Oceans
What Will Global Warming Look Like on the Ground?
Published November 19, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
It's easy to talk about global warming on grandiose terms (the word "global" is in the title, after all). But it's sometimes harder to imagine what the concept really means for our daily lives. Some of us want to know what will happen when all the analysts and number-crunchers have gone home and the climatic disturbances start appearing one by one.
The UK's Telegraph recently published an article detailing some of the changes those of us not exposed to the extremes of a drowning island or a melting Himalaya might experience as the climate warms. What can we expect? Here's a run-down of some of the possibilities in Europe.
Melting Antarctic Ice Helps Offset Warming
Published November 12, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
A new study by scientists from the British Antarctic Survey reveals that phytoplankton growing on the surface of sea water newly exposed by melting glacial ice is absorbing carbon, reports AFP. After photosynthesizing the carbon, these microscopic plants get eaten or sink to the sea floor, thereby taking the carbon out of the atmosphere.
Regions of phytoplankton have appeared in open water areas created by the recent disappearance of several ice shelves along the shore of Antarctica. In the last half century, about 9,200 square miles of sea have opened up in this manner and by now much of that area is blooming with phytoplankton. According to the study, published in the journal Global Change Biology, this vegetation now annually gobbles up some 3.5 million tons of carbon (equivalent to 12.8 million tons of carbon dioxide).
While that's a drop in the bucket of the some 8.7 billion tons of carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels and deforestation (to quote a 2007 figure), it is, says the study's lead scientist Lloyd Peck "nevertheless an important discovery. It shows nature's ability to thrive in the face of adversity."
Global Warming? The Writing's on the Seawall
Published November 06, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
It's getting harder and harder to ignore climate change. Now our favorite ocean creatures are confirming what we already know. As the water gets warmer, the fish are moving away, faaar away, to find cooler habitats.
Researchers at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have published a new study that reveals that half of 36 fish stocks in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean have shifted their ranges to the north over the last forty years, reports Science Daily. Some of the stocks, many of which are commerically fished, have all but vanished from U.S. waters.
Their research, which appears in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series, illustrates how changing coastal and ocean temperatures are altering the behavior of fish species that range from North Carolina to the Canadian border. The species in question include Atlantic cod, haddock, yellowtail, winter flounder, spiny dogfish, Atlantic herring and more obscure species like blackbelly rosefish.
Developing World Stands Up To Developed Nations
Published October 16, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT
I'm currently on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in the South Pacific. We're on the Defending Our Pacific tour, which is a campaign to establish a global network of marine reserves, stop overfishing of Pacific fisheries, and support Pacific island nations efforts to stop Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing in their waters.
Crewman aboard the Japanese vessel Koyu Maru 3, fishing in Cook Islands waters illegally, haul a tuna onboard. Like climate change, overfishing of the world's fisheries is threatening the livelihood of developing countries who are not contributing significantly to the source of the problem. Image © Paul Hilton/Greenpeace
Last week, we caught the Japanese ship Koyu Maru 3 fishing in Cook Islands waters without a license, which is obviously illegal. When I blogged a bout it on the Greenpeace website, I made the point that this was not just illegal but also immoral. So why is it immoral?
Last week, a new study was released by The Commonwealth that underscores the drastic need for government action on overfishing and climate change in order to stave off a collapse of global fisheries. The report warns that the oceans could soon become “deserts” and goes on to say:
The study reveals that those least responsible for the state of the oceans are most likely to suffer the consequences of poor management and climate change. Small island states in particular are vulnerable to illegal and unfair fishing by foreign fleets and to migration of fish away from warming seas.
The Esperanza has been in the Pacific region since May to support Pacific Island countries on issues ranging from climate change to fisheries collapse and marine conservation. But of course Greenpeace’s history in the Pacific Ocean goes back much further than that — all the way back to the early 1970s when we were protesting the French nuclear blasts at Moruroa. The fallout from these blasts also disproportionately affected those Pacific islanders living downwind from the blast sites — another instance of those not responsible for a problem suffering the most. While there was nothing technically illegal about these blasts, the total disregard for human health and welfare is egregious.
The industrialized commercial fishing vessels that are literally stealing fish from Pacific island nations' waters is just another example of the developed world doing as they please and disregarding the well-being of the people affected by their actions. That's why it’s very encouraging that eight Pacific island nations have come together and are standing up for their rights against these invading international commercial fishing fleets.
Pacific island states are not the only developing nations that are banding together to force the developed world to live up to their other moral obligations: “Africa will demand billions of dollars in compensation from rich polluting nations at a UN climate summit for the harm caused by global warming on the continent, African officials said Sunday.”
Lest we doubt that there is any need for this stand by African nations, even the World Bank, generally no friend to the developing world, is warning of the threats those nations are facing as the climate crisis looms: “The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
So the real question we must be asking ourselves is: Will the developed world stand up and do the right thing in regard to these moral obligations?
WSJ: "Waxman-Markey's benefits far outweigh costs"
Published September 08, 2009 @ 02:14PM PT
A non-partisan new analysis of the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill finds that it will have economic benefits that will be worth at least twice as much, if not more, than what it will cost.
“From almost any perspective and under almost any assumption, H.R. 2454 is a good investment for the United States to make in our own economic future and in the future of the planet,” concludes "The Other Side of the Coin", which was produced by the NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity.
How did the authors tote up the legislation's economic benefits?
As Keith Johnson of the WSJ's Environmental Capital blog writes today, the paper examines the "social cost of carbon:" what a ton of carbon is worth to our society when it isn't in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change's effects on the environment, the economy, public health, and national security.
Multiple federal agencies have accepted the estimate that a ton of carbon-not-emitted is worth about $19.
So using the bill's targets for how many tons of atmospheric carbon it will avert over the next forty years, the NYU Law analysts calculated that Waxman-Markey would be worth around $1.5 trillion on average.
Since bill's costs will add up to around $660 billion, that is a two-to-one return on the dollar. And this, according to the authors, is a conservative estimate, partly because it does not factor in many ancillary social benefits of cutting greenhouse gas pollution, such as "reduced ocean acidification, increased forest preservation, and reductions in local air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter."
Ohio Enviros Dress as Cavemen to Protest GOP's "Stone Age" Energy Stand
Published September 03, 2009 @ 08:25PM PT
Above: Highly amusing video by Bring Ohio Back about the Stone Age 5 -- GOP representatives who oppose the ACES energy and climate bill.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), an avid opponent of federal climate and clean energy policy reform, got a special welcome yesterday from constituents dressed as cavemen to protest "stone age" GOP energy policies.
Or as the group Environment Ohio puts it, "backpedaling, coal- and oil- promoting alternative to the historic clean energy legislation finally being considered in Congress."
The occasion was a panel discussion in Columbus, where Rep. Boehner was joined by Rep. Steve Austria (R-Beavercreek), Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green), Pat Tiberi (R-Columbus) and Jean Schmidt, (R-Loveland). The five legislators appeared before the public to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed the House in June; most House Republicans voted against the bill. The public was not invited to comment at the hearing, which according to a local TV station, also featured several invited speakers who supported the Republican position.
Outside the meeting, around 60 protestors from Environment Ohio dressed up as cavemen to protest the GOP's prehistoric energy policies. “We think we need clean energy tax credits, clean energy programs, programs that will drive innovation in wind, solar, geothermal and other clean, renewable energy resources,“ Amy Gomberg of Environment Ohio told NBC 4 Columbus. “We’re suggesting we need to shift our energy policies to actually get us on a path to a clean, sustainable and renewable energy future,“ Gomberg said.
Fatalistic Friday: Storms, heat, drought and double-dealing
Published August 21, 2009 @ 08:14PM PT
Another week's end brings us to another concentrated, hurts-less-this-way burst of the worst of the week's global warming news:
Storm Fells Hundreds of Trees in NY's Central Park: Hundreds of trees in Central Park were damaged and destroyed by severe thunderstorm winds as high as 80 mph. "I've never seen a wind of that velocity in New York City," Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe said. "It looks like pictures that I've seen of war zones where artillery shells have shredded trees." (The New York Times)
In hot water: World sets ocean temperature record: The ocean is 72 degrees F in Maine, 88 in Ocean City, Maryland. And all around the world, July was the hottest the world's oceans have been in almost 130 years of keeping records. "The average water temperature worldwide was 62.6 degrees, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the branch of the U.S. government that keeps world weather records. That was 1.1 degree higher than the 20th century average." (Associated Press)
Mexico Hit By Lowest Rainfall In 68 Years: It's killing cattle, threatening millions of tons of crops, and reducing the supply of water to Mexico City. (Reuters)
ConocoPhillips works to undermine climate bill, despite pledge to support climate action: Despite being a member of the pro-business US Climate Action Partnership, ConocoPhillips is now putting its weight behind opposition to climate change legislation. (Grist)
