Friday, March 26, 2010

A WORLD WITHOUT CORAL REEFS IS UNIMAGINABLE

Death of Coral Reefs Could Devastate Nations

The disappearance of coral reefs could mean more hunger, poverty, political instability

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

The Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla.


Coral reefs are dying, and scientists and governments around the world are contemplating what will happen if they disappear altogether.
The idea positively scares them.
Coral reefs are part of the foundation of the ocean food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes around them. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide — by some estimates, 1 billion across Asia alone — depend on them for their food and their livelihoods.
If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and political instability could ensue.
"Whole nations will be threatened in terms of their existence," said Carl Gustaf Lundin of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
Numerous studies predict coral reefs are headed for extinction worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and coastal development, but also because of damage from bottom-dragging fishing boats and the international trade in jewelry and souvenirs made of coral.
At least 19 percent of the world's coral reefs are already gone, including some 50 percent of those in the Caribbean. An additional 15 percent could be dead within 20 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Old Dominion University professor Kent Carpenter, director of a worldwide census of marine species, warned that if global warming continues unchecked, all corals could be extinct within 100 years.
"You could argue that a complete collapse of the marine ecosystem would be one of the consequences of losing corals," Carpenter said. "You're going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the oceans."
Exotic and colorful, coral reefs aren't lifeless rocks; they are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard calcium carbonate exoskeleton. Once the animals die, the rocky structures erode, depriving fish of vital spawning and feeding grounds.
Experts say cutting back on carbon emissions to arrest rising sea temperatures and acidification of the water, declaring some reefs off limits to fishing and diving, and controlling coastal development and pollution could help reverse, or at least stall, the tide.
Florida, for instance, has the largest unbroken "no-take" zone in the continental U.S. — about 140 square miles off limits to fishing in and around Dry Tortugas National Park, a cluster of islands and reefs teeming with marine life about 70 miles off Key West.
Many fishermen oppose such restrictions. And other environmental measures have run into resistance at the state, local, national and international level. On Sunday, during a gathering of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, restrictions proposed by the U.S. and Sweden on the trade of some coral species were rejected.
If reefs were to disappear, commonly consumed species of grouper and snapper could become just memories. Oysters, clams and other creatures that are vital to many people's diets would also suffer. And experts say commercial fisheries would fail miserably at meeting demand for seafood.
"Fish will become a luxury good," said Cassandra deYoung of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization. "You already have a billion people who are facing hunger, and this is just going to aggravate the situation," she added. "We will not be able to maintain food security around the world."
The economic damage could be enormous. Ocean fisheries provide direct employment to at least 38 million people worldwide, with an additional 162 million people indirectly involved in the industry, according to the U.N.
Coral reefs draw scuba divers, snorkelers and other tourists to seaside resorts in Florida, Hawaii, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean and help maintain some of the world's finest sandy beaches by absorbing energy from waves. Without the reefs, hotels, restaurants and other businesses that cater to tourists could suffer financially.
Many Caribbean countries get nearly half their gross national product from visitors seeking tropical underwater experiences.
People all over the world could pay the price if reefs were to disappear, since some types of coral and marine species that rely on reefs are being used by the pharmaceutical industry to develop possible cures for cancer, arthritis and viruses.
"A world without coral reefs is unimaginable," said Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist who heads NOAA. "Reefs are precious sources of food, medicine and livelihoods for hundreds of thousands around the world. They are also special places of renewal and recreation for thousands more. Their exotic beauty and diverse bounty are global treasures."
———
Associated Press Science Writer Seth Borenstein contributed to this report from Washington.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

WATER, WATER ......from ABOVE THE FOLD, today


Vietnam feels the heat of a 100-year drought. Water levels in the nation's rice bowl have fallen to their lowest points in nearly 20 years, threatening the livelihoods of tens of millions of people who depend on the river basin for farming, fishing and transportation. The biggest problem, however, is not the water. It's the salt. Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1969630,00.html







Groundwater depleting at alarming rate: Report. If current trends of acute groundwater use continue, 60% of all acquifers in India could run dry in 20 years or will be in a critical condition, a World Bank report launched on Friday said. Bombay Economic Times, India.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/Groundwater-depleting-at-alarming-rate-Report/articleshow/5649017.cms


Friday, March 5, 2010

THE FINANCIAL TIMES - CLIMATE? WORSE THAN THE IPCC REPORTS

Financial Times FT.com

Review says global warming is man-made

By Clive Cookson in London
Published: March 4 2010 22:16 | Last updated: March 4 2010 22:16
The case for man-made global warming is even stronger than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change maintained in its official assessments, according to the first scientific review published since December’s Copenhagen conference and subsequent attacks on the IPCC’s credibility.
An international research team led by the UK Met Office spent the past year analysing more than 100 recent scientific papers to update the last IPCC assessment, released in 2007.
Although the review itself preceded the sceptics’ assault on climate science over the past three months, its launch in London on Thursday marks a resumption of the campaign by mainstream scientists to show that man-made releases of greenhouse gases are causing potentially dangerous global warming.
“The fingerprint of human influence has been detected in many different aspects of observed climate changes,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Research. “Natural variability, from the sun, volcanic eruptions or natural cycles, cannot explain recent warming.”
The review, published in the journal Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, found several “fingerprints” of warming that had not been established by the time of the last IPCC assessment but were now unambiguously present.
One is human-induced climate in the Antarctic, the last continent where regional warming has been demonstrated.
There is also new evidence of warming in the oceans, which is having several effects. The subtropical Atlantic is becoming saltier; the extra salinity could in turn alter ocean currents.
Another effect of ocean warming is increasing evaporation, leading to more humidity in the atmosphere and changing rainfall patterns.
“The whole water cycle is changing,” said Mr Stott. “The wet regions are tending to get wetter and the dry regions are getting dryer.”
Globally, this means less rainfall in the tropics and more at higher latitudes, although Mr Stott said there was much regional variation in the pattern, which scientists were still working to make sense of.
The review is based on a forensic comparison of the pattern of changes expected from man-made warming with those that would result from other factors such as changing solar radiation and purely natural variations.
A separate study by Russian and US scientists, published today in the journal Science, shows that methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is escaping from the seafloor of the warming Arctic Ocean more rapidly than had been suspected.

WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT OUR BRAINS THAT ARE US?


MOTHER JONES
March 5, 2010


THIS WEEK IN THE BLOGOSPHERE
Our Nihilistic Senate
Earlier this week, Barbara Keenan was approved by the Senate as a judge on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote was 99-0, but it came only after her floor vote had been delayed 124 days due an anonymous hold. Whose hold was it? After all, every single senator voted to confirm her. No one knows.

This came at the same time that Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning (R) managed to hold up an emergency extension of unemployment benefits for over a week by—well, let's not mince words. He did it by throwing a temper tantrum. When the bill finally made it to the floor, it passed 78-19.

Then there was last year's unemployment bill, which Republicans filibustered three separate times, forcing the Senate to take five weeks to pass it. On the fourth and final vote, it passed 98-0.

Filibusters and holds, once occasional tools used only against major legislation or especially noxious nominees, have become routine during Barack Obama's presidency. Republicans filibuster virtually every bill, no matter how small, and hold up nearly every nominee, often for the pettiest of reasons. There was, for example, no surgeon general in place during the H1N1 pandemic because of a Republican hold. Chuck Grassley, the senator from the corn state of Iowa, put a hold on Obama's ambassador to Brazil, because he was annoyed over a comment about tariffs on sugar-based ethanol. Richard Shelby of Alabama put a blanket hold on all Obama nominees in a fit of pique over the handling of a couple of federal contracts in his state. He eventually relented, but then Bunning did the same thing during the fight over unemployment benefits.

In an Atlantic article about America's future, written after he had spent three years in China, James Fallows concluded that we are, to a large extent, still the envy of the world. With one exception: "One thing I've never heard in my time overseas is 'I wish we had a Senate like yours.'" And it's no wonder. It's not just that passing health care reform is next to impossible; that was always to be expected. But we also can't make progress on climate change. We can't pass financial reform—even after an economic meltdown unrivaled since the Great Depression. And we were only barely able to pass a small, watered-down stimulus bill last year, even as unemployment was rising toward 10 percent.

The plain fact is that the US Senate is broken. A small minority can—and does—obstruct every single bill introduced. A single person can—and does—prevent entire cabinet departments from being staffed. And even in the rare cases when something is allowed to pass, it takes weeks or months, thanks to these now-routine delaying tactics. The Republican Party has decided to raze Congress and then tap into populist rage over the fact that Congress can't get anything done. It's a cynical, almost nihilistic strategy, and not one that a great nation should allow.

The Senate needs to be reformed. It needs to work again. The only question is: how?