In October 2008 CLF and three citizens petitioned NOAA to protect the Atlantic wolffish under the Endangered Species Act. You may recall the news headlines from that time such as “Protection sought for sea brute” or ”Group to seek protection for a toothy sea monster,” not to forget my personal favorite “Group seeks protection for ugly New England fish.”  The Atlantic wolffish is, apparently, considered unattractive by both humans and most headline editors. In any event, it’s largely true that wolffish are best known for their fang-like teeth. What can you say about the fact that their eating habits consist of crushing whole scallops and sea urchins — not to mention the occasional wayward crab? Check our video, courtesy of Jonathan Bird, of the wolffish in action. It’s an admitted charismatically gruesome fish, but there are those of us who love it.

So, after sitting patiently by the mailbox for almost 14 months we received the answer from NOAA: DENIED! No protection for you, wolffish!

How could that be? The number of wolffish being caught crashed 95% in less than 15 years, the species has been listed as a “Species of Concern” (two steps shy of an endangered listing) since 2004, numbers have not gone up since then, and even more wolffish habitat has been plowed by bottom trawls in the last half-decade. Well, says NOAA, there are a lot of them in Canada. How is that the case since Canada protected Atlantic wolffish under their Species at Risk Act several years ago? That may be, NOAA says, but fewer wolffish “will likely” be caught once the Amendment 16 fishery management plan for groundfish like cod and haddock gets into place. How can we be sure that will work since Amendment 16 is not yet approved and if it does get approved it still won’t go into effect until May of 2010? By the way, the New England Fishery Management Council, not known for its preservationist tendancies, voted to create a zero possession limit for commercial and recreational fishing. NOAA claims that “although Atlantic wolffish discard mortality rates are not specifically known” the catch and release of bycatch will help wolffish survive at a rate that “may be as high as 100%.” Can I ask another question here — how do you measure that 100% when the boats are out to sea with few onboard observers and the crew have no training in catch and release of wolffish?

Friends, can you see where I’m going with this? Let’s just say we have a lot of questions.

The continued flow of oil into the Timor Sea north of Australia previously presented on this blog

"PTTEP ERG Media" via Australian Broadcasting Company

is both a general example of the many kinds of harm that flow from uncontrolled fossil fuel use and a specific example of why talk about new drilling techniques being safe should be viewed with great skepticism.

News reports tell us that the flow of oil into the sea from the drilling platform continues and in a really sad new development the platform burst into flames during an attempt to close down the well.

And now there is video of the situation.  Note the spokesman for the oil exploration company admitting that the fire is out of control.

And yes the Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett who is in part responsible for dealing with this is the same Peter Garrett who was the lead singer of Australian rock band Midnight Oil.  Only a matter of time until someone asks how he can sleep while the rig is burning, to paraphrase their biggest hit.

Mama Humpback and calf

When whale researchers decide they know enough about a particular whale to identify it they give it a name. Naming the whale helps with future tracking over the course of their research and helps other researchers in sharing information such as feeding and migration patterns, what other whales that particular whale might be associating with, etc. The thing is, you can’t just slap any old tag on a whale — there are rules. Just who came up with the whale naming rules is one question (a bored process-junkie is my answer) but the way it usually plays out is that the one who applies the name is usually a researcher who has followed the whale and her family, knows the whale pretty well and, I’m guessing, has probably used the name for a while before it becomes “official.” One solid whale naming rule, however, is that the whale’s name is supposed to be based on the pigmentation patterns on the whale’s flukes. Sensible enough, but this seems like a pretty subjective standard because, as we all know, the beauty of fluke pigmentation is definitely in the eye of the beholder. What might look like a trident mark to me could easily look like a seagull in flight to someone else, you know?

Sometimes this same subjective standard happens when the government develops rules and policies for managing resources. A regulation that one agency official might see as a progressive step in, say, wildlife conservation another well-informed and equally interested party might see as an onerous restriction on commerce and another might see as something less than helpful to wildlife. Different folks, different views, same policy. Yet, there is always going to be a decision made. (And yes, failing to make a decision is still a decision.) The great thing about developing government policy is that all of us get to have a say too — either through government process or eventually though the ballot box. President Obama’s “Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force” is developing a national ocean policy that will drive the federal government’s approach to just about everything in their power related to our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. I think it should be a policy founded on the principles of environmental sustainability, marine habitat protection and wildlife stewardship. Some others might think that maximum extraction of oil, fish, and minerals should be the foundation. At the end of day there will be a decision. Here is your chance to have your say.

By the way, the other rules for naming whales are: 1) Can’t be gender specific, 2) Can’t be a name of a real person, 3) Name should be easy to say and be heard when on a moving boat.

On August 21st, the Thai based energy company PTTEP announced that a “crude oil gas leak incident occurred” in the Timor Sea about 155 miles northwest of Western Australia.  The energy company’s press released continued that “the size of the spill is not known.  Aproximately 40 barrels of oil were discharged from the wellhead in the initial incident.”  In the ensuing month, it has become clear that this oil spill is much more serious than initially thought:

Aerial Photo of the oil spill from the drilling platform in the Timor Sea (Source: SkyTruth)

1. As of September 25th, photos from NASA satellites document that the oil slicks and sheen from the spill covered 9,870 square miles, an area even bigger than the state of Vermont.  Part of the oil sheen has been moving perilously close to the Cartier Island Marine Reserve.
2. According to conservative estimates by the World Wildlife Fund, the rig has been leaking 400 barrels a day — over 14,000 barrels since late August.  That equates to about 600,000 gallons of oil.
3. When the spill was first reported, the government of Australia predicted it would take 7 weeks to clean up.   Already, it has been 5 weeks and the spill isn’t contained.

This devastating spill may be a world away but US ocean waters, including Georges Bank and the rest of the Gulf of Maine, are also at risk because they no longer are protected from the devastating impacts of oil and gas extraction. As a parting gift before leaving office, President Bush lifted the Presidential Moratorium on drilling for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf that had been in place since 1990.  On September 30, 2008, Congress followed suit and lifted a longstanding legislative ban on offshore oil and gas leasing as part of a large government operations appropriations bill.  As a result, important habitat in the Gulf of Maine, including Georges Bank — one of the world’s premier fishing grounds — is at risk of industrial scale fossil fuel energy development.

As the Saudi oil fields are tapped out, there is increased pressure to drill in remote areas of the ocean.  For example, at the beginning of September, BP announced a “giant oil discovery” 35,055 feet below the Gulf of Mexico seafloor, which itself is already 4,132 feet below the surface of the ocean.  In an ironic twist of fate, just as the ocean is beginning to bear the brunt of the impacts of climate change (see my earlier blog post on ocean acidification), oil companies are stepping up efforts to locate and drill for oil and gas under the seafloor.

Clearly we need energy — but how do we design a sustainable, climate neutral ocean energy solution that will not put important marine wildlife, habitat and ecosystems at risk? As Greg Watson, then a VP at the Mass Technology Collaborative, noted, New England (and Massachusetts in particular) is “the ‘Saudi Arabia of Wind.’” Of course, we need to responsibly tap this renewable resource — we can’t build wind farms wholesale across the region just because there is a lot of wind on the ocean.  Rather, we need to engage in a thorough marine spatial planning process whereby different human uses and ecological resources are identified and mapped and responsible renewable energy development is sited in a way that doesn’t create unreasonable impacts on those activities or natural resources.  Massachusetts is in the process of doing just that — and has released the first in the nation Draft Ocean Management Plan.  In Maine, the governor appointed an Ocean Energy Task Force to evaluate how to develop offshore renewable energy.  Rhode Island is working on an Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) in part to promote offshore renewable energy development.  Finally, at the federal level, President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum calling for a national ocean policy and marine spatial planning  framework.  CLF is working on all of these issues.

Imagine if all of Vermont were covered in an oil spill.  Well it has been over a month and an equally large spill in the Timor Sea hasn’t been contained.  Oil and gas drilling is still a risky business and, thanks to former President Bush and Congress, these projects are allowable in US ocean waters.  A concerted effort is needed to make oil and gas drilling old news.  We need to usher in a new era of responsible, climate friendly, renewable ocean energy development.  Help CLF make this a reality!

What can you do to help promote responsible marine renewable energy Development?

1. Sign the CLF Ocean Petition
2. Learn more about the Massachusetts Draft Ocean Management Plan, Maine Ocean Energy Task Force, Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan and the National Ocean Policy and Marine Spatial Framework.
3. Learn more about the Timor Sea Spill

Satellite Image of the oil spill in the Timor Sea. Northwest Australia is in the lower right hand corner of the photo (Source: SkyTruth)

Georges Bank is the underwater icon of New England – a place of legendary bounty for those fishermen willing to brave dangerous storms in search of Atlantic cod. But, the Bank has always been more than a popular and productive fishing ground. In New England, it’s comparable to the Grand Canyon for its popular resonance and cultural significance. Georges Bank is part of our cultural heritage that ties us to New England.

Between 1976 and 1982, three oil companies drilled ten oil and natural gas wells on Georges Bank. They were stopped from additional drilling by Conservation Law Foundation, working fishermen and citizens from around the region. In 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Order that prevented the leasing of any area in the North Atlantic and, as a result, all of the 1979 Georges Bank leases have been relinquished or have expired. However, in 2008 President Bush removed the moratorium on oil and natural gas drilling and the day before he left office. Georges Bank and the rest of New England’s ocean are again at risk of drilling.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, which includes Georges Bank, has 3.82 billion barrels of oil. This represents a meager 3.31% of all known and predicted US OCS reserves. According to the US Energy Information Administration statistics, US consumers would use up this oil supply in less than 185 days and the natural gas available would consumed in about 585 days.

We don’t need to gamble with New England’s oceans, wildlife and coastal communities by drilling for oil in the North Atlantic. The Mineral Management Service is taking comments until September 21st on a pro-drilling plan that was designed by the Bush administration to drill in New England’s ocean. Please click here to send a pre-written letter urging the MMS to protect our oceans and wildlife and to promote clean, renewable energy. After you take action, please share this post with family and friends. We need everyone to participate!

The health and security of our oceans, wildlife, coasts and communities depend upon an energy plan that protects and conserves our ocean wildlife and their important habitat areas.

Click here to act now.

Is the ship of state ready to set the right course?

New England’s ocean and coastal waters have long suffered from management that only allows a single-sector approach. One agency is in charge of energy, one agency in charge of commercial fishing and another is in charge of water quality. This leads to a situation in both state and fedaral waters where no one is watching out for the overall health of the ocean ecosystem. Both the Pew Oceans Commission and the US Ocean Commission, hundreds of scientists and regional leaders from several coastal states have called for protection of ocean and coastal habitat and an ecosystem-based approach to management.

In Massachusetts we have the Massachusetts Ocean Plan, the first-ever-in-the-nation attempt at comprehensive ocean planning. There is a draft plan out now and a final due to be implemented by the end of 2009. The Commonwealth is having several public hearings over the course of September and all the info is right here.

On the federal level we have pretty well fallen behind due to a past administration that largely saw ocean management as another way to favor their friends in the oil business. Except for some truly exceptional Marine National Monuments - for which President Bush deserves sincere credit - the past administration left the recommendations of the Pew and US Ocean Commission on the shelf while they rammed through oil and gas drilling, held up or removed protections for marine mammals and seriously dragged their heels on clean, renewable energy.

That’s all set to change. On June 12 President Obama created a federal interagency task force with the charge to propose a singular national ocean policy and a framework for “marine spatial planning.” Just a mention sends a thrill down the spine doesn’t it? Well, if you are an ocean user or care about ocean wildlife it should. The problem is that our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes are managed through a jumble of 20 different agencies and about 140 not-always-coordinated laws. This management scheme creates confusion and discord among well-meaning agencies that want to cooperate with one another and fosters absolute mayhem among those agencies already inclined towards turf battles and internal politics. Even inside a single agency there may be conflicting directives that cause a stalemate between resource conservation and resource extraction. (Take a look at our own Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary where an abundance of fishing and fishing gear has altered undersea habitat, reduced overall fish and wildlife populations and still threatens the North Atlantic right whale, one of the rarest animals on the planet, but the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries still sits on its hands.)

So, the President wants an ocean policy and he will get a proposal from his task force on Sept. 10. After the 10th, the task force tackles the issue of marine spatial planning, which is really a term that means “planning various uses of a particular area.” (We’ve been doing it on land in New England for a few hundred years.) There is something else that happens after the 10th — the President’s Ocean Task Force comes to New England. They are planning a series of regional “listening sessions” for each area of the country and the east coast gets to represent on Sept. 24th in Providence at the Rhode Island Convention Center. CLF and our partners are working to highlight the necessary components of a national ocean policy, starting with a mandate to protect, maintain and restore our ocean, coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems. Without a strong environmental sustainability tenet a national ocean policy won’t be worth using. We’ll be fortunate to have the draft policy to respond to by then. The Council on Environmental Quality is heading up the ocean task force and you can read the presidential memo that started it all here. Keep a sharp eye on the CLF marine program page for alerts and news.

There’s a lot of talk about 2012 being the end of the world. And if it’s not 2012, it’s the swine flu.

But how will it really end? If the latest scary climate science is any indicator, it looks like humans may be to blame. We know that climate change is happening all around us, but it looks like things are changing a lot quicker than any of us expected. As such, it’s time for a climate change reality-check. Did you know?

• Temperatures are already on the rise. Since 1970, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by an average of 1.3 degrees per decade—changing and damaging marine life, forests, agriculture, recreation and human health.
• Extreme storms are becoming more frequent. Boston and Atlantic City, for example, can expect a coastal flood equivalent to today’s 100-year flood every two to four years on average by mid-century, and almost annually by the end of the century.
• The oceans are rising. Scientists project that sea levels could rise another 4.5 feet by the end of the century—inundating our coastline and claiming countless low-lying communities from Portland, Maine to Boston to Hyannisport and beyond.
• Heat waves are expected to increase. Within our children’s lifetimes, Northeast cities like Boston or Hartford could experience 20-30 days above 100 degrees causing pain, distress and even increased mortality for our vulnerable citizens.
• Our snow season is becoming shorter and shorter. By late this century, the length of the snow season could be cut in half across northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, and reduced to a week or two in southern parts of the region, a trend that may have already begun.
• Plant and animal populations are shifting northward. Species like the fir and spruce are expected to all but disappear from the region by the century’s end. The Baltimore oriole, American goldfinch and song sparrow populations will become much less abundant.
  (Source: NECIA’s “Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions”)

The facts speak for themselves. It’s clear that the road on which we’re traveling is a dead end. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to make a u-turn—but it’s going to take your help to turn this country and this planet around.

What can you do about it?

As we catapult towards the point of no return, it’s time to hit the brakes. Confront the climate threat today and demand a new energy and climate law now!

It takes less than 30 seconds to use and customize our pre-written letter to your Senators urging them to pass a smart and effective “cap and trade” climate law. Click here to do your part.

As my first post to the CLF Blogosphere I want to offer an alternative perspective on fostering environmental conservation and social justice, and I’m just going to say it: economics.

Allow me to introduce you to CLF Ventures, Inc., the non-profit consulting affiliate of the Conservation Law Foundation. CLF started Ventures in 1997 to foster creative, client-centered environmental solutions. At that time, CLF recognized that the challenges facing the environment could not be overcome through litigation and advocacy tools alone. This happened relatively early in the game, and was a pretty progressive move for an established environmental advocacy organization with the history and grassroots credibility of CLF.

Today, CLF Ventures provides a unique model for advancing environmental change—by implementing projects that have demonstrable environmental gain as well as economic advantage—and that complement the work of our advocacy colleagues. We use a unique combination of environmental, non-profit and community insights to help private and public organizations become more sustainable through the creation of effective risk assessment and collaborative stakeholder engagement strategies.  Our distinct value to clients is our ability to gain stakeholder and regulatory insights that are impossible for clients to collect on their own due to poor existing community relationships. Our value to the stakeholder community is our ability to bring our clients to the table under circumstances conducive to collaboration. We have a demonstrated record of successful outcomes wherein our clients and the community come to better understand each other’s values and needs.

This may sound like boilerplate consulting mumbo jumbo, but the point is critically valid: the world is complex and the world of environmental advocacy is more complex still. Very rarely are the issues black and white. While the best option to secure needed social and environmental protections may be legal advocacy, it is not the only option. Put another way, litigation is a hammer, and it’s a very effective tool for driving nails, but not every environmental problem is a nail. When an organization is making real changes to improve impacts on the surrounding community and environment, CLF Ventures will leave the hammer at home and load up the toolbox with other job-appropriate tools to help them succeed.

Let me step away from the confusion of a not-so-clever metaphor and be perfectly clear: before many others, CLF recognized that market-driven solutions can complement environmental advocacy. Twelve years on, CLF Ventures has successfully demonstrated that business interests are not incompatible with social and environmental interests, and that when given a chance, and proper guidance, partnerships with the private sector can provide leadership and innovation that benefits our economy, our community, and our environment.

There may always be a need for litigation and legal advocacy, but we at CLFV are grateful that CLF understands and supports our efforts to influence environmental change through markets and bottom lines as an alternative means to the same end.

Visit CLF Ventures online to learn more: www.clfventures.org

Most people are aware that burning fossil fuels is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and causing climate change.  People might be surprised to learn that greenhouse gases (and in particular, carbon dioxide) are also altering the ocean and pose an independent and equally serious threat to marine life.  In fact this change, making the oceans more acidic, is a direct threat to the survival of lobsters, oysters and other marine animals that are an essential element in the life and culture of New England.

Wellfleet oysters will likely have trouble growing their shell (let alone half shell) by the end of the 21st century (Image Source: New York Times)

The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has skyrocketed from 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid 18th century to 385 ppm at the beginning of the 21st century.  As a result of a simple chemical reaction, the ocean has absorbed approximately one third of the carbon emissions that were released into the atmosphere.  While scientists believe this has shielded the upper atmosphere from the full effects of our carbon dioxide emissions, they are also cautioning that the chemistry of the ocean has and will continue to change, having long-term, serious consequences for marine life.

When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, it forms carbonic acid.  According to the UN, the ocean has become 30% more acidic since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that an acidic ocean is the “equally evil twin” of climate change. Scott Doney, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution noted in a public presentation that “New England is the most vulnerable region in the country to ocean acidification.”

Some impacts of the acidification of New England’s ocean waters include:

1. Reduced Calcification:  Maine lobster and Wellfleet oysters are just two examples of animals expected to suffer from an acidic ocean.  Sadly they won’t be alone.  Many marine species have skeletons and shells made of calcium carbonate, a substance that is harder to produce (and easier to dissolve) in an acidic ocean.
2. Threat to Whales and Commercial and Recreational Fisheries:  Reduced calcification will have a huge impact on plankton, an assortment of drifting plants and juvenile animals which form the base of the food chain in the ocean.  If plankton populations plummet, this would have an unpredictable cascading set of catastrophic impacts up the food web to commercial and recreational species and even whales that depend on plankton for food.

So what can be done to prevent ocean acidification?

1. Reduce our personal fossil fuel consumption;
2. Adopt strong climate change policies at the state, regional and federal level;
3. Increase funding to research ocean acidification and the impact of climate change on the ocean; and
4. Support healthy, resilient oceans by promoting habitat protection and ecosystem based management.

Confronting and solving this problem is essential if we want to preserve our oceans — otherwise we will be facing a very different marine world, one that looks a lot more like “the ancient pre-Cambrian stew” dominated by jellyfish.

For more information:

1. Article from Daily Green on Ocean Acidification Documentary
2. New England Aquarium’s Climate Change and the Ocean Website
3. New England Climate Coalition Website