Whether judged from land, sea, or sky, critiques of President Obama’s environmental policies, or lack of same, are growing.
Whether the debate is over new leases for offshore oil drilling, the plan for the Keystone XL pipeline, new regulations on ground-level ozone and smog, a dwindling focus on climate-change initiatives, or the future of a once-highly-touted ocean policy, many are concerned Obama’s environmental record may hurt him come reelection time.
Buy Reusable Water Bottles
Part of the problem, according to a recent survey of science journalists by ProPublica and the Columbia Journalism Review, is the administration’s failure to maintain the open dialogue it promised when taking office. Long waits for requests under the freedom-of-information laws, restricted access to important sources, delayed interviews, and the presence of media liaisons—i.e. minders—during interviews is among the complaints. Without access to the top levels of science and information, goes the argument, it is hard to make the case for the administration’s plans. MoveOn.org’s executive director Justin Ruben went so far as to say the kind of environmental decisions coming from this White House were what “we’d expect from George W. Bush.”
The EPA, under constant attack from Congressional Republicans and presidential candidates (several of whom have said if elected they would abolish the agency on day one), is understandably gun-shy. Administrator Lisa Jackson has been very public in defense of her agency and her boss, reminding that the impacts of dirty air and water equally affect rich and poor, black and white. She wonders out loud how and why doing the right thing for the environment has become so politicized.
The hoped-for National Ocean Policy, instituted by the president by executive order in 2009, hasn’t even inched towards reality. The objective of the Policy was for a task force to recommend policies and set up regional planning bodies to implement them. The hope was to come up with a plan that spoke with one voice to address offshore drilling, commercial fishing limits, marine-protected areas, recreational use of federal waters, and other pressing ocean issues.
“[EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson] wonders out loud how and why doing the right thing for the environment has become so politicized.”
Instead, the so-called National Ocean Council has become mired in partisan politics. Democrats in Congress initially rallied around it, citing its positive inclusion of things like renewable energy conservation. Republicans and their lobbyists complained it would only create new regulatory burdens and give the regional councils undue power.
At a hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee last week, intended to push the National Ocean Policy process forward, Republicans thwarted it, suggesting, according to NRC Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash), the plan was nothing but a bureaucratic waste of money, a way to create what it calls “ocean zoning.” The Republican-led committee made its feelings about the law clear in the title of the hearing: “The President’s New National Ocean Policy — A Plan for Further Restrictions on Ocean, Coastal and Inland Activities.”
“This White House policy has been driven under the claim that it’s only an ocean conservation measure, when its actual effects could be far-reaching and economically hurtful to American jobs and businesses both at sea and on shore,” said Hastings, as reported in Politico.
Democrats, led by California Congressman Sam Farr, argued the continued lack of a coordinated national plan, thus leaving the door open for conflicting regional laws and plenty of indecision, is the real creator of more bureaucracy and inefficiency.
In its blog, the White House quoted planning members of the National Ocean Council on how the law would create jobs and protect the environment.
“Contrary to the president’s political opponents’ efforts to portray this policy as a hyper-regulatory economic anchor, the principles contained in the National Ocean Policy actually pave the way for a more efficient, forward-thinking approach that will benefit both new and existing uses of ocean space,” argued an editorial in American Progress. “Meanwhile, the status quo supported by House Republicans is a cart-before-the-horse approach that will eliminate certainty, reduce likelihood of private investment, and delay development with an endless stream of lawsuits.”
The truth, certainly, lies somewhere deep in the middle.
(For the rest of my dispatches go to TakePart.com)
You might think, given all the information out there about how badly man has overfished the world’s ocean, that we would slow down, give the sea and the fishes a break.
Think again.
Photo: Jack Snavely/Getty Images
For a prime example of just how the arrogance of man continues to over-plunder nature, with seemingly little regard for the day when we may pull the last fish from the sea, take the Lafayette, a 700-foot, $100-million processing ship currently trolling the South Pacific.
The mothership of a fleet boasting a dozen more big ships, the Lafayette is seven times the size of a normal processing ship. It currently processes—which means grading, sorting and flash freezing—more than 1,500 tons of fish a day, mostly Chilean Jack Mackerel.
Say No to ‘Frankenfish’
That’s three million pounds of fish. Every single day.
Watch the ship in action here.
The enormity of what has been dubbed “the world’s largest floating fish factory” defies comprehension. It is fed by a squadron of five super-trawlers and another seven catcher boats. Once each of those is full of fish, they pull alongside the mothership and pump the daily catch into one of 32 refrigerated holding tanks. From there the fish are sucked by vacuum to conveyor belts, where they are graded for size and freshness. Given the once-over by a human eye as they slide into one of four slots, 15 tons of fish are sorted every hour.
Frozen into 45-pound cubes, the fish are ferried to shore by transfer boats. The Lafayette rarely docks; its profitability comes from staying at sea. Its market is focused on West Africa, where the fish sells for $1,000 a ton. If you’re still doing the math, that’s a $1.5 million take every day.
“From there the fish are sucked by vacuum to conveyor belts, where they are graded for size and freshness.”
No wonder the ship’s owner, Pacific Andes International, likes to keep the ship at sea year-round. Previously, the company’s focus had been Alaskan Pollock, widely used by chains like McDonald’s for fish filets. Pollock, included on the Marine Stewardship Council’s “sustainable” list, has been added to Greenpeace International’s red list, suggesting it is on the verge of being overfished. Given the Lafayette’s success, the verdict is still out on just how long Chilean Jack Mackerel will be abundant.
(For the rest of my dispatches, go to TakePart.com)
Two things the world is in desperate need of today: fish and jobs.
So why not, suggest some aquaculturists and new-economy visionaries, twin the two needs for one good result, i.e. encouraging fish farms that will help grow jobs too?
Photo: Natallia Ablazhei/Reuters
There are admittedly some real concerns, both environmental and healthwise, about fish farming as it’s typically done around the world: Steroids, antibiotics and other growth-inducing chemicals mix into the natural ebb and flow of bays and other bodies of water; “bio-engineered” fish escape into the wild, where they mate with wild fish and forever alter species; the farms can pollute air and water, which is standard for most “farming” operations.
But if those concerns can be improved upon, there is a great logic to encouraging more fish farms as a way to create jobs.
In Bermuda, for example, it’s not the fishing or food industry that has launched a program to encourage more fish farming in its blue waters but the Department of Environmental Protection, which is looking for investors to help what it is calling its “Blue Ocean Economy” program. As well as searching for investment in ocean-floor mining and wave-energy programs, the Bermudan government is actively seeking aquaculturists. As the numbers of wild fish in the sea continues to plummet, its argument is that growing fish—from catfish to salmon—benefits everyone.
Donate Your Twitter Status
The immediate concern of course is that no one wants to encourage turning what are today pristine waters into the waterborne equivalents of chicken factories, so caution must accompany any such investment.
In Kenya, its National Aquaculture Research Development Training Centre is making the argument that growing fish also helps ensure a country’s “food security.” At its Sagana-based headquarters it has already trained 1,000 fish farmers. Dr. Harrison Charo-Karisa and Dr. Jonathan Munguti, global experts in the genetics and breeding of fish, who have already trained farmers in Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Rwanda, lead the effort. Health education is mixed into their instruction as well, as they attempt to teach the mostly agrarian East Africans that fish can be healthier than a diet of red meat. Of course, even the best of fish farms need a steady supply of water and lengthy droughts are always a risk across the continent; currently more than 12 million are in desperate need of drinking water across the region.
Farm-Africa, is an example of an NGO taking part in Kenya’s “aquashop project,” a two-year, $600,000 program that supplies commercial and small-scale fish farmers with the essentials for farming, technical advice, training and links to markets.
Closer to home, in New Orleans, the Recirculating Farms Coalition recently launched a national campaign to promote growing local, fresh food as a way to simultaneously grow green jobs. Its argument is that with one out of six people struggling to buy food—most of them unemployed—providing good, fresh, local food is a priority, as are creating stable jobs. Its sights are set on eco-friendly farms that grow fish (aquaculture) or a combination of plants and fish (aquaponics).
Its “recirculating farm” model sets a high standard, of course, in that it requires farming operations that they run without antibiotics or other drugs and chemicals and are designed to re-use up to 99 percent of their water and wastewater. The Coalition’s executive director, Marianne Cufone, says she’s seen such farms be successful ranging in size from “desktop” to “ones covering acres and acres.”
.”..with one out of six people struggling to buy food—most of them unemployed—providing good, fresh, local food is a priority, as are creating stable jobs.”
For the moment, “recirculation” is going through a defining process; some regard them as experimental labs, thus subject to a higher standard of permitting, while others see them as typical agriculture. The coalition needs to convince Congress that recirculating farms are economically better, safer environmentally and healthier than ocean-based fish farming.
For the U.S. government’s part, NOAA has weighed in with its own “implications and considerations” study. Its 264-page report on the effects of a growing aquaculture industry, created by the NOAA Aquaculture Program, suggests that since fish farming is going to grow worldwide no matter what the U.S. does, it’s better to be involved than not. While admitting that farming fish will at least initially compete with existing fishermen’s market, if demand for fish continues to grow as it has been in recent decades, there should be room for both. From a job perspective, the report sees aquaculture as win-win, and includes new opportunities in both onshore and offshore operations, including maintenance, delivery and administrative jobs.
But it’s a fact that not all politicians, or consumers, are quite ready for bio-engineered fish, no matter how many jobs they might create. In Alaska the creators of a biotech salmon—which allegedly grows twice as fast as a regular salmon—have been stalled by a Congress concerned with anything bearing the description “genetically-enhanced.” The company, AquaBounty, argues that while the FDA has previously called biotech salmon “safe to eat,” the opinion of prominent local politician Senator Lisa Murkowski is still widespread. The idea, says Murkowski, gives her the “heebie jeebies.” She is leading the effort to get the FDA to ban the “frankenfish.”
AquaBounty argues that since its fish are grown in tanks inland, they are not risking polluting fresh waters or corrupting local species.
Of course Murkowski’s argument has a political bent, since many of her constituents fish for wild salmon and would rather not have any competition. In that regard the future of aquaculture, with its inherent risks understood, is a classic example of old economy versus new economy thinking. To create jobs in a stagnant economy it requires thinking outside the traditional.
One year ago last Friday (July 15) the gusher in the Gulf of Mexico—brought to us by the team of BP and Transocean— was successfully capped after hemorrhaging 4.9 million barrels of crude oil.
Photo by P.J. Hahn
One year ago today (July 15) the gusher in the Gulf of Mexico—brought to us by the team of BP and Transocean— was successfully capped after hemorrhaging 4.9 million barrels of crude oil.
One year later impacts of the spill continue to affect the health of Gulf Coast residents, the safety of the region’s seafood and the economies of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Arguments continue over exactly who should be compensated from the $20 billion pot BP set aside for those whose lives and livelihoods were most impacted; so far less than $5 billion has been handed out, and BP, citing the area’s “robust recovery,” says that should be sufficient.
Meanwhile, around the globe, as our demand for oil continues to grow—now over 91 million barrels a day—oil leaks are hardly a thing of the past, nor relegated to the Gulf of Mexico.
Four big leaks and one very dangerous leak-in-the-making have been reported in just the past two weeks:
An Exxon Mobil pipeline burst beneath the Yellowstone River, flooding the pristine waterway with more than 42,000 gallons of crude oil. While the line was reportedly shut down within seven minutes, the leak managed to continue for more than an hour. With the river descending at five to seven miles an hour, the oil spread fast and far, making it tricky for the 350 emergency personnel armed with absorbent boom and pads to successfully capture it. With flashbacks to the Gulf spill—a slow response by the oil company, underestimations of how much oil was spilled, and a clean-up effort led by an oil company—it’s a reminder of how little has changed in our preparation for such spills since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010.
On the other side of the planet, a pair of undersea leaks in the ConocoPhillips oilfield—Penglai 19-3, China’s largest—spilled up to 7,000 barrels of oil into Bohai Bay, spreading over more than 325 square miles. Slicks seven miles long and 500 yards wide were reported. This being China, the spills were not reported to the public or media for nearly a month; the initial fine was estimated to be about $30,000. But China’s top ocean watchdog, the State Oceanic Administration, predicts compensation could be far higher. At the request of the SOA, the faulty platform has been temporarily shut down.
An explosion and oil spill at the Pengrowth Energy Facility near Swan Hills, Alberta, dumped 1,000 barrels of oil into nearby Judy Creek, which flows into the Freeman River, a tributary of the Athabasca River. The company has given few details of how or why the mile-long, eight-inch round pipe carrying oil from a wellhead to a larger pipeline blew up. Earlier this year the company reported a fire and spill at an adjacent gas processing plant.
Back in the USA, a New Hampshire company—Sprague Energy—leaked up to 100 barrels of oil into the Piscataqua River via a “small hole” in a delivery pipe. Company officials admitted a pinhole resulted in a “spraying” of fuel for up to two hours. While much of the spill appeared to be contained within the company’s docking area, some of the river’s shellfish beds were closed out of caution. The fast-running river parallels the border of Maine and New Hampshire before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
A potential spill with historic roots was reported by NOAA, off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland, where hundreds of World War II shipwrecks lie deteriorating on the ocean floor. NOAA is documenting more than 30,000 ships sunk along the coastline and its biggest concerns are for the battleships sunk by Nazi submarines in 1942. Nearly 400 ships, many with full fuel tanks, were sunk within 60 miles of the coast. So far the agency has put 233 ships on its “worst-threat” list, including an unarmed tanker—the W.L. Steed— which was carrying 66,000 barrels of crude oil. The concern is that as the tanks rust and leak, the holds filled with crude oil, fuel oil, diesel fuel and explosives, could have “devastating” impacts on nearby coastal communities. Once identified it’s hoped the tanks could be emptied, paid for by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is funded by the oil industry.
One year later impacts of the spill continue to affect the health of Gulf Coast residents, the safety of the region’s seafood and the economies of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. Arguments continue over exactly who should be compensated from the $20 billion pot BP set aside for those whose lives and livelihoods were most impacted; so far less than $5 billion has been handed out, and BP, citing the area’s “robust recovery,” says that should be sufficient.
Meanwhile, around the globe, as our demand for oil continues to grow—now over 91 million barrels a day—oil leaks are hardly a thing of the past, nor relegated to the Gulf of Mexico.
Four big leaks and one very dangerous leak-in-the-making have been reported in just the past two weeks:
An Exxon Mobil pipeline burst beneath the Yellowstone River, flooding the pristine waterway with more than 42,000 gallons of crude oil. While the line was reportedly shut down within seven minutes, the leak managed to continue for more than an hour. With the river descending at five to seven miles an hour, the oil spread fast and far, making it tricky for the 350 emergency personnel armed with absorbent boom and pads to successfully capture it. With flashbacks to the Gulf spill—a slow response by the oil company, underestimations of how much oil was spilled, and a clean-up effort led by an oil company—it’s a reminder of how little has changed in our preparation for such spills since the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April 2010.
On the other side of the planet, a pair of undersea leaks in the ConocoPhillips oilfield—Penglai 19-3, China’s largest—spilled up to 7,000 barrels of oil into Bohai Bay, spreading over more than 325 square miles. Slicks seven miles long and 500 yards wide were reported. This being China, the spills were not reported to the public or media for nearly a month; the initial fine was estimated to be about $30,000. But China’s top ocean watchdog, the State Oceanic Administration, predicts compensation could be far higher. At the request of the SOA, the faulty platform has been temporarily shut down.
An explosion and oil spill at the Pengrowth Energy Facility near Swan Hills, Alberta, dumped 1,000 barrels of oil into nearby Judy Creek, which flows into the Freeman River, a tributary of the Athabasca River. The company has given few details of how or why the mile-long, eight-inch round pipe carrying oil from a wellhead to a larger pipeline blew up. Earlier this year the company reported a fire and spill at an adjacent gas processing plant.
Back in the USA, a New Hampshire company—Sprague Energy—leaked up to 100 barrels of oil into the Piscataqua River via a “small hole” in a delivery pipe. Company officials admitted a pinhole resulted in a “spraying” of fuel for up to two hours. While much of the spill appeared to be contained within the company’s docking area, some of the river’s shellfish beds were closed out of caution. The fast-running river parallels the border of Maine and New Hampshire before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
A potential spill with historic roots was reported by NOAA, off the coast of Ocean City, Maryland, where hundreds of World War II shipwrecks lie deteriorating on the ocean floor. NOAA is documenting more than 30,000 ships sunk along the coastline and its biggest concerns are for the battleships sunk by Nazi submarines in 1942. Nearly 400 ships, many with full fuel tanks, were sunk within 60 miles of the coast. So far the agency has put 233 ships on its “worst-threat” list, including an unarmed tanker—the W.L. Steed— which was carrying 66,000 barrels of crude oil. The concern is that as the tanks rust and leak, the holds filled with crude oil, fuel oil, diesel fuel and explosives, could have “devastating” impacts on nearby coastal communities. Once identified it’s hoped the tanks could be emptied, paid for by the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is funded by the oil industry.
(For the rest of my dispatches go to takepart.com)
Who would have guessed, but in Europe it appears that McDonald’s is outshining the finest French restaurants when it comes to promising to serve sustainable fish.
In recent reporting by Fish2Fork—the website conceived by Charles Clover, author of the book End of the Line, on which the provocative documentary of the same name about overfishing was based—only 23 percent of French fish restaurants earned four “blue fish” (out of a possible five), while 70 percent rated five “red fish skeletons,” its lowest rating.
Photo: Charles Platiau/Reuters
In the same breath, the site reports that McDonald’s has signed a guarantee that the 100 million servings of its Filet-O-Fish sandwich sold in 39 countries as part of its European operation will come from sustainable sources. The guarantee is taken seriously enough that the prestigious U.K.-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) awarded the company the right to carry its blue-flag MSC label, a highly sought eco-certification.
The deal begins in October and involves 7,000 restaurants that attract 13 million customers a day. (There are more than 32,000 McDonald’s globally, with nearly 14,000 of them in the U.S.)
Fish2Fork was forged from Glover’s experience with both book and movie, which graphically illustrate how man has taken or overexploited 80 percent of the world’s fish stocks. The site’s goal is to rate restaurants around the globe on how they’re doing when it comes to being knowledgeable about and serving sustainably caught or grown fish.
The listings on its site are based on questionnaires filled out by the restaurants themselves or on online menus. The goal is to better educate both restaurateurs and consumers alike.
In France, the highest-ranked restaurant surveyed was Paris’ Epi Dupin, where chef/owner Francois Pasteau reacted to learning about the crisis of overfishing by buying fish from the market twice a week and skipping over anything considered at risk. Fish2Fork calls him a “true national hero.”
On the downside, Fish2Fork also found restaurants in France blithely selling critically endangered European eel, wild caviar from Caspian sturgeon, and endangered bluefin tuna on skewers. In some restaurants, servers knew exactly where the pigeon on the menu came from or the specific breed of beef it served, but had no idea where its cod came from.
“What future are we creating for the next generations of French chef if many species of wild fish become a thing of the past and come off the menu because we have let them go practically extinct in the wild?” wondered Glover.
The European McDonald’s, by comparison, will focus on buying cod from the Barents Sea and Eastern Baltic, haddock also from the Barents, Alaskan pollock, and hoki from New Zealand.
The biggest concern regarding the McDonald’s promise is what happens if/when the company can’t get its hands on enough sustainable fish? Where will it turn if demand outpaces supply? Some environmentalists have been critical of the MSC certification because of all the bycatch (including seabirds and seals) resulting from the sizable industrial catches necessary to satisfy McDonald’s appetite.
In Europe the chain has decided its customers will respond to its doing the right thing. For the time being, its 14,000 U.S. brethren are treading water a bit longer before taking the hook.
(For the rest of my dispatches, go to takepart.com)
The news this week that a “mass extinction” of marine life is already underway is both frightening on the surface and simultaneously tricky to visualize. The notion that we may one day figuratively take the last fish from the sea has always been hard to comprehend, to imagine.
A new graphic created by the Pew Research Center helps focus on what may be the most easy-to-comprehend issue: overfishing. Want to see just how badly man has hammered fish populations in North Atlantic in the past century? This is the best illustration yet—as close to a 100-year-long time-lapse video—of how man has abused marine life in one big corner of the planet’s one ocean. Of course, what man has wreaked in the Atlantic, he has repeated in the other four geographic oceans too (the Indian, Pacific, Arctic, and Southern).
The illustration shows the sizable biomass/tonnage of big fish (bluefin tuna, cod, haddock, halibut, mackerel, Pollock, salmon, sea trout, and more) that spread off Atlantic shorelines from Florida to Greenland, Iceland to Spain in 1900. Those stories of pulling buckets full of fish straight out of the sea were not exaggerated; there were more than enough fish to support boom fishing industries in North America, Europe, and down into Africa through the early half of the 20th century.
But today, 100 years later, evidence of any big fish populations has literally been erased except for a thin line running along the eastern coast of North America. The rest of the Atlantic has essentially been emptied, one commercial fishing boat at a time.
This new illustration goes hand-in-hand with last year’s first-ever, 10-year-in-the-making, global Census of Marine Life (COML), for which 360 scientists around the world logged 230,000 different species living in the ocean. The report also predicted the mass extinctions of the big predator fish that man has traditionally pursued.
Today the so-called “charismatic species”—whales, sea lions, turtles, and sea birds— account for less than two percent of the species dependent on the world’s ocean. The study reported “major collapses” in fisheries around the world, where only five to ten percent of once-dominant species still existed, largely due to overfishing and lack of management. The North Atlantic was its prime example.
The bright spots for the future of marine life highlighted in the report were along the coasts of Australia and Japan, which are regarded as the most biologically diverse in the world. Of course the COML was released before the nuclear reactor at Fukushima began leaking into the Pacific.
1 Comment
