Worries over ocean acidification
I listened with interest – and guilt – to Martha Foley and Dr. Curt Stager’s discussion of ocean acidification on Natural Selections this morning.
Interest because this topic deserves far more attention. Guilt because this is so very scary that I have been avoiding it, ostrich-like, hoping fervently that the chemistry scenarios are wrong, and we are not staring into the face of total disaster.
A Canadian journalist wrote a book on this subject that I’d like to recommend, while admitting I have yet to read it myself:
Sea Sick: the Hidden Crisis in the Global Ocean by Alanna Mitchell
Published 2008 in Australia by Murdoch Books; in 2009 in Canada by McClelland & Stewart, in the U.S. by University of Chicago Press and in the U.K. by Oneworld
Reviews like this one from Richard Ellis for the Globe and Mail made the case for the importance of the subject.
Sea Sick came to my attention again when it was nominated for a 2010 Canadian science book award, which was won by Ottawa research scientist Dr. Ernie Small (interviewed here).
Some soundbites or quotes really stand out. Naturally, I cannot find the article in question now! But this is the part I remember: when researcher Joanie Kleypas understood the likely impact of changes in ocean acidity, author Mitchell recounts that Kleypas “ran into the bathroom outside the committee room and threw up.” Because it really could mean marine Armageddon. And as the ocean goes, so goes the earth.
Here is the author’s own website, which I’ll post in the interest of furthering discussion on something I suspect most of us would really rather avoid.
Boy, I hope these projections are wrong. But what if they are not? And how can anyone really know in advance?
Heavy stuff indeed.
Tags: Alanna Mitchell, climate change, Narural Selections, ocean acidification, Sea Sick: The Global Ocean in Crisis
Brian,
Your last question is central to what baffles me about mainstream Conservatives today. I would define a (small “c”) conservative as one who guards his or her resources and is cautious by nature. This definition does not square with movement Conservatives, or at least the very large subset that denies climate change and rejects the tenets of the environmental movement. After all, in this life there is no greater resource than the viability of life on our planet. And—failing clairvoyance—the best we can do in predicting the future is to rely on whatever science and probability can offer. And respond protectively.
Beg your pardon, Lucy.
I did not read your byline.
Not a problem, Mark.
I am concerned, though, about the risks of framing topics like this in terms of conservatives verses liberals. I can’t see how that trap can be avoided. But it doesn’t seem overly helpful.
If your house was burning down it really wouldn’t matter if the responding firefighters were republicans, democrats, greens, commies or independents. You just need to put the fire out, ASAP, with a little loss of life & property as possible. Failing that, to contain the blaze and keep it from spreading.
I’m not saying the environment is now a house on fire. Mostly because I am not smart enough to know that for a fact, because scientists can be mistaken and because nature is amazingly resilient. (Not to mention the need to present at least a facade of journalistic neutrality!)
But a lot of really qualified people are saying they detect smoke and the smell is getting noticeably stronger.
Is there any way to de-politicize our common need to safeguard the only planet we have?
Again, I hope the disaster projections are overly pessimistic. But in a worst case scenario, everything else we fuss over just might be re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I heard the story with half an ear while ranting on another story and trying to get the kids on the bus, and it still scared me. If it hadn’t come through Curt’s unassailable BS filter, I would have thought it hysteria.
Maybe we, especially station staff, could promote it to the larger NPR audience, or shows like “On Point”. A start, anyway.
re Conservatives. Most are a bit like 1870’s Western Buffalo hunters. while there were still lots of buffalo. Shooting a couple of hundred a day was working for them, so why change?
Or like most consumers of petoleum products today.
I did not read the review, nor visit the website.
At some point, it becomes obvious that the earth is not going to succumb to any of these dastardly things.
Certainly, any government that can’t balance a budget to save a life, can’t save the earth, either.
I am all for being a good steward of our surroundings. I just don’t get too excited about the “disaster-of-the-month” that is going to end civilization.
JDM, it isn’t that the earth wont survive. The earth will be here long after humans are gone. The problem many on the right don’t seem to understand is that climate change is going to cost us, and succeeding generations, a lot of money. And it will cost many of us our lives too.
Shorter JDM: If liberals are against ocean acidification, I’m for it.
khl:
My point is that our best attempt at fighting climate change, so far, is putting up these big, white turbines in a few places.
We’d better hope that the end of civilization doesn’t depend on our laughable efforts to thwart climate change.
The climate will change, and it will be by natural cycle. And those big, white turbines will rust in place.
No JDM, By reducing the rate of consumption of fossil fuels through conservation and switching to renewable energy sources we will make our nation safer by relying less on foreign energy, our air will be cleaner so our children and senior citizens will be healthier, and we will have those fossil fuels available for a longer period of time to use for making pharmaceuticals and plastics and things we will have in the future that we don’t know about yet.
Conservatives should embrace the switch to renewable fuels. It is conservative to conserve, to be frugal, to not be wasteful, to keep our nation from being overly reliant on other nations.
I don’t understand how intelligent people don’t get it except that the corporations which make money by extracting fossil fuels spend a lot of money to make you believe that burning lots of fuel will make you more of a man. Or a better woman as the case may be. Pets don’t care much as far as I can tell.
How do we move forward though with these types impending disaster projections? Even if it the world could respond in a unified way to these projections would it work and when? What we need are some specifics, when is the ocean going to die within a five to ten year range, exactly how much do we as a society need to reduce emissions and when will that reduction improve the environment and by how much?
The problem is we have had disaster predictions for centuries people have become numb to them. I am not sure it is a good way to instigate change?
This conservative is in full agreement with the idea of sustainable resource use, truly high standards of stewardship and turning an eye towards conservation rather than preservation/activism. I know many other conservatives (small “c”) with the same view points. I don’t think the political side of this issue has so much to with dismissing the possibilities as it does with the suggested remedies we are presented with. The left will never trust ADM/Monsanto (and neither will I!) and the right will never buy into hamstringing our economy and destroying our economic base (and neither will I!). It’s just not as simple as “buy electric cars and plug them in!”. The power comes from someplace and the batteries are an environmental disaster.
This conservative would love to see small farms and cottage industries return, thousands of micro-hydro, solar, biomass and other alternative energy projects. I’d love to see the return of the village, town and small city. I’d love to see use save our rain water rather than funneling it into the nearest storm drain. I’d love to see us start building modern, safe, efficient nuclear plants. I’d love to see a decrease in fossil fuels use. The problem is how, what will it cost, who pays for it, what are the unintended risks and consequences, what will it do to our economy, how far into the mess will gov’t stick it’s greedy hands?
There’s lots we could do but it all costs already scarce money, it all takes time, it all depends on things going just right to work. And that’s not even mentioning the political/power issues in play.
In the end maybe conservatives aren’t adverse to the ideas of conservation and good stewardship of spaceship earth, but they are certainly less trusting of answers put forth by gov’t, those with a financial or power interest and those with a political platform that seems aimed at bring harm to our interests here in the US.
The question is what do we do, how much will it cost,and how do we measure the results of that investment?
No one seems to be able to answer those questions and maybe we can’t answer them? But if we can’t answer the most basic questions then how can we justify re-ordering our whole society?
The Aztecs thought they were to blame for the volcanoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes, so they sacrificed tens-of-thousands in grotesque ways to appease the angry gods.
We’re more civilized, or are we?
Some think we’re to blame for the earth heating up and cooling down (which it has always done). Our reaction hasn’t reached that of the Aztecs, yet.
There are some saying that population control is the answer.
Maybe we aren’t as civilized as we think.
Bret, I’m with you on most of what you say.
About costs, think about the issue the other way. Not that a change in our energy infrastructure is going to cost too much but that there is huge potential of gain in inventing and manufacturing newer, better technology. Also there are enormous costs the current technologies place on our economy that aren’t factored into the equation like the health costs from burning fossil fuels.
Another enormous cost will be in dealing with rising ocean levels. Some may not believe it is happening or that we are responsible but the oceans are rising.
Electric cars, Yes, the batteries are a problem but a manageable problem. And the energy does have to come from somewhere and that is the key. If you draw the power from the grid you may be getting energy from a coal burning plant but a modern coal plant with scrubbers is cleaner energy than burning gasoline in your car. Then if you figure that more and more energy from the grid is coming from cleaner sources the equation gets better. And if you make your own micro-hydo or wind or solar power source to charge the batteries you have very clean energy.
Nuclear. While I believe nuclear plants are relatively safe and doesn’t contribute to the greenhouse effect there are still problems with it. Even if the problems with radioactive waste can be solved the heat from cooling water is a problem. Remember the heatwave in Europe a few years ago? France had to shut down many reactors due to low water levels in rivers–not enough water to cool the reactors in some places and the hot water dumped into rivers was killing too many fish. The other problem with nuclear is that nobody will insure building a plant so the cost falls onto taxpayers to subsidize for a private corporation. Doesn’t seem like a conservative principle.
Finally, yes everything takes time but the sooner you start making a change the lower the ultimate cost will be. Again a very conservative principle. If you save a dollar a week its only a dollar but if you do it for 20 years its $1040 not even counting compound interest or the time value of money.
I put more insulation in my shop last fall. It cost a little money and took some time but already I’m finding it more comfortable to work and I’m using about half the energy to keep warm. I wish I had done it 13 years ago. Why didn’t I? False economy, laziness, inertia, stupidity, I don’t know.
We pretty much agree with the issues and problems Knuck. I’m actually surprised to hear you endorse clean coal, I avoided mentioning it for fear I’d catch flack for it being a fossil fuel. I’m for it. I’m for blanketing the deserts with solar collectors, using tidal and wave generators, offshore wind, hydro, geo-thermal, etc. But I’m also for private enterprise funding it. Individuals too, I’m looking into wood-gasification myself.
If my wishes could come true we’d be a much more local economy, much, much more conservation oriented, with far lower costs and taxes because of it. But it’s just wish. How do we keep big brother out of it? And how do we keep the NIMBY types from blocking everything? Cripes, look at the outdoor wood boiler issue, DEC has effectively outlawed them for new installation! That should have been left to local zoning and decisions.
Big can of worms brudda.
But how much exactly do we have to do and when will we see the results of those changes? So we spend a lot of taxpayer money to subsidize the construction of nuclear plants and electronic cars, will that be enough and how will we know when we have done enough and are at least on the right track?
Maybe it is too late? If its too late why spend any money at all on this issue?
The only time it is too late to do the right thing is when you’re dead. How do we know when we’ve done enough? Bill McKibben suggests it is when atmospheric CO2 gets below 350 ppm. Currently we are at about 390 and before the 19th century we were at about 275.
http://www.350.org/en/about/science
The thing that really frustrates me is the idea that it will cost us so much money. Not necessarily true. Doing nothing may be the most expensive thing we can do. And there are many things we can all do at an individual level that can help and even if you don’t believe in “Global Warming” they are good things to do because they SAVE you money.
The next time you purchase a car get the most efficient one you can afford. Drive slower, don’t do jack-rabbit starts and watch ahead so don’t have to brake hard. Recycle as much stuff as is practical. Reuse items if possible. Seal up air-leaks in your house. Turn off your engine when you go to Stewarts. There are thousands of ways to help that will all save you money. Anything you can do to buy less stuff or use less energy helps. And lower demand for gasoline will help keep price lower.
Now the cost side. Higher sea levels will mean coastal areas have to build sea walls or maybe some areas will have to be abandoned. Greater swings in climate are likely to cause more crop failures increasing food prices and worldwide hunger which could lead to political unrest in many areas. More potent storm systems will lead to increased insurance costs. Storms that carry more water (because warmer air can hold more moisture) leading to crop damage, flash floods, road washouts, higher snow removal costs, flooded basements.
Change in climate will also change our forests. Invasive bugs will move further north and trees that evolved for our climate, like sugar maple, will become stressed and die off. Sick forests mean a loss of timber value. Sick maples means a loss to syrup producers. TICKS! Ticks are moving north steadily and spreading diseases including Lyme disease.
It took a long time to cause the problem and we wont turn it around overnight but just like turning a battleship the sooner you see you’re off course the smaller your adjustment needs to be.