RTSea Blog: keeping an eye on Nature

World Oceans Summit: international financiers and ocean advocates seek solutions

2012-02-24T21:39:00.006-08:00

There's a lot that needs to be done to protect the planet and its natural resources. Our lives and those of countless plants and animals depend on action being taken, but sometimes the scientific facts, the ecological implications, are not enough to motivate people to take quantifiable steps either in action or in attitude.

This week, in Singapore, The Economist sponsored a World Oceans Summit, bringing together many of the recognized leaders in ocean conservation with leading international financiers because it will be the economic impacts that stimulate the policy and decision makers to act on behalf of the environment. And in today's complex world economy, developing nations can have an impact on major powers and vice versa.

At the summit, Robert Zoellick, president of the World Bank Group, proposed "a new S.O.S.: Save Our Seas." In opening remarks, he expressed the importance of sound ocean conservation and management as a source of potential economic prosperity for many developing nations that have come to depend on the riches of the sea as a major food source and economic engine. But they are not alone. The major developed nations are invariably linked to the future of developing nations and so it is in every one's best interests that we look at what is happening to the oceans.

For some conservationists, talking about the worldwide economic ramifications may not be as "sexy" as sticking to strictly scientific or aquatic subject matter, but it can't be ignored. If we are to move mountains to protect the seas, it will be economics that stimulates the effort required.

"Oceans are the home of an under-recognized and under-appreciated "blue economy." At a time when the world is looking for sources of growth, there is huge potential for "blue growth" - wisely preserving and investing in the value of ocean ecosystems to fight poverty and improve lives," said Zoellick.

Recognizing that individual efforts by nations and NGOs, as important as they may be, are not enough to stem the worldwide degradation of the oceans and its resources, Zoellick promoted the need for a greater international commitment, including a financial commitment - one in which there will be a return on the investment.

"Today, I want to propose a new approach - an unprecedented Global Partnership for Oceans. This Partnership will bring together countries, scientific centers, NGOs, international organizations, foundations, and the private sector to pool knowledge, experience, expertise, and investment around a set of agreed upon goals. These goals can sharpen our focus, encourage common and reinforcing efforts, and compel us to measure performance.

Together, we will build on the excellent work already being done to address the threats to oceans, identify workable solutions, and scale them. We can also mobilize financing where there are gaps. I've seen in other areas that the World Bank Group is fortunately positioned to catalyze and help organize such a global partnership effort."

He also put forth several goals that his proposed Global Partnership for Oceans should achieve.

"We should rebuild at least half the world's fish stocks identified as depleted: About 85 percent of ocean fisheries are fully exploited, over-exploited, or depleted. This includes most of the stocks of the top ten fish species, or about 30 percent of the world's marine capture fisheries production. There's no room for further expansion - we need to start rebuilding.

We should increase the annual net benefits of fisheries to between $20 and $30 billion. We estimate that global fisheries currently run a net economic loss of about $5 billion per year. We need to turn this around, by allocating and enforcing the rights of fisheries and reforming subsidies.

We should more than double the area covered by marine protected areas. Currently, less than 2 percent of the ocean's surface is protected - compared to around 12 percent of land. Let's increase this to 5 percent

We will need to work with governments and stakeholders to identify and establish sound marine protected areas where they can contribute direct economic benefits. The scale will depend on the context: for example, in some areas, we might work with communities to introduce small-scale protected areas on local coral reef systems, while in others we may work with national governments to identify and protect large areas as part of a wider strategy for the country's ocean ecosystems.

We would build on the idea of supporting networks of marine protected areas, such as island chains in the Pacific. A number of these networks already exist, but have yet to be fully implemented.

And we should increase sustainable aquaculture to provide two thirds of the world's fish. Today, that figure is about 50 percent, but there are serious concerns over disease management, feed use, and introduction of non-native species. We need to do much better, not only to help secure a reliable source of food, but also to take the pressure off of ocean fish stocks."

These goals sound very much like what you would here from a leader in ocean conservation, fishery management, or ocean research. But it's coming from an international banker. What makes an event like the World Ocean Summit noteworthy is that it demonstrates that environmental issues, like ocean conservation, are not feel good issues of the moment that can be easily set aside or disposed of when politically inconvenient. They represent both ecological and economical implications that can have a profound effect on humankind.

Click here to read Mr. Zoellick's entire opening remarks. Also in attendance was Dr. Sylvia Earle, leading ocean advocate and National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence. Click here to read and hear some of her remarks.

Post Script: Juliet Eilperin unveils shark ban critic's biased tactics

2012-02-22T21:26:00.000-08:00

Just a quick coda to this past Monday's post, one of my favorite environmental journalists, Juliet Eilperin, wrote a brief but incisive article in The Washington Post National blog that sheds further light - a questioning light - on Dr. Giam Choo Hoo and the impetus behind his comments regarding the supposed ineffectiveness of shark fin bans.

It serves as a reminder that as the shark conservation cause continues to gain momentum, as demonstrated in recent days by both U.S. states New York and Maryland expressing an interest in shark fin prohibition legislation, we should not expect the opposition to simply throw in the towel. On the contrary, they will put up one heck of a fight and it will be based on half truths, blatant misrepresentations, and diversions.

We can expect to hear "Asia bashing" as a common accusatory tactic and I am sure there will be other bombs the opposition will try to hurl that will seem irrational and desperate in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and just plain common sense. But be aware: as illogical as the opposing arguments may seem, if they can inflame the supporters of shark fishing and shark consumption then it can have an impact. You only need to watch five minutes of U.S. political news to see how effective diversion can be - underhanded, but effective.

Click here to read Juliet's post. Great analysis, Juliet. You nailed it, girl.

Source: The Washington Post

Philippine Shark Fishing Ban: senator pushing legislation to protect all sharks and rays

2012-02-20T11:06:00.000-08:00

Philippine Senator Loren Legarda is receiving considerable coverage in local news outlets for her proposal to put forth legislation that would ban the catching of all sharks and rays in Philippine waters. Her proposal goes beyond the type of shark fin ban that has been initiated elsewhere, such as in several U.S. west coast states and Hawaii. Legarda seeks "to declare as unlawful the wounding or killing of sharks and rays, unless there is threat to human life or safety. The shark’s fin soup and the selling of shark’s fin will likewise be prohibited to eliminate the demand that results in the massive killing of sharks."

This proposal, Senate Bill 2616, was actually first proposed over a year ago, in November, 2010, and mirrors similar legislation that was proposed in July, 2010 by Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo which has been languishing in committee since then.

The senator cites several arguments for pushing for this legislation, “Sharks, as predators of the sea, play a vital role in regulating the ecological balance, particularly the health of important commercial fish species, population balance, and protection of coral reefs. Being a country with about two-thirds of the known marine species of the Pacific living in its coastal waters, the Philippines plays a crucial role in protecting marine species.”

Being that Senate Bill 2616 has been on out on the floor for some time, I find this sudden attention to be of interest. This morning, I counted five different Philippine news outlets picking up the story and, as much of what I read was verbatim from one source to the next, it was clear that a press release had been circulated. News reports claim that the senator's renewed drive was a result of recent local reports of shark finning operations taking place, and there's no reason to doubt that.

“Clearly, the absence of the law forbidding the catching of sharks, gives people the courage to continue the practice, which could eventually lead to the extinction of shark species in the country, especially [sic] that they reproduce slowly,” said Legarda in a statement on Sunday.

However, the release of Legarda's statement could also be propitious as a response to recent statements made by a panel of experts at a forum held in Singapore and sponsored by the Institute for Southeast Asian Studies. Expressing their controversial views were Dr. Giam Choo Hoo, a member of the United Nations Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES), Prof. Steve Oakley of Shark Savers Malaysia and Hank Jenkins, president of Species Management Specialists. The three put forward the position that prohibiting the trade in shark fins will not dramatically reduce the number of sharks killed worldwide. They noted that many countries such as Germany, France, Australia and Iceland have long killed sharks for their meat.

“Even if shark’s fin were banned, these countries would continue to catch sharks for the meat,” said Oakley.

Giam used statistics from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to say that 70 percent of all sharks caught are done by local fishermen in developing countries who consume the entire shark, not just selling the fins. And Jenkins was critical of the statistics that are often used regarding the number of sharks caught worldwide. He questioned the accuracy of 73 million caught each year, saying that it was a manipulation of data originally research by marine scientist Shelley Clarke who put the number at 38 million in 2000 with a wide variance of 26 million to 73 million.

While the idea that shark finning is not the sole issue threatening sharks (albeit the most distasteful) or that catch numbers can be widely inaccurate and prone to manipulation are actually valid points of discussion and consideration, the manner in which they were presented in Singapore has raised the dander of many shark advocates (read here, here, here) and pro-shark organizations. The panel's most inflammatory statement was probably made when, as reported in The Jukarta Post, they insisted, "there is no evidence that live finning - cutting sharks’ fins off before throwing the sharks back into the sea - is a prevalent practice. 'Although practiced by some fishermen, it is illegal, relatively infrequent and condemned by the industry,' said Jenkins."

Just a few days following these statements, Senator Legarda reignites discussion and news buzz regarding her Senate Bill 2616. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it's not much of a stretch to imagine the Singapore news coming to the senator's attention and generating a reaction.

Definitely, the impact of shark finning and total shark consumption and the accuracy of the estimated numbers require more research. But they are not easy facts to ascertain. Extinction is the ultimate test bed for measuring the impact that sharks have on a marine ecosystem, but there is a wealth of data to date that can provide indications without going to such a ridiculously extreme approach. With more and more data, computer models can be further refined to determine impacts based on species and specific environments or locales.

Statistics regarding catch and population numbers will always be a bit elusive and subject to abuse. How many sharks are caught specifically for fins and/or meat versus how many are caught as accidental bycatch will always need to be extrapolated from sources of varying reliability. And when you add to that the number sharks that go unreported due to illegal activity, it becomes even more challenging. However, even a low end number like Clarke's estimated 38 million is an astounding toll to impose on an animal being caught in the wild whose reproductive rate is low. To reach a level of commercial "sustainability" is a lot to ask of nature when it comes to sharks.

So, we can either downplay the potential or theorized impacts on shark populations and proceed as we have been for decades, waiting for a possible negative outcome that would be irreversible; or we follow Senator Legarda's lead and move towards total protection. That would require facing stiff economic and political challenges in transitioning market demands and the direction of commercial industries, ranging from fishing to tourism, but it would be a fine testament to our ability - some would say a god-given right - to exercise true stewardship of the seas.

Source: Manila Bulletin.com
Source: GMA News
Source: Business World Online
Source: philSTAR.com
Source: Journal Online
Source: Jakarta Post

AAAS Conference: new developments in the science of ocean conservation presented

2012-02-18T20:19:00.000-08:00

This Thursday marked the first day of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's (AAAS) conference in Vancouver, Canada. The annual meeting, which concludes this coming Monday, covers a wide range of scientific topics, but the ocean and the environment play a major role.

Mobile Marine Protected Areas
The opening day of the conference saw a presentation on developments in mobile marine protected areas. Marine protected areas have proven to be invaluable in protecting and nurturing marine ecosystems whether they are small - designed, say, to protect a particular reef ecosystem or animal - or expansive like the Phoenix Islands or Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine Sanctuaries which cover thousands of square miles. However, whether big or small, they all have boundaries - borders to which ocean inhabitants do not pay much attention.

Ocean science is now reaching a point where researchers can study the migration of animals and the factors that influence their movements so that protected areas can, in essence, move along with them.

Commenting on this new development, Stanford University marine biologist Larry Crowder said, “We’re getting to the point where we can design a habitat in three dimensions. I think there are new doors opening.”

Climate change is playing a role in all of this. As ocean temperatures continue to warm, they change currents and overall ocean conditions and so animals will migrate toward the most optimal conditions. Improvements in the miniaturization of electronic tagging devices are better enabling researchers to study animal movements, such as fish moving toward the poles seeking colder water as ocean temperatures rise. With this data, adjustments or shifts can be made to protected conservation areas making for more effective marine fishery conservation and management.

“We’re going to have to plan across national borders because of climate change. We can’t expect the ocean in the future to look the way it has in the past or even as it does now,” said Brad DeYoung, a professor of physical oceanography at Memorial University in Newfoundland, Canada. Technology that is now allowing scientists to better study water depth, circulation and winds will add to our understanding of and ability to predict the movement of marine species. “With this knowledge we can better define management measures . . . to preserve fish stocks and improve fisheries management,” he said.

Predicting the Ocean's Future
On Saturday, the AAAS conference will include a symposium on predicting the future of the oceans using what is called the Nereus model. It incorporates three key elements that are impacting the oceans of the world: climate change, human activity (including fisheries and river run-off) and food web dynamics (fish eating fish). The model currently details the status of the oceans from 1960 to 2060 and incorporates and analyses data from four linked global models – Earth System, Ocean Life, Biodiversity Envelope, and Fisheries Management and Governance – to generate 3D scenarios based on different fisheries management choices and policies.

Preliminary results show that, based on current management policies (or the lack of), the trend has been a strong decline in the biomass of larger fish while some small fish may actually be increasing. The Nereus model is able to predict various results from hypothetical fishery management choices, thereby taking it from just being a historical reference tool to a valuable "crystal ball", alerting scientists as to potentially critical changes in ocean biodiversity.

Initially formed by an international team of scientists and supported by the Nippon Foundation and the University of British Columbia, the Nereus model program will soon include participation from Duke University, Princeton University, University of Stockholm, Cambridge University, and the United Nations Environment Program's World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP/WCMC). With the addition of such heavyweight centers of scientific study, the ability to expand on the predictive capabilities of the Nereus model will provide critical information to decision makers.

Professor Jorge Sarmiento, director of Princeton's Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, observed, "We now have many of the world's best fisheries, climate, conservation, and social scientists working together, and it is only through this kind of interdisciplinary effort that we can begin to understand what humanity will need to do to save our oceans, the seafood we get from it, and the human communities that rely on it."

Source: The Province
Source: Physorg.com

Bomber Worms: new species of deep sea worm has unique evasive trick

2012-02-15T21:27:00.000-08:00

While politicians talk of returning to the moon to build bases of operation, marine scientists continue to discover bizarre aliens right here at home in the inky black depths of the sea - a world with as many mysteries as that of the cosmos.

Case in point: Dr. Karen Osborn of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, along with colleagues from the Monterey bay Aquarium Research Institute, recently found a new species of deep sea worm while using a remotely operated submersible (ROV) off the California coast. At a depth of over 8,800 feet, a new member of Swima worms was filmed and several specimens were taken for study topside.

Very strange little critters who can swim through the water with the continuous, undulating beating of long bristles that run the length of their bodies. The worms have the ability to bioluminate but also have a darkened gut so as to hide the bioluminesence of their consumed prey. Therefore, they know when to turn on the lights and when to hide in the dark to avoid attracting unwelcome predators.

However, should they find themselves threatened, these worms are also able to release small bioluminescent "bombs" in the water to distract predators while they make a hasty getaway. The bombs are small appendages attached near the worm's head. The worms are nicknamed "bomber worms" because of this unusual ability.

The bombs are only 1-2 millimeters in length, making them difficult to see with the ROV's cameras. But once brought to the surface, this clever evasive maneuver became clear to the researchers.

"So we bring the animals up to study them," Dr Osborn said. "If you transfer the animal into a small tank, and harass it a little bit with forceps - kind of bump it anywhere on the body - it will release one of these bombs. As soon as [the bomb] is released it starts glowing green and the animal swims away."

Having grown up with the space program and seen the scientific gains in knowledge and the ancillary material benefits in technology combined with the thrill and awe of discovery, I must admit a certain sense of childhood excitement at the prospect of returning to the moon. But exploring the depths of the oceans right here on Earth can fulfill many of those same goals and aspirations, with the added benefit of learning more about the planet's largest environment - an ecosystem that needs to be better understood in all its complexity if we expect to help preserve and protect it.

Observed Dr. Osborn, "This group of really fantastic animals emphasizes just how much we have to learn about deep sea organisms and deep sea biodiversity."

Source: B BC Earth News

U.S. Budget & Science: pluses and minuses, commercial interests favored

2012-02-14T20:52:00.000-08:00

In the United States, with the release of President Obama's proposed budget for the fiscal year of 2013, many branches and departments within government must now await to see what the final outcome is - whether proposed cuts are sustained by Congress or whether increases get cut back. If past experience from the last few years and initial comments from Republican leaders are any indication, it's going to get messy.

Overall, for science, the proposed budget provides a modest increase of about 5 percent for non-defense research and development. However, priorities - and budget dollars - favor those areas that have economic or commercial implications.

According to reporting by Nature.com, “'Overall, the budget sustains an upward trend,' says John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy in Washington DC. 'Because of fiscal restraints, it’s not at the rate we preferred.'”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), receives a 3 percent increase with a portion of that going to further develop a program of polar-orbiting weather and environment satellites that has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.

An assessment of spending and cuts, cited by ScienceInsider, points out the strategy or method-to-the-madness wherein departments that have an immediate impact on economic or commercial interests retain or increase funding. And the programs or projects which get cuts are those that might, in essence, bring up bad news, like threatened species, and would require remedial action (and therefore more expenditures).

"NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS), which includes the agency's marine sanctuary network and estuarine research reserves, would see a 4% cut to $458.5 million, down from $477.9 million this year. The NOS's conservation and ocean assessment programs would take a $10 million cut, to $166.1 million, while the marine sanctuary program would lose $1 million, bringing it to $46.6 million."

"The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which manages fisheries within the 322-kilometer Exclusive Economic Zone off U.S. shores, would get an 8% increase to $857.8 million, up form $794.2 million this year. But programs aimed at studying and protecting threatened species would take a $6.4 million cut, to $170 million, and habitat conservation and restoration programs would fall by $7.2 million, to about $36 million."

Another example of preference toward economic interests can be seen in NOAA's 2012 interim catch limits set for Gulf of Maine cod. To avoid having the spawning biomass get below 7,300 metric tons - which would push the population to a tipping point of collapse, a catch limit was set at 6,700 metric tons. However, the Conservation Law Foundation has compiled scientific recommendations that put the appropriate limit at 4,000 metric tons - a limit that is hotly contested by commercial fishery groups as too low to sustain their fleet.

Additionally, larger and more influential industrial fishing fleets are getting a distinct advantage over smaller, local fishermen with NOAA's "catch share system" which allows the larger boats to work inshore rather than limited to farther out at sea.

According to Massachusett's Gloucester Times, "In November, before the arrival of the cod crisis, Gov. Deval Patrick, backed by the congressional delegation, filed socio-economic research evidence showing that the fishery was consolidating into an economic disaster through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's catch share system, which is steering more and more permits and quota into the hands of fewer and larger businesses, and away from smaller, independent boats. NOAA's own figures show that Gloucester's fleet lost some two dozen of its estimated 96 boats in the 2010 to 2011 fishing year alone."

It's to be expected that during this difficult economy, with its slow and fragile recovery combined with calls for deficit control, many of the areas of interest to conservationists would be subjected to a lack of political commitment. Areas that support industry and possible job growth are bound to get all the attention.

But the influence peddlers who prowl the halls of Washington can often succeed in shuffling priorities and budget dollars for short-term gain, while non-profit environmental and conservation organizations and scientific research groups scrounge for every nickel they can get their hands on. And it's those very groups, working on behalf of the planet, which are looking at long-term consequences that will not only save plant and animal species and whole ecosystems but, as a result, commercial industries as well. If we, as constituents, choose to raise our voices to our elected officials, it should be in support of those groups and those issues that have the greatest impact on our long-term future as a civilization.

Trying to be guardedly optimistic regarding the proposed budget, Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Washington DC-based Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “They did a pretty good job in making sure we are not hurting our environment and conservation programs.”

We shall see.

Source: Nature.com
Source: Gloucester Times
Source: ScienceInsider

Sharks Facing Challenges: slow changes in market demand and a rise in illegal fishing

2012-02-12T20:21:00.000-08:00

Shark conservation continues to make progress and continues to run up against serious challenges simultaneously. It's a long road that will need to be traveled to reach the ultimate goal of seeing decimated populations of iconic shark species begin to return to some level of normalcy, but it's a trip worth taking.

One of the biggest challenges the movement faces is demand for shark products, particularly shark fins. The shark fin market is centered in Asia where a long cultural history wrapped around the use of shark fin soup as a past symbol of royalty and prestige, today exists to exemplify new wealth and a growing upper middle class. Asian culture has also been a protective and sometimes isolated one and so outside admonitions, under threats of being labeled "Asia bashing", can often fall on deaf ears.

What has been encouraging is evidence of a slow change taking place within Asia itself. Fueled by conservation messages coming from Asian environmental groups, the press, and international organizations like WildAid, more and more restaurants and hotel resorts in places like Singapore and Kulala Lampur are refusing to serve shark fin soup.

Becoming a more frequent story in the Asian press, as reported by the Singapore-based AsiaOne News, "Sharks are slowly but surely winning the battle to keep their fins as the Chinese traditional dish is no longer a must-have at reunions and wedding dinners. Playing a big part is the Shangri-La chain, which declared that its 72 luxury hotels worldwide would stop serving the controversial dish from this year. [Director of communications for Shangri-La, Rosemarie] Wee said Shangri-La decided to join international efforts to stop the harvesting and trading of shark fins, which had severely depleted the population of the fish."

Addressing market demand, changing a people's taste for shark fin soup - or all shark-related products, for that matter - is a slow process and it must be done very delicately with countries that do not respond well to external pressure or influence as it is often perceived as interference. Public relations campaigns often seem to focus on a younger audience, the next generation of consumers, that seem to be more receptive to new ecological thinking ranging from shark extinctions to over-population to fossil fuels and climate change.

At the other end of the spectrum is another powerful nemesis and that is the economic incentive behind shark products and the tenacity of those involved in the business to keep things as status quo as possible. While recent political advances in anti-shark fin legislation or the designation of shark sanctuaries or protected zones has put some pressure on the commercial shark fishing distribution network, the more these businesses find it difficult to continue legally, the more we will begin to see illegal activities flourish.

According to Israel's Haaertz.com, illegal shark fishing in the Mediterranean is on the rise. With 42% of the 70 shark species found in the Mediterranean to be in danger of extinction, shark fishing is illegal in Israeli waters. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) has been apprehending fisherman who were illegally catching sharks and selling them along the Gaza strip and in Tel Aviv. With financial temptation overpowering legality, many are concerned as to whether enforcement will be able to keep up.

Haaertz.com reported, "[INPA supervising director Ohn] Valency says that the authority doesn’t have enough supervisors to stop shark fishing. In recent weeks various organizations have accused European Mediterranean countries of failing to act forcefully to stop shark fishing."

And with Israel we are looking at only a small part of the Mediterranean coastline. There are some major European players working throughout the Mediterranean - countries like Spain, Italy, and Portugal are heavily involved in commercial shark fishing - clearing out sharks at an alarming rate from this nearly closed body of water. (European nations supply a third of all shark fins to Hong Kong, arguably the shark fin processing capital of the world.)

So, progress is being made but we can expect to see a rocky transition as market demand slowly erodes while the industry does all that it can to perpetuate the business. This will push some participants underground and enforcing state, national or international rules and regulations will be put to the test, straining available resources.

Marine biologists often talk about declining fish populations reaching a critical "tipping point' that can signal the total collapse of a population and its ability to recover. As the conservation work continues on behalf of sharks, the commercial shark fishing industry could someday face its own tipping point. Let's hope that happens before the sharks face theirs.

Source: AsiaOne News
Source: Haaretz.com

Going Green by Design: Bangkok exhibit shows future of nature-sustainable products

2012-02-12T12:15:00.000-08:00

Green or nature-sustainable thinking in design and products is not just a hot topic among major industrial nations in the West; it's also finding its way into countries like Thailand, as evidenced by the exhibit "Everything Forever Now: Designs for a sustainable future" currently on display at the Thailand Creative & Design Center (TCDC) in Bangkok.

Some of the exhibit's many highlights include a bicycle made from nylon powder, a lamp powered by moss, benches made from seaweed, and artificial leather made from leather tannery discards.

"In recent years there has been a shift in the way that designers approach the idea of sustainable design. Now they view it less as a problem, and more as a fact of life – and certainly as an opportunity to rethink what and how we make things, and how we might go about our lives in a more effective and positive way," explained the TCDC website.

A bike, made primarily from nylon powder that is formed into a resin, streamlines the manufacturing process with less raw materials involved and is 65% lighter than an aluminum bicycle with less maintenance required. The manufacturing technique was actually borrowed from space satellite construction, called additive layer manufacturing, whereby all the components are formed as a unit at the same time.

Biophotovoltaics is the science behind a small, glass-topped table designed by Cambridge University which can power a small lamp. The table contains living moss which, through energy produced by the plant's photosynthesis during the day, can charge a small battery that powers the lamp in the evening hours.

To further make a point regarding recycling what would normally be discarded materials, many of the walls surrounding the exhibit are made from discarded milk cartons, processed into a building material that is toxin-free, flame-retardant, and resistant to moisture and termites.

The TCDC exhibit is an example of science working its way into the design and manufacturing world where the economics and practicality of new processes and products could very well shape our future into a more nature-friendly one.

"Whether designing for longevity, building self-sufficient communities, improving the efficiency of infrastructures or developing new materials, the new guard of green designers quietly promises one thing: to deepen and improve our relationship with the environment, both now and well into the future," said TCDC.

Source: TCDC website
Source: Thailand's The Nation

Sharks & Oxygen Depletion: the final word, hopefully, from a shark scientist

2012-02-12T10:31:00.000-08:00

Here is a long but valuable post script to my comments at the start of the month regarding the pseudo-scientific concept that without sharks the Earth would lose it's oxygen. My shark advocate colleague, David Shiffman (aka WhySharksMatter), weighed in with his detailed scientific perspective (see below). So I hope this will bring some closure on the subject.

For those shark advocates who have supported this idea, I hope that you will re-assess your position and stick to scientifically-proven facts; there are enough of those to make a strong case for shark conservation. And for those who are mildly curious about sharks, please know that there are serious implications to the extinction or near-extinction of major shark species, whether sought after as a commercial item or simply a product of unfortunate by-catch. But finding yourself trapped in a planetary vacuum is not one of them.

Great post, David. Thanks!

“Sharks create oxygen”: A scientific perspective

By WhySharksMatter, on February 10th, 2012

I want to apologize to our regular readers for stating something that should be incredibly obvious. Sharks are in no way connected to the global supply of atmospheric oxygen. If every single species of shark went extinct, there would be a variety of negative ecological effects, but a reduction in the global supply of atmospheric oxygen would not be among them. There is not a shred of scientific evidence supporting the idea that the loss of sharks would affect our oxygen supply- not a single scientific paper, not a single technical report. I’ve attended a dozen scientific conferences focusing on marine ecology or shark biology (including three international conferences) and I’ve never seen or heard of anyone presenting or even discussing this. To the best of my knowledge, not a single person who has authored a scientific paper or technical report supports this idea. Despite the complete lack of any kind of credible evidence, and despite many recent blog posts thoroughly debunking it (see here here here here here here and here ), this pseudoscience just won’t die.

The premise of the sharks and oxygen claim is as follows:

A) Sharks, many of which are apex predators, are important in regulating marine food webs;
B) Phytoplankton, which create oxygen through photosynthesis, are in marine food webs;
C) Therefore, without sharks, phytoplankton populations will crash and we won’t have any more oxygen and we’ll all die.

A and B are reasonable enough- we know that under certain circumstances, apex predators can play important roles in structuring and regulating food webs, and we know that phytoplankton produce oxygen (though how much oxygen phytoplankton produces is another debate entirely). It’s part C of the sharks and oxygen claim that’s the problem.

This flawed leap in logic, like many other bits of pseudoscience, is loosely based on reality- specifically, the concept of the “trophic cascade”. To explain a trophic cascade, consider a simple hypothetical food chain where grass is the primary producer, goats consume grass, and chupacabras consume goats. Trophic refers to “trophic level”, an alternative term for a step of a food chain. Grass would be trophic level 0, goats would be trophic level 1, and chupacabras would be trophic level 2. The cascade refers to ripple-like effects that travel throughout a food chain despite initially affecting only one level- for example, a change in chupacabra populations could eventually affect goat populations, which would eventually affect the grass.

One classic example of a marine trophic cascade comes from Estes et al. 1998. In the original kelp forest system, kelp provided habitat for countless species of fish. Sea urchins ate kelp, but their numbers were kept in check by sea otters. Once orca whales began preying upon sea otters, sea otter populations decreased. With fewer sea otters eating them, sea urchin populations increased- and ate all of the kelp.

Figure 1 from Estes et al. 1998. " (A) Changes in sea otter abundance over time at several islands in the Aleutian archipelago and concurrent changes in (B) sea urchin biomass, (C) grazing intensity, and (D) kelp density measured from kelp forests at Adak Island. Error bars in (B) and (C) indicate 1 SE. The proposed mechanisms of change are portrayed in the marginal cartoons—the one on the left shows how the kelp forest ecosystem was organized before the sea otter's decline and the one on the right shows how this ecosystem changed with the addition of killer whales as an apex predator. Heavy arrows represent strong trophic interactions; light arrows represent weak interactions."

A similar trophic cascade involving sharks was reported in Myers et al. 2007, though these conclusions are still considered controversial among the scientific community. According to this paper, in the Outer Banks, a decrease in shark populations led to an increase in the populations of these sharks’ prey (including cownose rays), and increased cownose ray populations led to a decrease in their prey (including scallops, which used to be the basis for an important coastal fishery).

Figure 1 from Heithaus et al. 2008, a review of shark ecosystem effects, referencing the Myers et al. 2007 conclusions. "The removal of marine predators can result in cascading effects through communities. As (a) catch rates of large sharks, such as blacktip sharks (Carcharhinus limbatus), declined during research surveys along the east coast of the United States, (b) cownose rays began to increase, leading to eventual declines in (c) catches of North Carolina bay scallops (Agropecten irradians). Population densities are expressed as proportions of the observed time series maximum. Trend lines are best fits from generalized linear (a,b) or additive models (c). In (b), filled symbols and line denote Delaware Bay surveys, and open symbols and dashed line are Pamlico Sound, NC, surveys. Field experiments confirmed that scallop declines resulted from increased ray predation [5

There have been numerous models and observational studies concerning the ecological effects that would result from the loss of apex predators (a partial list can be found in my sources below). Not a single one mentions even the remote possibility of a decline in the global supply of oxygen as a consequence of overfishing sharks. If you encounter someone promoting this (or any of a huge variety of pseudoscience claiming to be based on real science), ask them for a copy of the peer-reviewed scientific paper which supports it.

Technically speaking, just because no one has ever written about this phenomenon applying to sharks doesn’t, in of itself, mean that it doesn’t apply to sharks. However, there’s a very good reason why the loss of sharks won’t affect phytoplankton. Trophic cascades tend to occur in simple ecosystems. In the kelp forest, basically only one type of organism eats kelp from the base (sea urchins) and basically only one type of organism eats sea urchins (otters). Sharks fit into different ecosystems differently, and many of those ecosystem are quite complex, so the claim that the loss of sharks will have a uniform global effect is inaccurate at best.

Research from coral reef ecosystems shows than when predator/prey interactions are more diffuse (for example, a system might have many herbivores, many secondary consumers, etc.) , trophic cascades don’t occur. Sharks may eat some herbivores, but they also eat animals that eat those herbivores, so the ecological effects would be less direct. Additionally, even if one prey species experiences “predation release”, other species with similar ecological niches are not affected in the same way. In a complex ecosystem, sharks can be considered to be “trophically decoupled” from phytoplankton- their populations will not affect those of phytoplankton because the trophic relationships are diffuse and complex. Most marine ecosystems are quite complex, as seen below:

A cod-based food web in the North Atlantic, a region of the ocean with relatively FEW species. Image from David Lavigne, National Science and Engineering Research Council

In fact, emerging research in the field of fear ecology has shown that the most important effects resulting from the loss of sharks in an ecosystem may actually be indirect and related to behavior rather than population structure. In other words, sharks may exert more of an influence on an ecosystem by causing organisms in that system to alter their behavior to avoid being eaten. A great example of this comes from Dr. Mike Heithaus’ work in Australia. He found that animals like dolphins, sea turtles, and dugongs (relatives of manatees) will alter their preferred foraging ground during times of the year when large tiger sharks are present. They will forage in areas with less food but less chance of encountering a tiger shark.

Figure 2 from Heithaus et al. 2008. "Risk effects of tiger sharks on megagrazers in Shark Bay, Australia....Green turtles in good body condition (assumed to indicate a good energy state) shift to safe microhabitats with nutrient-poor seagrass when sharks are common"

Many species of sharks have been dangerously overharvested, resulting in alarmingly rapid and severe population declines. The loss of sharks can result in disruptions to the food web, resulting in ecological (and in many cases economic) problems. Conservationists are correct to be concerned about the loss of sharks and the effects this will have on our oceans, and we can and should work to protect these animals. However, sharks have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the global oxygen supply. There is absolutely no evidence in favor of this claim, and lots of evidence against it.

Spreading inaccurate claims in support of a worthy cause can only harm that cause by reducing credibility with the public and with policymakers. There are enough real reasons to protect sharks that we shouldn’t need to make up nonsense with no factual basis. I call on all responsible conservationists and advocates to stop perpetuating this pseudoscience.

Source: Southern Fried Science

Nature's Indomitable Spirit: New Zealand wilding pines, a reminder about the will to survive

2012-02-09T21:38:00.000-08:00

Was just finishing a short opinion piece by Brian Taylor for New Zealand's Otago Daily Times about how best to deal with the wilding pines that spread throughout both the north and south islands. Wilding pines, also referred to as wilding conifers, are invasive species of pine trees, the result of a combination of early settlers stripping indigenous scrubland for agriculture and cattle grazing which provided a fertile base for various imported pine tree species to explode across the valleys and hillsides.

With New Zealand spending millions of dollars annually to try to stem the tide of the ever-expanding wilding pines, Taylor was questioning the wisdom of current strategies. Yes, the pines are an invasive species that is altering the natural landscape and the result is both an economic and environmental threat, but it's a result due in part to man providing the trees with the initial foothold. Taylor questioned whether current land management use - grazing and burning techniques to maintain economically important grasslands - would forever be at odds with wilding pines and whether there could be other natural buffers developed to help manage the pines' growth and expansion, rather than the felling of mature trees and removal of seedlings which has not yielded hoped for results.

Interesting article but what caught my attention most of all was Taylor's description of nature's tenacity, as it is applicable to all environments - land or sea, plant or animal.

"Mother Nature can be a rather intractable old matriarch, and no matter how strenuously Man tries to thwart her advances, she will invariably be the clear winner in a marathon. After all, she has been around far longer than mankind and has not survived millions of years by simply taking a back seat when threatened. She is a formidable contestant, smart, very smart in fact, versatile, highly adaptable, and loves a challenge. When the chips are down, she will always be one jump ahead, ever ready to override our mistaken endeavours by taking control of regeneration her way.

She abhors nudity and will make sure that all of her domain remains well covered. There will be no bare spots for her, no sir. Pull out a weed and see what she does, she will plant another one straight back and will continue to do so as long as we constantly annoy her by perpetuating our misguided attempts at laying the ground bare."

Taylor is describing nature's will to survive. Despite all that can be heaped upon it, whether through natural occurrences or man-made interference, nature will do what it can, do whatever is necessary to carry on. It will adjust; it will adapt. But what we must keep in mind is that to evolve and continue its existence, nature can make some cold, harsh decisions - such as extinctions if that's what it takes. And that can involve the loss of the smallest insect all the way up to the largest mammals in the sea. And it can include us just as easily. For all our accomplishments and all our self-importance, if we push nature too far, it can shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

After pondering whether New Zealand could adopt land management policies that work with nature rather than continually fighting it, Taylor closes with a thoughtful reminder about ecological perspective - in whose playground we are briefly being allowed to roam.

"We live in a mere moment of time in the history of the planet. It has constantly evolved throughout the ages, and will continue to do so long after we have gone. We are able to exist on earth only because nature provides us with all our needs for survival. Yet in this modern world of rapidly diminishing forest cover, some are still prepared to promote the age-old slash and burn mentality - in this case, 'for the good of the view, rather than for the good of the planet'.

Maybe it is time we reconfigured our response strategies and embraced greater biodiversity, which is, after all, the key to a balanced and healthy ecosystem."

Here, here.

Source: Otago Daily Times

Underwater Noise Abatement: good news/bad news for marine life

2012-02-08T20:13:00.000-08:00

Possible good news/bad news for ocean noise pollution. First the bad news. A research study from the New England Aquarium in Boston provides the first documentation of harmful stress on whales due to elevated noise levels from ships.

A "Before & After" Research Opportunity
The issue of ocean noise pollution has been around for some time and hotly debated depending on whose side you're on. Construction noise from oil drilling platforms or other such ocean-based structures, sonar signals from naval vessels, even underwater explosions as part of oil and gas exploration - all have been subject to intense scrutiny and more from various environmental groups (there are lawsuits currently against the U.S. government regarding submarine sonar sounds).

But sometimes having the definitive proof can be challenging. To measure the effects of noise pollution you need, as a basis of comparison, a period of little or no sound and an examination of the health of animals within that environment. Then compare it to a noisy environment. Those set of circumstances don't come along every day. Until September 11th, 2001.

Northern right whales are a highly endangered whale, due to years of whaling pressure followed by intense shipping along the whale's coastal migratory routes up and down the east coast of the U.S. With the advent of September 11th, for national security concerns, shipping was sharply reduced following the attacks. This provided a window of opportunity for New England Aquarium researcher Rosalind Rolland to study the condition of the whales during a "quiet" period. And how do you do that? Why, by studying whale poop, of course.

Researchers can measure stress levels in whales by examining stress hormone levels found in the whales' waste - fecal balls that float to the surface. Rolland's team measured significant reductions in stress hormones during the lull in shipping following the terrorist attacks. Stress levels were again high when shipping activity returned to pre-9/11capacities.

"We showed whales occupying oceans with high levels of ship noise have a chronic stress response. We knew whales changed the frequency of their calls to adapt to the ship noise, but this work shows it is not merely an annoyance – it is having a physical effect," said Rolland. "Instant responses to stress – like running away from a tiger – can be life-saving. But if it becomes chronic, it causes profound depression of the immune system, making them vulnerable to disease, and it depresses reproduction."

With the cause and effect evidence at hand, the question is what do we do about it? Shipping is far too vital of an economic enterprise for many nations to simply decide to curtail it on behalf of the whales, regardless of how that would please marine mammal advocates.

"The positive aspect to this particular issue is that it is a solvable problem," Rolland said. She believes that much of the problem can be addressed by making the engines more efficient. As an example, a lot of design has gone into making submarine screws (propellers) more efficient and quieter, thereby providing a tactical edge militarily. If that same engineering effort could be put towards conventional ships, a marked reduction in overall noise levels could be achieved - along with fuel saving benefits in the process. It's possible; however, it will take some time. The Guardian reports that there are approximately 50,000 ships at sea on any given day. That's a lot of vessels in need of costly retrofitting.

"Amazingly, there are currently no accepted international standards regarding noise pollution in our seas," said Danny Groves of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. "Not enough is being done to reduce noise in our oceans Very little is known about its long-term effects and more research is needed." Hopefully, the New England Aquarium's research data will help the cause.

Possible Good News for Noise Abatement
The construction and operation of oil platforms or other offshore structures, like wind turbines, can produce noise levels that are harmful, if not outright deadly, to marine life. The process of driving in pilings with the construction of energy platforms can produce sound waves of such intensity that they can kill fish. The initial pressure wave from, say, a pile driver compresses the air in a fish's bladder. With the passing of the pressure wave, the air suddenly expands, rupturing the bladder and causing other organ damage. However, ongoing research is using that same compression of air to provide a possible solution: bubble curtains.

A little over eight years ago, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) utilized a wall of bubbles to dampen the impact on surrounding marine life from piles being driven for a retrofitting of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

According to marine biologist Bud Abbott, who was working as a consultant on the Caltrans project, the bubble curtains work by altering the pressure wave's intensity, "When a pressure wave hits an air bubble, it will compress the bubble, then it will expand again, so energy is lost. Sound travels faster through water than air. It slows down as it hits the air bubble."

Although some scientists debate the extant to which energy is lost, Abbott says the curtains alter the pressure wave, changing it from a sharp, destructive force to a smoother, less destructive wave pattern.

According to National Geographic Daily News, an offshore turbine farm being built in the Baltic Sea by a consortium of German energy companies will incorporate bubble curtains to reduce construction and operation noise to government-mandated levels of no greater than 160 decibels at approximately a half mile. Additionally, Shell Oil is looking into the use of bubble curtains to provide some measure of protection for Arctic marine life, including some endangered marine mammal species, as part of their licensed permits to build and operate energy facilities in the Arctic.

Mitch Winkler, manager of the Arctic Technology Program for Shell International Exploration and Production, said, "We are focusing on the use of air bubbles and their impact on sound waves as a means of reducing the sound transmitted from stationary sources. We are targeting a reduction in the amount of noise by as much as ten decibels."

While the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act has specific noise level limitations designed to protect marine mammals, many environmental groups, while applauding the efforts toward noise abatement, feel there are even graver threats to Arctic ecosystems from oil and gas companies.

"We're certainly in favor of using and testing any new methods of reducing sound from human activities underwater," said Brendan Cummings, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity. "[The concept of] "bubble curtains is raised pretty frequently, although there are few real-world applications of it. But there are far bigger problems than the noise impacts, including the simple fact that there is no technology, methodology, and—most important—no infrastructure in place to deal with an oil spill in the Arctic."

True. Drilling in the Arctic is fraught with ecological hazards and it is an ongoing political tug-of-war between environmental concerns and current pressing energy needs, even while alternative energy systems continue to develop and expand. However, for the construction and operation of any offshore facility in the world - oil, wind, or otherwise - at least there is one form of technology that appears hopeful in providing marine mammals with some measure of protection.

Source: The Guardian
Source: National Geographic Daily News

Marine Mammals & Human Impacts: new study details a higher risk of extinction

2012-02-05T20:28:00.000-08:00

New research from an international team of researchers indicates that humans pose a higher risk of extinction for marine mammals. Now, for many ocean conservation advocates I can hear the collective "Duuuuuh" right now, complete with eyes rolling round in their sockets. But wait. This particular study, "Drivers and Hotspots of Extinction Risk in Marine Mammals" published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, has the potential for catching the attention of international ocean management organizations because of the methodologies used by the researchers to draw their conclusions.

There are computer models that have been successfully used to determine the status of terrestrial mammals. These predictive models incorporate a variety of factors including habitat, body mass, rate of reproduction, social group size, and more. Each factor is weighted based on the particular species. All have an impact on how well a particular species survives and what their future may have in store when certain factors change, such as pollution, loss of habitat, or climate change.

Marine mammals currently include 128 different species from whales and dolphins to seals and sea lions to manatees and dugongs. And right know the status of nearly 40 percent of them are unknown due to a lack of data. Even with that limitation, the IUCN Red List considers 25% as endangered. However, this new study's predictive model pushes that figure closer to 37 percent.

While factors such as a slow rate of reproduction, a small geographic area of distribution, or a tendency toward small social groups, when combined with environmental factors could have an effect on predicted risks of extinction, according to Dr. Ana Davidson, lead author from the University of New Mexico, “species’ traits were the most important predictors of risk overall, underscoring the importance of understanding species’ basic biologies and ecologies, which is unfortunately lacking for many marine mammals, even some of the most well-known groups like dolphins.”

A press release issued by the University of New Mexico reported, "Using their predictive model, the team also generated new maps of species at risk. They illustrate that at-risk species mostly occur in coastal regions and in productive areas of the open ocean, which are also areas subject to high levels of human impact. The models identified 13 global hotspots where high numbers of at-risk species occur, and show how they overlap with leading human impacts on the world’s oceans (fishing, shipping and pollution, and climate change) and Marine Protected Areas."

“We found that three-quarters of marine mammal species experience high levels of human impact in their environment, and these include the cumulative effects of numerous factors, including fishing, shipping, pollution, sea surface temperature change, ocean acidification, invasive species, oil rigs, and human population density,” said Dr. Alison Boyer, another researcher from the University of Tennessee involved in the study.

This new research adds to a growing body of work that supports the concept of Marine Protected Areas and other recognized marine parks or sanctuaries, while also recognizing the need for more international management policies. There is much to be learned about marine mammals, more than most people think. However, studies like this make the case that we cannot just sit on our hands and wait for data on each and every species to arrive. Predictive models that have been shown to be of value on land can also show that time is running out for marine mammals as well if decision makers choose to hesitate and strong preventative measures are not taken.

Source: UNM Today

Thanks to Mike DeGruy: an explorer's enthusiasm, gone too soon

2012-02-05T14:32:00.001-08:00

This past Saturday in Australia, the ocean conservation and the motion picture community lost two of its great adventurers. Mike DeGruy of Santa Barbara, California, and Andrew Wight of Victoria, Australia were killed when a helicopter owned by Wight crashed just after take-off in North South Wales. The two were reportedly preparing to scout locations for a documentary film they were working on when the helicopter came down. An investigation by Australian authorities is underway to determine the cause.

That's the news, the cold hard facts. And it's a tragic loss on two levels. Of course, for the families and close friends of Mike and Andrew, their deaths are painful and made more so by the sudden nature of it; two men doing their job in an aircraft that was probably in the middle of a very routine maneuver, something done hundreds of times before. Although both were adventurers and filmmakers and, by definition, a certain measure of risk is often involved in their work, their long and established careers were testaments to calculated risk. So, an accident like this - while it could be said, they were doing what they loved - it's no less painful and unexpected to those close to them.

In addition to the personal loss, is the void it leaves in the ocean conservation and nature filmmaking communities. Andrew Wight, 51, is a well-respected Australian writer and film producer, most recently for the 2010 film, Sanctum, which was executive produced by James Cameron. Their professional relationship had grown and Andrew was working with Cameron on future projects as the head of the Australian office for Cameron's 3D production arm, Cameron Pace.

Mike DeGruy, 60, has a distinguished career in ocean studies, starting from his early years with the Waikiki Aquarium as Curator of Invertebrates followed by work in the Enewetak Atoll and Palau, which lead him into making ocean-related films for the BBC, PBS, and National Geographic. Eventually, Mike's enthusiasm and personality made its way in front of the camera and he became an energetic host on many nature television productions.

I first met Mike several years ago and while I wouldn't count myself as a close friend, I always found him warm and personable every time we crossed paths. We would start swapping film experiences and as the conversation would continue, they would get a little more blue and funnier as we would try to out do each other with the raunchiest story. As someone who sees the value of communicating ocean science to the broadest possible audience, this is what I found so infectious with Mike and what made him an ideal on-camera spokesperson whether it was about sharks, squid, or deep sea mysteries. Mike had energy and could communicate the fun and wonder of the seas to a viewing audience and, later, to live audiences through speaking engagements across the globe.

We would always end our meetings with his open invitation to stop by his Santa Barbara office. I think he wanted to one-up me one more time with a story and I would have been glad to indulge him. It was always on my "to do" list but I never got around to it and it's an opportunity that I will sorely miss.

Ocean exploration and conservation need voices like Mike's and Andrew's - voices that can enthrall and educate listeners and viewers, to literally get people pumped up about exploring and protecting the seas. In my limited experience, that is how I will remember Mike, someone whose passion for the oceans and telling a good yarn was apparent to all who came in contact with him. Thank you, Mike.

Sure, ocean conservation and the world of wildlife filmmaking will continue on and there will be new, fresh faces who will spread the word about protecting planet Earth. But it will be done only on the shoulders of those who came before - people like Mike DeGruy and Andrew Wight: adventurers, explorers, storytellers all.

Source: News.com.au
Source: MikeDeGruy.com

Shark Conservation: in a complex world, only hard facts truly serve the cause

2012-02-01T21:25:00.000-08:00

Nature is a very complex, interwoven web of plant and animal species, ecological and environmental relationships, and an endless multitude of actions and reactions. To survive, it is constantly changing, adjusting to shifts in conditions - sometimes slowly and sometimes dramatically. Therefore, to predict the totality of change that occurs with the loss of a species is, to say the least, challenging. We like are answers neat and tidy. We are prone to look for silver bullet solutions, one size fits all remedies, and we have a tendency to view consequences in linear domino-like chains.

However, when you speak with ecological scientists, they think in terms of trophic cascade when considering man's impact on the environment. Changes are not simple and the ultimate outcome - particularly when nature is constantly trying to adjust for the sake of survival - becomes extremely hard to predict. It can be done but it requires complex modeling and varying degrees of confidence, and is often couched in the realization that other mitigating factors can alter the outcome of a particular situation for better or worse.

In the area of shark conservation, to stress the urgency of their cause sometimes passionate shark conservationists will predict outcomes involving the loss of sharks that don't necessarily take a variety of factors into account. They are fervently trying to make a point and will sometimes use an "A equals Z" approach that I find can be counter-productive because it strains credibility. One such equation is that without sharks the planet will lose most of its oxygen. To borrow a popular Hollywood expression about excess, they are "jumping the shark" in trying to make a simple statement about the ramifications on the environment if sharks were pushed to the edge of extinction. It's meant to alarm people but it pushes the envelope of rational, science-based discourse beyond the boundaries of common sense. And the result is you can lose the very person you are trying to convert.

Two blogging colleagues in the shark conservation field - Da Shark of the blog, The Best Shark Dive in the World, and Shark Diver of Underwater Thrills:Swimming With Sharks - take great exception to the shark vs. oxygen theory. Their writings can reveal, shall we say, a colorful and blunt temperament at times but they make some solid points in several recent posts on the subject. It makes for some good and entertaining blogosphere reading.

Certainly, sharks need to be conserved and protected as they play a critical role in maintaining the balance of a marine ecosystem. But they are not the only players in the game. At the very least, sharks are emblematic of what is happening to a variety of important species, from tuna to wolves to polar bears. And collectively, the totality of losses can produce negative impacts that can push some of nature's systems and capabilities to perilous tipping points, exceeding it's ability to adjust or recover.

But we must be careful as to just how far we wish to go in capturing the attention of a yet unengaged audience. If we lose our oxygen from the loss of sharks, then do we keep or even gain more oxygen by saving all sharks? Does that mean that the effects of fossil fuels will be negated or that ocean acidification becomes yesterday's news? How the marine ecology of, say, Fiji would be impacted by a severe decline in the island's reef shark population could be quite different from that of the Bahamas, or the loss of pelagic sharks in the Pacific could have different repercussions in the Atlantic. It becomes a very complicated image when we try to look at the big picture and so comprehensive conclusions must be measured and well thought out.

Shark conservation is necessary and important because it shines a light on our ignorance and indifference and identifies an important player in nature's cast of thousands. However, if we are to get people on board to the plight of sharks and other species or environmental threats - whether on land, in the sea, or in the air - our efforts must be based on the solid and, admittedly, often complex evidence that science can provide. It is a complicated world we live in and simplistic declarations of doom do not serve the cause, no matter how sincere the intentions.

Pakistan Leopards: research to study population and find ways for public to coexist

2012-01-30T21:05:00.000-08:00

Most of the exotic wild cats still living in the wild are considered threatened or endangered to one degree or another. They are often pressured by a loss of habitat which either pushes them towards starvation or an increase in encounters with people - both of which usually lead to the loss of the animal.

This is true of the leopard found throughout Asia, extending towards the Middle East. However, in Pakistan steps are being to taken to learn more about the current condition of the leopard population and to educate local citizens as to the plight of the leopard, it's role as an important forest predator, and how the leopard and local communities can coexist.

The Pakistan branch of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-Pakistan) has been provided funding from the Humane Welfare and Nature Conservation Society to implement an ambitious program of in-the-field study of the leopard in Ayubia National Park combined with public outreach and education.

In collaboration with the University of Siena, Italy, WWF-Pakistan will conduct tracking studies using satellite collars, diet analysis, and genetic studies, along with camera traps to better determine the extant of the current leopard population within Pakistan. WWF-Pakistan will also be working with a multimedia company to develop a variety of media products, including documentaries, to increase public awareness of the leopard and its role within the Pakistan forest ecology.

No one is sure as to the actual number of leopards in the area, but Uzma Khan, a wildlife biologist and WWF representative for the project, has stated that it “could be as few as four.”

“I conducted interviews of local residents in Ayubia and they all believe the population to be in the thousands,” Khan said. "But one leopard looks for prey in an area about 20 to 60 square hectares. So it is quite possible for a single leopard to be spotted at one corner of the park one day and the next corner the very next day. The villagers assume that they are everywhere.”

With the loss of forest habitat due to development and the free-grazing of cattle, there has come a greater number of predations by leopards on cattle - not to mention more encounters and attacks on humans. The new study and the information it disseminates will hopefully make people more understanding of the predicament that the Pakistan people have imposed on the leopard.

This is a situation that is very similar to how African communities are having to find better ways to protect people and livestock from the lions that are being encroached upon. Also, a loss of habitat in Southern California is causing a marked increase in mountain lion encounters - including attacks on joggers and mountain bikers. In all cases, this is the result of the demand for land to accommodate a growing human population. Predators like lions, tigers, and leopards are literally being backed into an ecological and geographical corner and their basic survival instincts are, unfortunately, putting them at odds with human societies.

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife Department is working closely with the WWF-Pakistan in the hopes of developing a national management policy that will ensure the long-term future of the leopard while also protecting livestock and public safety.

Source: The Nation.
Source: The Express Tribune.

Groundswell: Pacific Northwest surfer and Patagonia team up on conservation documentary

2012-01-29T21:14:00.000-08:00

Surfers of the Pacific Northwest are a pretty hardy lot. Their passion for the sport takes them into sometimes freezing cold water, they trek through virgin forest, and both in the water and out they encounter many of nature's wildest animals. And so that makes them ideal ambassadors for the conservation and preservation of rugged stretches of nature that could be threatened by the environmental damage of oil pipelines and tanker spills.

The Vancouver Sun ran an article by Judith Lavoie of The Victoria Times Colonist reporting on the efforts of a Pacific Northwest surfer and environmental scientist, in cooperation with outdoor clothing manufacturer Patagonia, to bring to the screen a documentary that highlights the beauty of British Columbia's Great Bear Rainforest and the need to conserve and protect this ocean and forest wilderness. The film currently is titled Groundswell and a fall 2012 release is planned. But you can read about the film project and the support from Patagonia. You can also view a film trailer on Patagonia's website by clicking here.

Surfers' Documentary Speaks for Wildlife

When a couple of sea lions swam close to Chris Darimont as he was surfing, he realized that, with his wetsuit and surf board, he looked remarkably like a marine mammal.

That is when the idea came to Darimont, science director for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, that there should be an opportunity for surfers to speak for the marine mammals of the Great Bear Rainforest and the threats they would face from oil tankers in northern B.C. waters if the Enbridge Gateway pipeline was approved.

"Why couldn't surfers, the closest approximation of marine mammals amongst us humans, bring voice to this issue on behalf of whales, dolphins, porpoises and other species at risk," he said.

Darimont approached Patagonia Inc., a company that has supported Raincoast, and the idea for a surfer documentary film was born.

In October, the Raincoast research vessel Achiever replaced some of its usual scientific gear with a surfboard rack. Darimont, three top California surfers sponsored by Patagonia — Chris Malloy, Dan Malloy and Trevor Gordon — and top Canadian surfer Peter Devries of Tofino set off on a 10-day mission to find big waves in the choppy water off the Great Bear Rainforest.

The resulting documentary will be released internationally this fall, but a trailer, showing the diversity of animals encountered by the surfers, was released this weekend.

"It turned out to be an amazing trip," Devries said. "It was one of the most beautiful places I have ever been to." Seeing a plethora of marine mammals and other animals, plus dealing with heavy seas, emphasized the need to keep oil tankers away from the area, he said.

"The likelihood of a spill would be very, very high, given how crazy the seas can be," Devries said.

"The ocean is a huge part of my life and a spill would directly affect pretty much everyone and everything on the coast."

Despite his grounding in science, Darimont believes there was magic at work during the surfing trip.

"We woke up one morning and we were surrounded by a pod of killer whales. They had come to us, so, instead of surfing that morning, we spent time with the whales that seemed to have sought us out."

A walk into the forest brought encounters with grizzly bears, even though they are usually elusive, Darimont said. "That day we couldn't walk 100 feet without bumping into a grizzly bear," he said.

The working title of the film is Groundswell, which, in the surfing lexicon, means a series of intense, powerful waves, he said. That is a good metaphor for the growing pipeline opposition, Darimont said.

Source: The Vancouver Sun
Source: Patagonia.com

Expedition White Shark: iTunes app on controversial tracking of white sharks

2012-01-29T15:14:00.000-08:00

For those who watched National Geographic Channel's limited series Expedition Great White, where marine biologist Dr. Michael Domeier tagged great white sharks with satellite tracking tags, there is now a companion app for iPhone, iPod, and iPad that allows you to see, in real time, the latest progress in monitoring the location and migratory routes of the sharks that were tagged.

The Expedition Great White series generated considerable controversy among many shark advocates and shark researchers in large part due to the methods used to capture and secure the animals so that tags could be attached and other tests could be performed, like blood and sperm samples. There were issues raised as to whether the elaborate procedure employed to corral the sharks was causing more harm than good and Domeier is currently evaluating the capture procedure and the method of securing the tags themselves to hopefully minimize short- and long-term harm.

While Domeier's current and future methodologies will be scrutinized by many in the shark research and conservation community, the new app does provide some interesting information for the curious that might not be obtained unless a deliberate effort was made to seek it out and and read about it. Such is the clever attraction of many of today's apps.

With Domeier's app, called Expedition White Shark, you can view the latest position data for a group of tagged sharks and examine their past tracking patterns over time as they migrate between either Isla Guadalupe (off Baja, Mexico) or the Farallon Islands (off Central California) and the mid-Pacific area Domeier refers to as the Shared Offshore Foraging Area (SOFA), also referred to as the "White Shark Cafe" by other researchers.

There are other features to the app including pictures and videos - although their operations were a bit clunky in actual use; videos did not present themselves in the right aspect ratio or screen size, so some distortion occurs and many of the other images are of lower resolution. Perhaps that will be corrected in future updates. The app also includes some interesting great white shark facts and a game for children that takes a juvenile white shark through its early years to sub-adult.

Personally, I find the real time tracking of the sharks to be the most interesting feature. My primary concern is that to gain this kind of information, which other researchers have also provided by using more "conventional" means, I hope that, in the future, Dr. Domeier will be able to develop capture techniques that will prove less traumatic for the animals thereby garnering more support from the shark community as a whole.

Available on iTunes, proceeds for the $3.99 app go to Domeier's San Diego, California-based research organization, Marine Conservation Science Institute. The institute is currently working with the Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation on tracking tiger sharks in and around Florida and the Caribbean.

Source: 10News.com
Source: NorthCountyTimes.com

Filmmaker's Journal: working with the serendipity of the moment

2012-01-28T19:43:00.000-08:00

Perched on the ledge of a small outcropping of rock, an explosion of white soft coral intermingled with the waving arms of crinoids, against a dark blue backdrop and the faint light from the surface creeping around the edge of the reef wall.

I have used the picture above on several occasions in this blog when talking about coral reef issues and it is a favorite of mine not just for the satisfactory end result but also for the memory of how it came about. It represents what I call the art of the moment which can often be the mainstay of nature photography and videography.

Many long years ago, when the earth was cooling and dinosaurs roamed the planet, I was shooting underwater still photography using a Nikonos V 35mm film camera, which meant no auto-focus, auto-iris - basically no auto-anything. So you had to prepare your shots in advance as much as possible. I was diving on Fiji's Great White Wall, one of the island chain's signature dive sites. The Great White Wall is a wide expanse along a large reef wall in the Somosomo Strait that is covered in white soft coral - small bunches packed in so tight it forms a virtual carpet of white like a fresh layer of snow. At a distance, the soft coral would take on a lavender hue, so shooting wide angle shots meant having to sacrifice capturing the white color. But taking close-ups was a challenge due to a rippin' strong current.

You approached the Great White Wall by descending down about 30 to 40 feet to a large reef head and then drop down another 40 feet or so through a crevice that formed a near perfect tunnel. Once you exited the tunnel, you abruptly turned left - whether you wanted to or not - as there was a powerful current that would sweep you along. You then found yourself flying over the Great White Wall. There was nothing to hold on to without damaging the coral, so your time spent seeing the white coral would only last about a minute before you turned to move out of the current and back to shallower depths.

About half way through the ride over the wall, I saw an outcropping that I thought would make for an interesting shot. But it was fast approaching. I set my focus, set my exposure based on the power of my single strobe at a pre-set distance - all designed to capture this little diversion in the wide expanse of white. However, I looked up and the outcropping was nearly upon me, closer than the camera was set for a proper shot. Frustrated, I thought the moment had come and gone; an opportunity lost.

In an instant, the coral outcropping was right beneath me, whizzing past in a blur. It suddenly occurred to me that there might still be a chance. As I passed, I quickly turned around and with the current continuing to propel me along, I waited for the right moment and took the shot facing backwards and then watched the outcropping quickly sail off into the lavender backdrop of the Great White Wall.

This was in the days of 35mm slide film, so I had to wait until I got home from the trip to see if I was successful in capturing the beauty and singularity of this one geological departure from the Great White Wall's broad, flat expanse. I lucked out. For me, while unbeknownst to all viewers of the image, it is a perfect example of what many wildlife photographers and videographers experience; that combination of preparedness and serendipity that sometimes allows us to capture beautiful images which, a split second later, would be unattainable. That is the art of the moment.

When working on a stage or in a controlled location, the photographer or videographer often works with art by design. You spend time setting your lights, you set marks to ensure your focus will capture the action just right, and you rehearse your camera moves while the actors rehearse their parts. You have the time and the ability to maximize all the resources at your disposal to design the scene the way you would like it to ultimately look. You have a measure of control; art by design. Sometimes the two can work in combination with preparation setting the stage to then catch unexpected magic moments.

For me, both experiences, art of the moment and art by design, can be exciting and very gratifying. Each have their own challenges and each can be fun for wholly different reasons. Either way, they hopefully contribute to the cinematic goal of telling a story in a compelling way without being obvious or intruding upon the viewers' own experience by visually shouting "look at me, look at what I did."

Southern Fried Science: new generation of scientists tackling media communications

2012-01-26T21:04:00.000-08:00

Scientists can be an odd lot. They delve into the world of minutiae, seeking the ultimate truths, while knowing that it all may be rewritten with the next experiment or expedition. And, unfortunately, in a time when science can hold the key to addressing many of the worldwide challenges we face, scientists can also prove to be poor communicators, opting for peer-reviewed papers that then gather dust within the covers of obscure journals.

This is where I have tried to make my skills and services known to the scientific community, as it is vitally important that scientific research (and the issues and implications it addresses) be distilled and disseminated to policy and decision makers and the public at large. Fortunately, there is also a generation of new scientists, albeit small, who are trying to develop and utilize the skills of broad communication, whether it be traditional or contemporary (i.e.: social) media, to get the word out. The good folks at Southern Fried Science are a perfect example.

Here is a post from David Shiffman, alias WhySharksMatter, from Southern Fried Science that captures both the enthusiasm for communicating science and the frustration, knowing that today's media has shied away from science in favor of entertainment of a lower common denominator.

Core themes of 2012: Underrepresented issues in marine science and conservation

By WhySharksMatter, on January 26th, 2012

One of the many unfortunate consequences of the decline in traditional media has been a reduction in science reporting. The formerly great CNN science unit closed in 2008, followed soon after by the health and science page of the Boston Globe. Alarmingly few trained science journalists are left, and people without proper training are being asked to cover the few science stories that still make it on the air ( I was once interviewed about shark research by the weatherman from CNN’s “American Morning”). With few exceptions, science and conservation stories are no longer considered a priority to the major news networks and newspapers. However, science is no less important to our everyday lives.

As bloggers, we are blissfully free to write about the topics of our choice without an editor telling us that we only have 3 minutes to discuss overfishing so that a story about Kim Kardashian’s wedding can air. As professional marine scientists, we know all too well what’s going on in the oceans, and we know all too well what important stories aren’t being reported by the mainstream media. We consider it both a duty and a privilege to give our readers in-depth analysis of a variety of underrepresented issues in marine science and conservation.

Just because research doesn’t come with a press release and embargo doesn’t mean that it isn’t critically important to understanding and protecting our oceans. We’re proud to have written about conservation issues surrounding such diverse marine life as krill, menhaden, orange roughy, sea otters, and sandbar sharks, among many others. We’re proud to be among the only media coverage of thorny skates being denied Endangered Species Act protections, and of the disappointing result of an important international fisheries management meeting. We’re proud to have explained so many threats to the ocean, including detailed coverage of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, destructive fishing methods, pharmaceutical products from our wastewater, altered sea turtle sex ratios as a result of climate change, deep sea mining, and viruses released into the wild as a result of aquaculture.

If there’s a new discovery about the oceans, we’ll cover it regardless of whether the mainstream media considers it headline news. While we’ll never have the resources of the mainstream media, blogs like Southern Fried Science have become a great resource for adding details to the conservation and science stories that make the news, and for detailed reporting of those that don’t.

Source: Southern Fried Science

Marine Mammals As Food: Live Science reports on increases in hungry nations

2012-01-25T21:01:00.000-08:00

While in some nations, farmers are subsidized to not grow crops, or vital staples are funneled towards ethanol fuel, or valuable aquaculture goes unfunded, other poorer nations have hungry coastal populations that are turning to the seas for sustenance. And what they are feeding on might surprise you.

A brief article in Live Science notes that more and more under-developed nations have people feeding on marine mammals like dolphins, seals, polar bears, and manatees. Jennifer Welsh, Live Science staff writer, states that some animals are being hunted while others start out as bycatch but are ultimately consumed.

Humans' Taste for Dolphins & Manatees on the Rise

Fillet of dolphin? Polar bear steak? As world population increases, people in coastal poverty-stricken areas are turning to the ocean for their meals, consuming marine mammals such as dolphins and seals, new research suggests.

Since 1990, at least 87 species of marine mammals — including dolphins, porpoises and manatees — have been served up in 114 countries. They are the victims of hunting and even commercial fishing operations, where they are sometimes caught accidentally, the researchers said.

The fishing of larger marine mammals, like humpback whales, is strictly regulated and monitored; but the extent to which these smaller warm-blooded marine species, including dolphins and seals, are caught, killed and eaten has been largely unstudied and unmonitored.

"International regulatory bodies exist to gauge the status of whale populations and regulate the hunting of these giants," study researcher Martin Robards, of the Wildlife Conservation Society, said in a statement. "These species, however, represent only a fraction of the world's diversity of marine mammals, many of which are being accidentally netted, trapped, and — in some instances — directly hunted without any means of tracking as to whether these off-takes are sustainable."

Source: Live Science

Endangered Elephants: scientists unlock mysteries while numbers decline in Indonesia

2012-01-24T21:10:00.000-08:00

Often in this blog, I cite some of the new and unusual things we are learning about life in the ocean. Much of it is literally uncharted territory with new species and biological processes cropping up all the time.

But let's not forget terra firma, too. Take for example an iconic land animal, one that we have observed and studied for many years: the elephant. Even today, the elephant has mysteries that we are still trying to unfold.

A recent study by scientists from Canada's University of Guelph of Asian elephants that reside at Busch Gardens zoological park in Florida, revealed some new information about the pachyderm's ability to retain and dissipate heat. With an animal of this size, many of the biological processes that allow other animals, including man, to function - circulation, breathing, bone structure - often go through some adaptations. To help regulate its body temperature, it is thought that African elephants radiate excess heat through their large ears. However, the Asian elephant has noticeably smaller ears. So, as it builds up heat throughout the course of the day, how can it release that stored heat at day's end? Why through its trunk, of course.

Thermal images taken of the elephants (click here to see them online at BBC Nature) throughout the day and into the evening reveal that the Asian elephant compensates for its smaller ears by concentrating heat in its trunk. In fact, the ears are some of the coolest spots on the elephant's body.

According to study leader Dr Esther Finegan, "As the Asian elephant ears are so much smaller in surface area, they [are] very much less effective [at heat loss] than the larger African elephants' ears. But, why African elephants do not use their trunks - as Asian elephants appear to do - is a wonderful question to which we do not yet know the answer."

So, a new study of an familiar old animal reveals heretofore unknown biological processes. And it also raises questions about pre-existing beliefs scientists held about African elephants. Once again, we continue to learn, we continue to question, we continue to re-learn.

Unfortunately, studying Asian elephants within the confines of zoos like Busch Gardens may someday prove to be the only way we can learn anything about these huge beasts. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the number of Sumatran elephants in the wilds of Indonesia have reached critically low levels and face a greater risk of extinction than ever before.

Pressured by a growing loss of jungle habitat to deforestation, it is estimated that there are only 2,400 to 2,800 Sumatran elephants in the wild - a reduction by 50% from a count taken in 1985. That's a population cut in half in just 25 years.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has now raised the Sumatran elephant's listing from "endangered" to "critically endangered" which puts it on the IUCN's Red List. The Indonesian government has been trying to limit forest development - deforestation has been replacing forest in favor of palm oil plantations - but the government has seen limited success. It is now considering a new approach using financial incentives.

"The government has recently allowed companies to have restoration areas instead of logging concessions for some remaining forest area, so those kind of initiatives can be done by companies where they can also still make profit and at the same time also have the recovery of the endangered species," said a representative of the World Wildlife Fund told Voice of America.

How unfortunate it is that, on the one hand, we are still learning about an animal that has roamed the earth for thousands of years, long before the dawn of man, while at the same time we may be witnessing its extinction in the wild - and that passing will be of our making. Whales, sharks, and other ocean creatures are not the only species at risk.

And we called the elephant Dumbo?

Source: BBC Nature
Source: Voice of America

Magnuson-Stevens Act: recognized as a rare bipartisan success story

2012-01-22T18:27:00.000-08:00

In the United States, for the past several years the national congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - have been scoring abysmal approval ratings with its citizens in survey after survey and it's primarily due to one facet of today's politics: simply getting along has become a dirty word.

Whether based on political or ideological differences between the two main parties or the need to gain a tactical advantage for an upcoming election, Republicans and Democrats seem dead set opposed to bipartisanship. Where this is all going to ultimately end up is hard to say. However, there was a time when political rancor was momentarily set aside and politicians worked together to produce a piece of legislation that, although not perfect, highlighted the political process at its best: representing the interests of the people, the nation, and its natural resources. Yes, that's right. Natural resources. It was for the benefit of conservation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) first came to light in 1976 and was designed to eliminate rampant foreign overfishing in U.S. waters and set initial fishery management policies to ensure the future of U.S. commercial fishing by avoiding overfishing. This foundation of today's national fishery management program received bipartisan support and was noteworthy because while politicians were interested in supporting the commercial fishing interests, they also recognized that overfishing would certainly lead to the industry's demise.

With the ball now set in play, in 1996 politicians from both sides of the isle came together again to support amendments to the bill that actually shifted the focus from simply supporting the fishing industry to conserving sustainable fish populations. Politicians realized that the future of the commercial fishing industry and the conservation of species were forever linked but, in the end, it was the primacy of protecting fish populations that would prove beneficial to both industry and nature.

Finally, in 2006, the Bush administration, in one of its arguably better accomplishments, took the important step of reauthorizing the MSA with the added proviso that it would be science-based research that would determine annual catch limits. While I personally have many bones to pick with the previous administration's attempts to undermine the independent science-based approach with regards to the Environmental Protection Agency and endangered species, this was indeed one of their brighter moments.

“Based on the actions of the fishery management councils, it appears that the U.S. has fundamentally ended overfishing in federally-managed domestic fisheries. This is an enormous achievement, and one that Congress and the Administration clearly intended in its 2007 reauthorization of [the MSA]. ... The Magnuson-Stevens Act is without doubt the premier fisheries law in the world,” Dr. Bill Hogarth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assistant administrator for fisheries during the George W. Bush administration, was quoted as saying in a recent Pew Environment Group fact sheet.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is an organic piece of legislation, continually being tweaked and, hopefully, improved upon either to itself or related legislation - as was the case recently with regards to shark fishing regulations and the need to land any shark whole, not just for its fins. However, to continue with effective, independent science-based decisions on sustainability requires ongoing research, staffing to monitor catches and, most importantly, funding.

So, it will require the continued realization and understanding between legislators of all parties that nature has no interest in our current political rancor or oft times competing economic priorities. And to abuse our natural resources, whether at sea or on land, will only guarantee the future will be bleak and finite for many species. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is a model and a reminder of how a responsible government should act.

Click here to download an MSA fact sheet (PDF).
Source: PEG News Room

Seaweed At The Pump: nations looking at alternatives for ethanol production

2012-01-22T13:14:00.000-08:00

The development of alternative energy sources - in particular, improvements or replacements to fossil fuel-based gasoline - has been slow, to say the least. Ethanol additives are controversial as they are not necessarily cost effective. The price of processing corn into ethanol can exceed what would be a reasonable price at the pump and what it provides in emission reductions is overshadowed by the emissions generated as part of the production process. However, there are alternatives.

Researchers have been looking into the benefits of using other organic materials that contain similar sugars which can be used to produce ethanol or suitable derivatives. Sugarcane and switchgrass are two and besides being more economical to produce, they also do not divert an important food crop like corn towards energy production. Add to the list another promising candidate: seaweed.

Several nations, including the U.S., are looking at producing ethanol derivatives using seaweed. There are strains of brown seaweed, an inedible variety, that can be used to provide similar organic sugars necessary to produce isobutanol, a gasoline additive that is more effective than ethanol in reducing fossil-fuel emissions. Whereas corn and sugarcane provide sugar through the use of lignin, one of the plants building blocks; seaweed offers a similar-acting compound called alginate.

The statistics are in seaweed's favor. It can assist in the production of 1,200 to 1,500 gallons of ethanol per acre, as opposed to 900 to 1,000 gallons per acre for sugarcane, and does not require fertilizer, fresh water, or land. However, it does have its challenges. A substantial aquaculture industry would need to be developed to generate enough product to make it worthwhile and that means seaweed farms that could impinge on other commercial and even recreational ocean activities, ranging from commercial fishing to aquaculture for food to offshore energy systems like wind turbines. Energy company Royal Dutch Shell has estimated that it would require 3 percent of the world's coasts where kelp ( a type of brown algae) grows to make enough ethanol to replace 60 billion gallons of fossil fuel, which would amount to about 4 percent of global transportation fuel demand.

"I think it's definitely worth looking at," said Jonathan Burbaum, director of biofuels for the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). "There's nothing at this point that's a showstopper. We've got a situation where it would require the development of an offshore aquaculture industry for there to be enough feedstock to really compete with things like corn and cellulose. But it's the sort of thing, where if it's successful, it will be a game changer, so that fits what ARPA-E looks for."

So, a silver bullet it isn't. And that's one of the most challenging aspects regarding the entire alternative energy debate: one alternative will not entirely replace the fossil fuel (oil and coal) that society has come to depend on. In the end, if we are to succeed, it will be through a combination of technologies that collectively replace or, at least, drastically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

"It's [Seaweed is] no more far-fetched than the notion of using algae or any other material," said Matt Hartwig of the U.S. ethanol trade group Renewable Fuels Association. "The biofuels industry is in a constant state of innovation."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/01/19/3379882/seaweed-in-the-tank-company-turns.html#storylink=cpy

Currently, the U.S., Chile and Norway are actively researching seaweed's potential as an alternative energy source. Let's hope their work produces commercially viable results; I'm not sure just how long Earth can hold its breath in anticipation.

Source: Kansas City Star

Ghost Fishing Nets: San Diego divers retrieve abandoned nets off old shipwreck

2012-01-22T09:19:00.000-08:00

In July of 2011, I wrote about ocean debris - in particular, abandoned fishing nets and lobster traps - which can continued to ensnare and destroy sealife long after they have been given up as lost. Once hooked on a reef or submerged wreck, fishing nets continue "ghost fishing" and can damage reefs as they get swung about in the ocean currents or swells. Off Point Loma, near San Diego, California's Mission Bay, lies the wreck, High Seas and recently, local divers succeeded in removing approximately 200 pounds of derelict fishing nets that had become snagged on the remains of the ship.

The removal operation was overseen by Ocean Defenders Alliance, a Huntington Beach-based non-profit that solicits the help of volunteer divers to remove derelict nets. When fishing boats release their nets, which can be hundreds, if not thousands, of feet in length, the sharp edges and contours of reefs and particularly shipwrecks can easily tear away large sections of the nets. Initially the nets smother resident sealife and can continue to catch fish that get wrapped up in the nets. Then, as the net begins to settle over time, smaller portions begin to batter the reef as swells or the back and forth motion of ocean currents, called surge, begin to take its toll.

Over a greater length of time, the nets can actually become part of the reef itself, with encrusting algae, anemones, and other plants and invertebrates using the net as a strata or foundation for new growth. At this point, removal of the nets may produce more damage than intended. So, in some locations, the derelict nets are monitored for deterioration that might reverse their sedentary condition and once again damage sealife with portions of loose nets subject to moving ocean conditions.

The High Seas is a 128-foot Navy vessel built near the end of WWII and later sold and converted to a fishing boat. It sank in 1970 and has collected a considerable amount of "ghost fishing" nets over the ensuing years. The Ocean Defenders Alliance (ODA) and its team of volunteer divers first surveyed the wreck to determine how much net could be removed without doing unintended damage and then proceeded to lift portions of the nets with floats, which enabled them to cut away a large section more easily and safely. Since ODA works with volunteers, diver safety is a crucial issue regardless of the diver's experience level. A free-floating net is a hazard to fish and humans as well.

Here is a video taken in 2010 by a local San Diego diver, Jim Ridgway, of dives on San Diego's USS Logan and High Seas. The first part of the video focuses on the USS Logan and you can see the range of sealife, from fish to colorful anemones, that can call a shipwreck home. Then the video turns to the High Seas and you can clearly see the accumulated nets and the diver even came upon a small leopard shark caught in the netting.

Fisherman view the loss of nets as a frustrating and expensive occupational hazard. However, long after the commercial and economic loss, ghost nets can continue to exert a deadly toll on unintended sealife.

Click here to learn more about the Ocean Defenders Alliance.
Source: San Diego Reader

Filmmaker's Journal: Being reminded of the resources and support conservation needs

2012-01-16T11:02:00.000-08:00

This past week, I was away from the RTSea Blog as I was on the road, traveling to Washington, DC and Columbia, South Carolina.

In Washington, DC, I briefly met with the members of the Pew Environment Group's (PEG) Global Shark Conservation Campaign, headed up by Matt Rand. PEG is an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts and their focus is on making inroads in national and international policy. Much of what is currently proving to be fruitful in advancing the cause of shark conservation involves this higher political level. PEG's Global Shark Conservation Campaign has been involved in some noteworthy successes of late, particularly the establishment of shark sanctuaries in Palau and Honduras. The group is now looking forward to an upcoming CITES meeting this year and the next United Nations-sponsored FAO meeting wherein they will discuss revitalizing a decade-old "international plan of action." It's at international events like these that policies regarding the protection of sharks in international waters - outside the borders or boundaries of national marine protected areas or sanctuaries - can be hammered out.

From the U.S. capitol, I then moved south - through a tiring, circuitous route of flights - to Columbia, South Carolina to film a corporate video for a major pharmaceutical company. The location was an oncology (cancer) treatment center and I was very impressed by the range of services and the quality of care this facility was providing cancer patients.

In scouting various potential locations within the center for filming, we were shown many of the treatment areas and, at one point, the head of the facility brought out some of the chemotherapy medications that are currently being used. Some of these medications cost as much as $2500 per injection and patients would be receiving these treatments sometimes as often as twice a week.

It made me ponder on one of the challenges that conservation issues face. Mankind invests a considerable amount of effort and expense in treating disease, partly because, if we look at it as "connect the dots," it's a very short and simple connection. Many of us falter when it comes to, say, issues of diet and obesity because there are a few more dots to connect before we see a consequence that has personal impact.

And for many people, conservation is a long series of connecting dots and the immediate or personal consequences begins to feel remote. But the impact(s) of dismissing conservation are very real, as real as any cancer, and while we all certainly need to care for ourselves and others who may be afflicted by disease, we must also be aware that the planet is ailing and if we choose to ignore this one patient, Earth, we could be setting ourselves up for a terminal condition that is beyond a cure.

As we wrapped up filming after two days, I thought of the hundreds of patients that come through this oncology center's doors each day. It was comforting to know that these people had a place to go and that medications were available, albeit costly because of the challenges in manufacturing and the exclusive nature of these medications. Now, if we can get more people to see that conservation needs as dedicated a commitment in effort and resources, we just might be able to prevent the planet and the human species from flatlining.