of the great sleeper issues of the environmental movement and it could turn into a literal nightmare if ignored much longer. Ocean acidification - the raising of the ocean's pH level due to the absorption of CO2 emissions - can have profound effects on all marine life as it disrupts bone, shell, and reef development.

A new documentary has come out on the issue, A Sea Change, produced by Niijii Films. The film received exceptional response at the Washington D.C. Environmental Film festival and has been covered by C-Span:

Ocean acidification actually corrodes the very foundation of the marine ecology, which has a catastrophic impact on the entire food change. My congratulations to Niijii Films for taking on what is a critical issue to the long-term health of the oceans.

To learn more about the film and future screenings, visit their web site at www.aseachange.net.

Aquaculture News: greenhouse gas emmissions and fish meal substitutes

A lot of interesting discussions have come out of the recent annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This one was reported in Science News and concerned the carbon footprint of aquaculture operations.

I am one of those who is a firm believer in aquaculture as a method to meet seafood demands without decimating wild populations, but it is in its infancy and is experiencing all of the growing pains associated with a new technological enterprise. According to the AAAS panel, in the growing/feeding process there are greenhouse gas emissions associated with the type of food used (in addition to harvesting/catching and shipping methods). Monitoring aquaculture operations in several countries, it was determined that when certain types of plant-based meal are introduced, there is a lower level of greenhouse gas emissions. However, not all plant-based meal produces positive results; wheat gluten or palm oil produced higher gas levels.

However, there are others hard at work at other possible beneficial substitutes. Reported in the Coloradoan, a Fort Collins brewery is developing a technique in which a portion of it's brewery waste products can be converted into a fish meal substitute. (Not sure if you end up with drunken fish, though!) The significance of finding a replacement for fish meal is due to the declining populations of anchovies and sardines. These "feeder fish" not only support the fish meal trade but are important prey items for larger fish, all the way up to tuna and dolphins (not to mention its value to low-income human populations).

There are those who say that fish raised on fish meal, as opposed to plant meal, tastes better. This may be due to the different oils found in each. According to the Fish Site, a Brazilian soybean processor is developing a technique for extracting oil from algae which would be high in omega-3 fatty acids, similar to fish meal. An acre of algae can produce up to 42,000 gallons of oil compared to only 210 gallons from an acre of soybean. The company is also looking into methods for capturing the CO2 emissions given off by the processing plant and directing it to the algae which uses it in photosynthesis.

With industrial open water fishing continuing to deplete fish populations worldwide, each stride to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of aquaculture is a great step forward.

Many thanks to Seaweb.org for the heads up on these news items.

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.)

Arctic Methane: from theory to harsh reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

#6 in CO2 Emissions: cruising the seas out of the spotlight

When we consider the impact of global warming and climate change on the land, air, and sea, we often think of the combined CO2 emissions generated by different nations and their various commercial and/or public sources. But do you know what ranks as the 6th highest producer of carbon dioxide, just behind the 5 nations with the largest combined output of all sources?

Global shipping.

That's right. Right near the top of the list of major CO2 polluters. And it continues unregulated by any U.S. or Kyoto Protocol limitations. Why? Well, for one, it's a bit removed from the public spotlight, cruising the seas as it were, underneath the radar of public awareness. And for another, the shipping industry is both a fragmented and powerful commercial force that requires major international intervention to bring it under control.

What is there to regulate? Engine types, fuels, proper operational maintenance, emission standards - in many ways, what we do (or should be doing) regarding auto or factory pollution can be applied to shipping.

If we in the United States can get the EPA on board, this can be a major first step not only for the U.S. but for the world as it can set a new standard, particularly if the United States seriously considers getting back in lock step with the rest of the industrialized or developing world and considers aligning itself with the Kyoto Protocol or its possible future manifestations.

To that end, Earth Justice, Oceana, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity have petitioned the EPA and, due to a lack of response by the EPA, are preparing to take legal action. To learn more about this issue, click here.

The Arctic Permafrost: a ticking time bomb of greenhouse gases

After having had the opportunity to travel through a portion of the Northwest Passage, above the Arctic Circle, documenting evidence of climate change for the marine research organization InMER, I became more interested in what is happening to this region and the implications. There are some serious issues beyond what is most often portrayed in the news: the threatened polar bear.

In the recent issue of SeaWeb's Marine Science Review #290: Climate and Climate Change, several articles and abstracts outline studies made regarding the effects of rising temperatures on the permafrost that forms the primary ground cover in the region. Permafrost is, in essence, a frozen soil layer. The upper or active portion of the layer supports flora with shallow root structures - different types of moss and lichen abound and bushes or trees do not grow there.

But also trapped in that frozen layer is a considerable amount of organic carbon and methane and as the temperature increases, those potential greenhouse gases can be released. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, it makes the permafrost a ticking time bomb.

The SeaWeb review sited two articles: "Vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change: Implications for the global carbon cycle" (BioScience 58[8], 2008) and "Soil microbial respiration in arctic soil does not acclimate to temperature" (Ecology Letters 11[10], 2008). Really exciting, attention-grabbing titles, I know, and they're very heavy on the academic/scientific gobbledygook but what it boils down to is that with even a slight increase in temperature, the permafrost experiences an increase in soil decomposition that releases the trapped organic carbon and methane. And there is a considerable amount held in that frozen soil.

It's another example of the "cascade effect" where one change - an increase in temperature - causes a myriad of other changes, with some of these changes feeding back into the original issue and exacerbating the problem.

The polar bear can generate well-deserved public sympathy and hopefully provide impetus to address the problem of climate change. But it's a multi-faceted problem with potential land mines right under our feet.

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.

New Data on Greenhouse Gases: time to act . . . now

Many of you who read this blog are already concerned and committed marine conservationists and so you are familiar with issues regarding greenhouse gas output and the effect it has on our climate. Here's some more disconcerting news . . .

Yesterday, international researchers from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released new numbers indicating that the level of carbon emissions/greenhouse gases is increasing ahead of projected levels. It was anticipated that levels might decrease due to the economic downturn's impact on energy use over the past few years. Unfortunately, data shows that carbon dioxide output rose 3% from 2006 to 2007.

"Things are happening very, very fast," Professor Corrine Le Quere, University of Anglia, told the Associated Press. "It's scary." "We should be worried - really worried," Richard Moss, World Wildlife Fund, told the Washington Post. "This is happening in the context of trying to reduce emissions."

The new data also shows that the forest and oceans, which absorb carbon dioxide, are having less impact. The rising level of emissions is exceeding the ability of these ecosystems to take in carbon dioxide - they are simply being overloaded. The trees and oceans can't do it all; they can't save us from ourselves.

China is currently the largest polluter, with the U.S. in second. Developing countries like India and Indonesia are rapidly increasing their emissions as these nations develop more energy-intensive industries. New data continues to come in and with it the situation continues to become more dire. We need to take more decisive action - all of us, consumers, industry, and governments.

Here's a start: the Ocean Conservancy has a form you can fill out online and send a message to your government officials. Just a first step but we all have to start somewhere.

Politics interferes with the EPA . . . again

Nothing too profound with the above heading; unfortunately, it's been going on for years. But the latest news bite has to do with apparent efforts to alter sworn congressional testimony to play down the threat of global warming, thereby mitigating the need for regulating greenhouse gas emissions (Washington Post / Los Angeles Times).

Former EPA official, Jason Burnett, claims that behind-the-scenes efforts by unnamed members of the Vice President's staff succeeded in deleting scientific information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as testimony regarding health risks from climate change to be presented before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Barbara Boxer. By eliminating any documentation of these health effects, the current administration is trying to skirt around a Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to implement regulations on polluters when greenhouse gas emissions were shown to pose a risk.

Now I try not to get too political in this blog. After all, there isn't one political party that is a perfect angel when it comes to the environment. But it all comes down to forward-thinking leadership. And that seems to be a commodity in short supply these days. There is no doubt there are challenging decisions that lie ahead. But the more we avoid them, the more difficult they will be when we finally have to address them. I'd rather address them now than later. But that's just me - I'm not running for a 4-year term.