Nature, Science

The World’s Oceans Now Have A Health Record

The oceans now have a health record, thanks to a team of scientists at UC Santa Barbara

Thanks to a team of researchers at UC Santa Barbara, the world’s oceans now have a health record.

And that health record is revealing clues about what might be behind ocean improvements or declines.

Analyzing data from 220 countries, the team gathered five years’ worth of ocean “vital signs” in a variety of areas ranging from water quality to food provision to tourism potential in order to create an Ocean Health Index. Their conclusion: While ocean health appears to be stable, the oceans around many of the countries analyzed are changing for the worse.

“With five years of assessments about where oceans are healthy and not as healthy, we finally have enough information to get a clear signal of what might be causing changes,” said study lead author Ben Halpern, executive director of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara.

Countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Samoa, that are seeing improvements in their oceans are taking action to make things better, including improving management of wild-caught fisheries and creating marine protected areas.

On the other hand, the countries that saw a decline in ocean health where in consistent political turmoil. Many Arctic and sub-Arctic countries are seeing declines as well, due to the fact that coastlines are losing sea ice, which is a natural protection from storm damage and erosion.

“The Ocean Health Index created the first opportunity any of us has had to measure the health of our oceans in a comprehensive way and track changes with a single measure,” Halpern said.

According to the researchers, the index has scored the oceans’ overall health staying steady at a 71 out of 100. This shows that while the oceans aren’t dying, they aren’t thriving, either. The team will continue to collect data on ocean health every year.

“We believe the Ocean Health Index gives reason for hope by providing a detailed diagnosis of the state of ocean health and a framework that allows countries to identify and prioritize the most necessary resilience actions to improve ocean health,” said study co-author Johanna Polsenberg, senior director of governance and policy for Conservation International’s Center for Oceans. “This is where our work is most valuable. It helps to identify and highlight the necessary steps to ensure a healthy ocean into the future.”

I don’t know about you, but after seeing all the news about dying reefs, pollution, and overfishing, I’m surprised the oceans are as healthy as they are. Hopefully this new information will help governments and scientists to improve their health.

Climate Change, Environmental Hazards

Climate Change Bringing Tropical Diseases to Higher Latitudes

Tropical diseases are spreading farther north as the climate continues to warm.
The Anopheles mosquito is responsible for the spread of malaria. Its range may be increasing due to climate change. Photo via Pixabay

It’s been known for a long time—like, since Roman times—that climate change brings disease. Roman aristocrats would move to summer homes in the mountains in order to avoid malaria-transmitting mosquitoes, for example.

But even the appearance of malaria mosquitoes was simply a summer phenomenon that was a regular part of south European climate. Nowadays, we have more to be worried about, thanks to global climate changes.

Tropical diseases like viral illness Chikungunya, West Nile Virus, and Zika; bacterial infection Vibrio vulnificus; and parasitic infection malaria are finding their way farther and farther north as greenhouse gases boost temperatures around the world.

The Asian tiger mosquito and yellow fever mosquitoes infect humans with Chikungunya. The virus had been limited to tropical regions of Africa, Asia, and South America, but as temperatures have warmed, the geographical distribution of these mosquitoes has grown. If climate change continues unchecked, a team at the University of Bayeruth warns, the virus could even spread to southern Europe and the United States.

“People have already been infected with Chikungunya in Italy, France, and Florida,” said Dr. Stephanie Thomas, a biogeography researcher at the University of Bayeruth. “However, such cases are still too rare to play any significant role in our model. The climactic potential for new diseases in southern Europe and the U.S. is probably being underestimated.”

Vibrio illnesses are caused by bacteria that occur naturally in warm ocean waters. Although Vibrio infections have been seen sporadically in warm seas from Texas to Maryland, Vibrio bacteria are spreading north. Vibrio illnesses have even appeared as far north as the Arctic Circle.

We are seeing lots of new hospitable areas opening up for these bacteria,” said Craig Baker-Austin, a Vibrio expert at the UK’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries, and Aquaculture Sciences laboratory in southern England. “Climate change is essentially driving this process, especially warming.”

In Europe, ticks that carry Lyme disease, that once only appeared in southern Europe, are now appearing as far north as Sweden. A region near Russia’s Ural Mountains has seen a 23-fold increase in tick-borne encephalitis over the past 20 years. The sand flies that host the parasite-borne illness leishmaniasis are showing up in north Texas.

“So often so many of the things we talk about with climate change are ‘this is going to be a problem in 2030 or 2050 or 2100, and it sounds so far away,” said Stanley Maloy, a microbiologist at San Diego State University. “But we’re talking about things where our one-degree centigrade change in temperature is already enough to affect infections. We have clear evidence in many cases things are happening already, and they’re tightly correlated to changes in ambient temperature, extreme weather, or water temperature.”

Regardless of whether people believe climate change is real, it’s inevitable that even the greatest skeptics will soon find themselves being affected by the spread of tropical diseases to higher latitudes.

Business, Environmentalist, Green

EPA Boots Scientists Off Scientific Review Board

At least five scientists have been removed from the EPA's Board of Science Counselors.
At least five scientists have been removed from the EPA’s Board of Science Counselors. Photo: bakdc / Shutterstock.com

At least five academic scientists have been dismissed from a major review board, according to the New York Times.

J.P. Freire, a spokesman for EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, said Pruitt would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries that are supposed to be regulated by the EPA. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” Freire said.

This isn’t a surprising move, given that Pruitt is a former oil company executive who has questioned human-caused climate change—something that has been agreed on by at least 97 percent of the scientific community—and has been tasked by President Trump to roll back Obama-era regulations on clean water protection and climate change.

The scientists were dismissed from the 18-member Board of Scientific Counselors, which reviews and evaluates the research conducted by the EPA’s scientists.

“We want to expand the pool of applicants” for the scientific board, Freire said, “to as broad a range as possible, to include universities that aren’t typically represented and issues that aren’t typically represented.”

Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said, “This is completely part of a multifaceted effort to get science out of the way of a deregulation agenda.”

“I see the dismissal of the scientists from the Board of Scientific Counselors as a test balloon,” said Joseph Arvai of the University of Michigan, a member of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), a 47-member commission that advises the EPA on areas on where it should conduct research and evaluates the scientific integrity of EPA regulations. “This is clearly very political, and we should be very concerned if it goes further.”

On the other hand, Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, said the SAB had become nothing but a rubber-stamp organization that approves all of the EPA’s regulations. He wrote a bill designed to restock that board with more members from the business world.

“The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government,” Smith said. “The conflict of interest here is clear.”

“Today I was Trumped,” Robert Richardson, an environmental economist wrote on Twitter. “I have had the pleasure of serving on the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors, and my appointment was terminated today.”

“I believe this is political,” said Dr. Courtney Flint, a professor of natural resource sociology at Utah State University, said of the dismissals from the Board of Science Counselors. “It’s unexpected. It’s a red flag.”

Climate Change, Nature

Scientists Concerned About Rapid Change in Arctic River Ice

Arctic river ice is melting at an accelerating rate.

The Arctic continues to bear the brunt of climate change’s current effects, with new research showing that Arctic river ice is accruing in smaller amounts and melting earlier in the season.

Arctic groundwater comes to the surface and freezes on top of already frozen rivers, and these deposits of ice grow throughout the season until whole river valleys are covered. Some river icings have grown to over 4 square miles, and as deep as 33 feet. Traditionally, they start melting in the middle of July, which keeps many rivers running long after they would otherwise have dried up, and provides fresh water for many different creatures and habitats.

But over the past 15 years, there has been less of that ice forming, and it’s been melting about a month earlier. This means habitats that rely on that water melting later are getting less water overall, as it melts too soon and there is less of it to melt in the first place.

Looking at 147 rivers icings in the U.S. and Canadian Arctic using satellite data, Pavlesky and Zarnetske discovered that 84 of those are becoming smaller or disappearing earlier in the season. The minimum area of ice also shrank a lot during the study period. In 2000, there were 30 square miles of ice, but there were only 2 square miles in 2010. The minimum ice area has rebounded a little bit: it was up to 3 square miles in 2015.

“This is the first clear evidence that this important component of Arctic river systems—which we didn’t know was changing—is changing and it’s changing rapidly,” said lead author Tamlin Pavelsky of the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

The exact mechanisms of how climate change is affecting these rivers is as yet unknown, it could be that higher temperatures are directly affecting the ice, or that it is more subtly impacting groundwater, and how that water interacts with rivers.

“While glaciers tell us about climate in the mountains and sea ice tells us about sea-atmosphere interactions, the processes that control river icing may offer great insight into how groundwater and surface waters are connected in the Arctic and how our headwaters will be connected to the ocean in the future,” said study co-author Jay Zarnetske of Michigan State University.

In the meantime, these rivers and their related ecosystems are going to continue to change as the world’s overall climate warms.

Business, Eco-friendly, Environmentalist

Environmentalists: It’s Time to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

With the repeal of environmental regulations, environmentalists are going to need to do their own green investing to ensure the future of sustainable energy.

On Tuesday, March 28, President Trump signed an executive order that rescinded Obama’s Clean Power Plan. The president lifted carbon emissions regulations in order to resume coal-mining operations.

“My administration is putting an end to the war on coal,” Trump asserted. “I am taking historic steps to lift the restrictions on American energy to reverse government intrusions and to cancel job killing regulations.”

Environmentalists saw this coming from a mile away. They tried to voice their concerns in the form of protests, but their collective cries fell on deaf ears. That’s because money appears to be the only language that the current administration understands. In other words, the time for talking about sustainability is over. It’s time to take action by investing in clean energy alternatives.

Some companies, such as private equity firm KKR, are already leading the way in this regard. KKR has invested an astounding $5 billion into ESG (environment, social, and governance) driven companies.

“Investors can play a central role in resolving some of the global challenges in a way that civil society or government organizations cannot do alone,” writes Ken Mehlman, Member and Global Head of Public Affairs at KKR. “Our portfolio company Afriflora is a good example. Located in Ethiopia, Afriflora cultivates and produces Fair Trade Certified, sustainably-grown roses.”

It’s like the old saying goes: money talks. And while the average citizen certainly can’t afford to shell out the kind of dough that KKR does, they can still make an impact by purchasing small shares of green companies.

So which companies should environmentalists invest in? According to Investopedia, the top four alternative energy stocks for 2017 are:

  • NRG Yield Inc.
  • MagneGas Corp.
  • Atlantica Yield PLC
  • Covanta Holding Corp.

If there’s anything that the current administration has taught us, it’s that climate change facts and statistics aren’t enough. Environmentalists will have to reach deep into their pockets if they want to influence the future of energy.

Climate Change, Nature

Trees Have a Greater Impact on Climate than Previously Thought

Trees have a significant effect on the water cycle.
Trees have a significant effect on the water cycle, which aids in cooling the earth. Photo: Shutterstock

Trees are an important part of the conversation about global climate change, but according to a recent study, they haven’t been getting their dues. Much research has focused on trees as simple carbon sinks, and in general, it’s expected that they can’t offset the amount of carbon that is being out into the atmosphere. But many of those studies missed the forest for the trees, so to speak, and were looking at them from only a single viewpoint.

A recent study from the World Agroforestry Centre has compiled data from numerous other studies, from biologists, chemists, climate scientists, geologists, hydrologists, and even social scientists, and found that trees have a bigger impact that we thought. Trees have a significant impact on the water cycle, processing and redistributing water, which helps to cool the planet’s surface. Carbon sequestrations is essentially a byproduct of this.

Forests have an impact on food security and help to keep the world cooler despite rising temperatures. That will be especially important going forward, as the issue of climate change requires more than one approach. The Paris Agreement outlined both mitigation and adaptation in the future. The former means creating less pollution and increasing sequestration of carbon and other greenhouse gases where possible. The latter means finding ways to change agriculture, construction, and other human activities in ways that will work better with the changes happening to the Earth.

There is still much to be learned about how trees can help us to both mitigate and adapt to climate change, but this study is a good place to start.

“Some of the more refined details of how forests affect rainfall are still being discussed among scientists of different disciplines and backgrounds,” said Dr. David Ellison, lead author of the study. “But the direct relevance of trees and forests for protecting and intensifying the hydrologic cycle, associated cooling, and the sharing of atmospheric moisture with downwind locations is beyond reasonable doubt.”

Climate Change, Conservation, Environmental Hazards, Green, Nature

Climate Change is Already Threatening Some Species

Polar bear walking near water
Climate change is affecting endangered animals even more than we might think. Image: Shutterstock

Often, when we talk about climate change, we talk about the future, about how it’s going to affect the world. But more and more, we’re realizing that it already is affecting the world, that it is no longer a “future threat” but a very real, very current problem. And part of that problem is climate change.

There are currently 873 species of mammals and 1,272 species of birds listed as threatened, but of those, only 7% of mammals and 4% of birds are considered “threatened by climate change and severe weather.” However, a recent study by researchers from the University of Queensland and the Wildlife Conservation Society has found that as much as half of those mammals and a quarter of the birds “have already responded negatively to climate change.” This means that those species, such as the mountain gorilla, will have an even greater chance of being negatively affected by future changes.

The problem is that we aren’t seeing enough studies of animals, already classified as threatened or not, that take climate change into effect.

Climate change’s effect on animals isn’t anything new to us, even if previous studies have been few and far between. Back in 2014, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was already warning us that many animals were migrating further north or south toward the water in an effort to survive catastrophic changes to their natural habitats. Only the truly flexible species will be able to make it through as habitats shift and temperatures fluctuate.

Still, these studies might not be all doom and gloom. While the threats posed to these species are very real (and likely to get worse), knowing that these problems exist allows us to start addressing them. And knowing that climate change is already negatively affecting at least some species might make it easier to motivate people to care about climate change as something that’s happening right now…something we have a chance to deter, if not stop entirely.