Is all whaling the same? I don’t think so, but I am beginning to see why anti-whaling groups wish to draw a line in the sand and stop all whale killing.

I admit I am fascinated by the program “Whale Wars” on the Animal Planet network. The weekly show gives us an inside look at how the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society confronts Japanese whalers in the Antarctic.

I also admit to believing that Japanese whalers are probably not taking enough minke whales to harm the regional population in the Antarctic. And surely the so-called “scientific research” is at least keeping track of the populations, the number of whales killed and their genetic makeup.

But new research coming out of Oregon State University has profoundly shifted my attitude about Japanese whaling and the dire need for increased international attention.

DNA analysis of whale meat sold to the public has revealed that perhaps as many whales are killed in coastal areas near Japan and South Korea — where whaling is outlawed under international agreement — as are taken in the Antarctic.

How can this be?

The dead minke whales from coastal waters, apparently not always counted, are attributed to incidental “bycatch” in net fisheries, according to Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at OSU.

Japan and South Korea are the only countries that allow this kind of bycatch to be sold, he says.

Baker and his colleague, Vimoksalehi Lukoscheck of the University of California-Irvine, presented their findings at the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission. It was there that Japan was seeking approval to allow whaling off its coast.

Baker says the Japanese proposal demands careful scrutiny, given his findings and the need to identify and sustain distinct stocks of minke whales.

.“The sale of bycatch alone supports a lucrative trade in whale meat at markets in some Korean coastal cities, where the wholesale price of an adult minke whale can reach as high as $100,000,” Baker said in an OSU news release. “Given these financial incentives, you have to wonder how many of these whales are, in fact, killed intentionally.”

Baker said the bycatch of whales provides a cover for illegal whaling, which is difficult to detect. Last year, Korean police began to look into organized illegal whaling in the port town of Ulsan, where they seized 50 tons minke whale meat.

Baker’s genetic studies have identified other whale meat on the market as well — including some from humpback whales, fin whales, Bryde’s whales and the critically endangered western Pacific gray whales, which may be on the verge of extinction.

I believe hunting has its place in wildlife management, but the Asian marketing in dead whales appears to be out of control and troubling on many levels.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Late yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed historic legislation addressing climate change for the first time since the risks of greenhouse gases were identified.

Immediately, my e-mail begin to fill up with comments — mostly from supporters of the legislation but a few from those questioning the process and the downside of so-called cap-and-trade policies.

The LA Times published a straightforward explanation of the key points of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The Q & A talks about how “cap and trade” would work and the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

A more complete description and financial analysis is available from the Congressional Budget Office (PDF 140 kb). The CBO estimates that the average person will see their energy costs rise about $175 a year, a figure that is disputed by conservative opponents.

For years, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, has been promoting many of the provisions found in this bill, which now goes to the Senate. For that reason, the Kitsap Sun featured Inslee in an interview that ran today. Also today, the Sun ran my story about the “Cash for Clunkers” provision of the bill that was pulled out earlier and pushed ahead for implementation next month.

Following approval of the American Clean Energy and Security bill, Inslee made this statement:

“Since coming to Congress, I have worked to harness America’s innovative genius to create new, clean energy jobs in our state, break our country’s dependence on foreign oil and make this country the world leader in clean energy technologies.

“This bill is a huge victory for Washington state. In the Northwest, neither the melting Cascade snowpack, nor acidifying ocean waters, nor beetle-ravaged North Cascades forests could have waited much longer for us to act. The price of inaction is too high. Thankfully, today, America has begun a New Apollo Project to move the country toward a clean energy future and away from outdated fossil fuels.”

Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire was quick to offer praise:

“This legislation will serve generations to come by promoting clean sources of energy and reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil. It tells the rest of the world that the United States is willing to lead the transition to clean energy and in responding to the global threat of climate change.”

Naturally, with a vote so close (219-212), we need to listen to critics as well. U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco:

“Congressional Democrats just dealt a devastating blow to America’s already fragile economy. History will show that in the middle of a serious recession, Speaker Pelosi’s number one priority was to pass legislation that taxes Americans and ships their jobs overseas to India and China. If this bill becomes law, jobs will be lost, electricity bills will sky rocket, gas prices will spike, and businesses will close.

“The National Energy Tax bill will now move to the Senate – and I hope my colleagues in the other Chamber will stop this job-killing legislation.”

Please read on for further comments
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A mood of disappointment seemed to hang over delegates as the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting came to an end in Portugal.

No real accomplishments were cited, and the debate between whaling and anti-whaling advocates will go on.

Perhaps the most positive comment I saw was by Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare in a story by Association Press reporter Barry Hatton. Hatton made the point that the IWC was set up in 1949 to allocate the whale harvest and now discusses environment threats, such as pollution and climate change.

Said Ramage, “The tone and substance (of the talks) reflect a steady drift towards the IWC becoming a conservation forum and away from being a whalers’ club.”

Other reports worth noting:

OrcaLab
Agence France Presse:
The Christian Science Monitor
BBC News
Reuters
Radio Australia

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Anti-whaling groups are turning to economics as a key reason why all countries should discontinue commercial whaling.

A report commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare concludes that the whale-watching industry has more than doubled over the past decade. In 2008, more than 13 million people in 119 countries and territories participated in whale watching, generating a total $2.1 billion in direct expenditures, the report says.

The report, by Economists at Large & Associates of Melbourne, Australia, was released at this week’s International Whaling Commission’s Meeting in Madeira, Portugal.

From the report:

Across the globe, the whale watching industry has grown at an average rate of 3.7% per year, comparing well against global tourism growth of 4.2% per year over the same period.

But the growth rate of whale watching at a global level tells only part of the story. At a regional level, average annual growth has occurred well above growth in tourism rates in five of the seven regions in this report: Asia (17% per year), Central America and the Caribbean (13% per year), South America (10% per year), Oceania and the Pacific Islands (10% per year) and Europe (7%), evidence of strongly emerging industries…

The picture that emerges is of an industry that provides a new model for use of natural resources — an industry that relies on whales in a non‐extractive way. That, when well managed, can be truly sustainable and provide a sharp contrast to the days when whales were seen solely as a resource to be hunted and consumed.

It should be noted, however, that whaling watching itself is not without its impacts. The IWC has focused considerable attention on this issue as well. See this year’s report from the Scientific Subcommittee on Whale Watching (PDF 220 kb).

Meanwhile, a report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund International concludes that whaling activities in Japan and Norway are not profitable by themselves and probably would not exist without subsidies. The June 18 issue of Science News reviews that study.

Iceland and Japan argue that whaling is an important cultural tradition and should be maintained even as the whale-watching industry grows.

“Allegations that whaling affects whale watching have proven not to be true,” said Tomas Heidar, Iceland’s commissioner to the IWC, in a report by Richard Black of the BBC. “On the contrary, whale watching has been growing steadily in the last few years after our resumption of commercial whaling [in 2006].”

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

President Obama is being praised for his decision to pull together all the ocean-related challenges this nation faces and for plotting a unified course of action.

On Friday, the president issued a memorandum calling for a task force to develop a national ocean policy along with a “framework” for action and a set of objectives. See the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, along with a news story by reporter Doug Palmer of Reuters.

I was tempted to state cynically that actions speak louder than words, so we should curb our enthusiasm about what can be done to save the oceans. But then I talked to Bill Ruckelshaus, who co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission, a national group dedicated to this topic.

Ruckelshaus seems to be thrilled with this latest development, following years of failed promises from the Bush administration.

“This is quite a significant event, really,” Bill told me. “It moves the oceans up on the presidential agenda, which means they will get more attention from Congress and from agencies in the administration. Presidencies are all about setting agendas, and this means more attention will be paid to the recommendations we made.”

I’ll tell you a little more about what my conversation with Mr. Ruckelshaus, but first I’ll review the history.

Five years ago, similar praise was accorded to President Bush after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a presidentially appointed body — released it’s comprehensive examination of the major problems facing the oceans. The report included a list of potential solutions.

Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired Navy officer who chaired the commission, expressed enthusiasm for the reception he felt the report was getting from the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s response to the Commission’s Report and his signing of Executive Order establishing a Secretarial-level Committee on Ocean Policy … sets into motion the important process of developing and implementing a new national ocean policy,” Watkins declared.

Despite the positive reaction, I don’t believe a whole lot came about. (Review the last three “report cards.”) A separate report written by the Pew Oceans Commission received even less attention.

After the two commissions dissolved, some members — including Ruckelshaus — moved into a new organization called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a nongovernmental group that maintained pressure for action through annual “report cards” relating the progress, or lack thereof, on ocean issues.

In April of this year, the joint commission issued an urgent new report called “Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress” (PDF 280 kb). I outlined that report in a Water Ways entry on April 7.

And so now we come to today, five months into the new administration, which seems to be trying to do everything at once. Can there really be much energy left for a discussion about the oceans?

Bill Ruckelshaus is undaunted. “I think holding back and doing things one at a time just doesn’t work,” he said. “You have to act while the energy is there.”

Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon, now chairs the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, where he is heading the effort to reverse the degradation of our inland waterways.

President Bush created the U.S. Commission on Oceans, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But pulling all the environmental agencies together and getting Congress to focus on budgets, regulations and international treaties just never came to pass.

Why is Obama’s action different?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, June 5, 2009:
A Victoria Times-Colonist editorial raises several key questions about the sewer plans and says the government should not rush into the project.

———————

The Bainbridge Island sewage spill, estimated at 140,000 gallons, was blamed on a break in a 32-year-old pipe buried in the beach and subject to saltwater corrosion.

Before final repairs, a temporary band slowed the flow of sewage
Kitsap Sun photo by Tristan Baurick

While Bainbridge Island cleaned up its sewage today, the city of Victoria — which has been dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca for decades — took steps to clean up its mess as well. Regional officials took action on a plan to build a series of four sewage-treatment plants at a cost of $1.2 billion. Progress, yes, but work is still years away. More about that in a moment.

Damage to the environment in and around Bainbridge Island’s Eagle Harbor is expected to be temporary, according to Larry Altose, spokesman for the Washington Department of Ecology, who was quoted in a Kitsap Sun story by Tristan Baurick.

“As awful as a sewer release sounds, the impact of this size of spill is short-term,” Altose said, noting that sunlight and other organisms will quickly kill or eat most of the sewage contaminants within days.

Ecology could fine the city up to $10,000 a day for the spill. The city’s response and track record with maintenance can be considered.

“We can fine, but that’s not the point,” Altose said. “The point is to have lessons learned and have the proper steps for prevention.”

One lesson that everyone has been learning over the past few years is that sewer lines buried in the beach are trouble. We all know why they were installed there in the first place — because it is cheaper to build in the beach than to clear a route through trees and across ravines in the uplands.

Sewer lines in the beach are a problem that many cities must face, and they should be inspecting buried pipes on a regular schedule. We’ll see what Ecology’s investigation turns up with respect to Bainbridge Island’s maintenance.

Meanwhile, Bremerton and Poulsbo also face issues with worn-out pipes, and we don’t yet know what the solution will be. Bremerton, if you recall, has proposed a boardwalk that can support a vacuum truck to maintain the pipe after it is replaced in the beach (Water Ways, Sept. 22, 2008). That design is under scrutiny by the Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies.

As for Victoria, city officials maintained for years that they should be allowed to discharge raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, because the swift waters dilute the pollution. Three years ago, the Minister of Environment for British Columbia said that was no longer acceptable and that treatment systems would be required for the municipalities of Colwood, Esquimalt, Langford, Oak Bay, Saanich, Victoria and View Royal, all under the Capital Regional District.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I would like to confess something here: I am more afraid of the oceans growing more acidic than any of the other consequences of climate change — including drought, floods, reduced snow pack, sea level rise, arctic ice disappearing…

I’m not sure why ocean acidification scares me, but it probably has to do with the fact that I am not very grounded in the science. I need to learn more about the chemistry of the oceans and what concentrations of acidic compounds cause severe problems.

I remember learning, during my school days in chemistry lab, how strong acids can dissolve almost anything but glass. I still can hear the hissing sound and and see vapors rising during acid-base reactions. On an emotional level, I don’t want to be swimming around in acid, and I don’t want our friends, the sea creatures, to be doing so, either.

If you want to produce a scary movie, forget about violent encounters with giant squid and surprise attacks by a great white shark. Here’s how I would write the movie trailer:

Scene: The dark surface of the wayward sea.
Cue the ominous music, then the announcer: “Sea life cannot survive without water, yet something strange is lurking beneath the waves. Do you dare touch the water, knowing that the water itself can bring death? What can anyone do against this growing menace we call ACID?”

Water should be neutral, a pH of 7.0. OK, I know this doesn’t happen in real life, but I don’t want the oceans’ acid levels to stray too far off that mark.

Seriously, notable scientists are telling us that ocean acidification may be starting to affect the entire food web, because of its effects on certain plankton and all sorts of shelled critters. If what they say is true, ocean acidification really is quite scary.

A couple of weeks ago, I reported that the Center for Biological Diversity is suing the federal government to protect the oceans under the Clean Water Act. (See Water Ways, May 15.) Washington was chosen as the test case, because upwelling of ocean water makes the West Coast especially vulnerable to acidification. We’ll see how this lawsuit works out in court, since the data remain a bit sketchy.

Yesterday, at least 70 “Academy of Sciences” groups from throughout the world warned that ocean acidification is not getting enough attention and should get more of a focus in international discussions — including a December meeting in Copenhagen. (Check out the InterAcademy Panel’s announcement about ocean acidification.)

Chen Zhu, minister of health in the People’s Republic of China, and Howard Alper, chairman and president of Science, Technology and Innovation Council, Canada, are serving as co-chairs of the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. They said in a statement:

“There has been much talk among the science community over the past few years about ocean acidification and its potentially catastrophic consequences, but it has failed to receive the political attention it demands. Its absence from discussions to-date is of immense concern, and we call for its immediate inclusion as a vital part of the climate change agenda.”

At the same time, a new study by Sarah Cooley and Scott Doney of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported that ocean acidification and its effects on marine organisms will have direct and indirect effects on the U.S. economy and its $3.8 billion in annual commercial harvests. The report was published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” (PDF 381 kb).

Publications covering this story include:
The Guardian, The New York Times — Greenwire, and The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

It looks like the Washington State Board on Geographic Names likes the name “Salish Sea” when describing the inland waterway that includes Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

I wasn’t able to attend Friday’s hearing on the subject, but Caleb Maki, who staffs the board, told me that the board seems to support the name after hearing a lot of positive comments about it.

In fact the only negative comments, Maki said, seemed to be from people who thought the name “Salish Sea” would replace the name “Puget Sound” or take away something else familiar.

As we’ve discussed before in Water Ways, the proposal is not to take away any names but to add a new one when talking about the body of water that crosses the international border.

In an unofficial poll on this blog, folks were fairly evenly split between liking the name “Salish Sea” and seeing little or no use for it.

If people have strong feelings one way or the other, they should contact the board directly and their comments will be made part of the official record:

Washington State Board on Geographic Names
1111 Washington St. SE, PO Box 47030
Olympia, WA 98504-7030

360-902-1231
Fax 360-902-1778
bogn@dnr.wa.gov

Here’s the story I prepared for tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Washington state has been established as a test case for regulating greenhouse gases through the federal Clean Water Act.

A lawsuit brought yesterday by the Center for Biological Diversity is the first legal case to assert that the Environmental Protection Agency must take action under a water law to reduce carbon dioxide in the air and ultimately save sea creatures.

“Ocean acidification is global warming’s evil twin,” said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity in San Francisco. “The EPA has a duty under the Clean Water Act to protect our nation’s waters from pollution. Today, CO2 is one of the biggest threats to our ocean waters.”
Click here to download the legal filing (PDF 192 kb).

Sakashita told me that Washington state was chosen as the first case because studies have revealed particular problems with ocean acidity along the West Coast. Also, the Washington Department of Ecology recently updated its list of impaired water bodies without mentioning the acidity problem. And EPA endorsed that list.

A study published in the journal “Science” suggests that the upwelling of ocean waters along the West Coast could increase acidification faster than other parts of the county.

A separate study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirms links between acidity in the ocean and atmospheric carbon dioxide. That study also describes effects on the ecosystem, including a bleak future for shelled organisms, including mussels.

“Our results indicate that pH decline is proceeding at a more rapid rate than previously predicted in some areas, and that this decline has ecological consequences for near-shore benthic ecosystems,” states a summary of the report.

Scientists have expressed concerns that ocean acidification could have serious consequences for a variety of shelled creatures, including corals, crabs, sea stars, sea urchins and some plankton. High acid levels can prevent the formation of shell material and could disrupt the food web.

For background information, see a EurekAlert from last May. I also discussed the issue in a Water Ways entry in November.

The Clean Water Act requires states to identify impaired waters that fail to meet water-quality standards. In Washington, the Department of Ecology assumes jurisdiction over enforcement of the law. In January, EPA approved Washington’s list of impaired waters, also called the 303(d) list, without mentioning acidification.

“Ocean acidification is not some distant threat that can be shunted off to future decision-makers; it has already arrived, and we have to acknowledge and deal with the problem right now,” said Sakashita in a news release. “EPA has all the evidence it needs to act to begin protecting our waters from ocean acidification. Further delay is simply not justified.”

Sandy Howard, spokeswoman for Ecology, said her agency is not ducking from the issue. In fact, Gov. Chris Gregoire is one of the nation’s leaders on climate change. The problem, she told me, is that the agency never received the precise data to show that the oceans are impaired by acidity.

Ecology’s response to Sakashita’s letter (PDF 16 kb) includes this comment:

“Our state law requires that actual data be used for 303(d) listing purposes, rather than broader studies and assumptions about the status of waters. Ecology reviewed the studies that were submitted in previous correspondence and could find no monitoring data relevant to specific marine water body segments in Washington.”

Some of the more recent studies, which are still fairly general, may not have been available when Ecology completed its list, and ocean acidity is not easy to measure. Howard said Ecology is open to reconsidering the acidity issue for its next impaired waters list.

When a water body is listed as impaired, Ecology normally proceeds to identify the sources of pollution and establish limits for each source or group of sources. In the case of acidity, the state faces a major problem, Howard noted, because many of the sources of carbon dioxide are likely to be in foreign countries, where the state has no authority to act.

Sakashita argues that under the Clean Water Act, the EPA should take steps to limit the amount of carbon dioxide going into the air.

Sakashita’s letter to Ecology — as well as other letters and responses — can be found on a Web page addressing Ecology’s Water Quality Assessment.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A team of three sailors aboard a specially equipped yacht left England with the goal of raising awareness about climate change and making a statement about their “carbon footprint.” About 40 schools across the UK were following the adventure.

As the story turned out, I’m not so sure what kind of statement they made.

According to the BBC, the three left Plymouth, England, on April 19. Their plan was to use only the sails of their boat, along with solar power and even human power if necessary.

But they ran into 68 mile-per-hour winds and heavy waves that tore apart their sails. The winds ripped away the solar panels. Water spilled into the boat, which temporarily capsized three times. And one sailor fell and hit his head.

They decided to radio for help. Adding insult to injury, their rescuers arrived in a giant oil tanker, the Overseas Yellowstone, carrying 680,000 barrels of crude.

The eco-sailors seemed to recognize the irony of their rescue, but they were too relieved to express any feelings of humiliation.

In addition to the BBC, check out Robert Booth’s story in The Guardian for more details.

Thanks to Brian Lewis for calling this story to my attention. I suspect that the irony won’t be lost on bloggers throughout the world.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post