By restoring ecosystems, conservationists can help the land sequester carbon. But it’s still no substitute for drastically cutting emissions.
THE BIGGEST HINT nature ever gave humanity was when it sequestered fossil fuels underground, locking their carbon away from the atmosphere. Only rarely, like when a massive volcano fires a layer of coal into the sky, does that carbon escape its confines to dramatically warm the planet.
But such catastrophes hint at a powerful weapon for fighting climate change: Let nature do its carbon-sequestering thing. By restoring forests and wetlands, humanity can bolster the natural processes that trap atmospheric carbon in vegetation. As long as it all doesn’t catch on fire (or a volcano doesn’t blow it up), such “nature-based solutions,” as climate scientists call them, can help slow global warming.
Earlier this month, scientists put a number on how much of a reduction in global heating these solutions might buy us. Writing in the journal Nature, they used a previous calculation of how much carbon such campaigns could sequester and married that with global warming scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Basically, they tallied how much of a temperature change could be staved off by keeping this amount of carbon out of the atmosphere.
They found that with an ambitious yet realistic worldwide campaign, humanity might reduce peak warming by 0.1 degrees Celsius under a scenario that assumes a 1.5-degree rise in global temperatures by the year 2055. In a scenario assuming a 2-degree rise by 2085, the savings would be 0.3 degrees. That might not sound like much, in the grand scheme of things. But because nature-based solutions keep on sequestering carbon as long as those habitats remain healthy, in that 1.5-degree scenario we’d actually shave off 0.4 degrees of warming by the year 2100. And that’s a significant difference.
“What we found—which is crucial—is that after that, it continues acting, and [nature-based solutions] have this really important role in cooling our planet up to the end of the century and beyond,” says ecosystems scientist Cécile Girardin of the University of Oxford, the lead author on the paper describing the work. “We’re absolutely not saying nature-based solutions are the solution for climate change. That’s not what the message here is. It’s just a more realistic view of what they can achieve and how we can achieve it.”
So what do these solutions look like? Generally speaking, they aim to both sequester carbon and produce some additional social or ecological benefit.
Scientists have proposed the first steps towards a united global plan to save our oceans, for the sake of human health. The paper highlights 35 steps for action by different groups and individuals, including policy-makers, businesses, and individual citizens.
“We can all play our part and contribute to a healthier ocean and our own health,” says Sam Dupont, marine researcher at the University of Gothenburg, and one of the scientists behind the paper.
Focus on human health
An interdisciplinary European collaboration with researchers from nine different countries, including Sam Dupont from the University of Gothenburg, has outlined the initial steps to protect the largest connected ecosystem on Earth: Our ocean. In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health the researchers call for the current UN Ocean Decade to remind us that ocean health is intricately linked to human health.
“Money is classically used to valuate marine ecosystem services, giving the wrong impression that we can compensate the damages caused by human activity by paying for the costs. However, money cannot buy health and if we truly want to drive actions to protect the Ocean, it is time to change currency and focus on human health,” says Sam Dupont, marine researcher at the University of Gothenburg.
List of 35 steps
The paper suggests a list of possible first steps to a wide range of groups, such as policy-makers, businesses, tourism operators, and also individual citizens, who can influence ocean health, emphasising that holistic collaboration is essential to make an impact. For example:
Individual citizens can:
take part in ocean-based citizen science
participate in clean-up activities
encourage school projects on sustainability
Businesses can:
review their impact on ocean health
share best practice
review and act on the impacts of supply chain, waste, and other activities
Policy-makers can:
Include the interdependencies of environment and health in all policy development
Prioritize the work on awareness across different directorates
Listen to the researchers
The paper point to our huge reliance on our global ocean as a source of food and economic income internationally, as well as a precious resource that research shows benefit our mental and physical health.
The paper calls on planners, policy-makers and organisations to understand and share research into the links between ocean and human health, and to integrate this knowledge into policy.
“The devastating COVID-19 pandemic, climate and other environmental change, and the perilous state of our seas, have made clear that we share a single planet with a single global ocean. Our moral compass points to addressing the myriad threats and potential opportunities we encounter by protecting and providing for everyone, both rich and poor, while learning to sustain all ecosystems,” says first author Professor Lora Fleming, University of Exeter.
“Wherever you live, the Ocean has an impact on you. Wherever you live, you have an impact on the Ocean,” says Sam Dupont, marine researcher at the University of Gothenburg.
FACT
Read more about the 35 steps in the paper, entitled ‘The Ocean Decade— Opportunities for Oceans and Human Health Programs to Contribute to Public Health’, published in the American Journal of Public Health.
We at Global Ocean Health are thrilled to announce that we are now officially a nonprofit partner of 1% for the Planet. This laudable program represents a global network of businesses, individuals and nonprofit organizations tackling our planet’s most pressing environmental issues. Nonprofit partners are individually approved after a request from an existing network member.
In this case we’d like to give a big thank you to AlkaViva and its CEO Jay Hare, who brought us into the 1% for the Planet fold and are generously donating to support Global Ocean Health.
AlkaViva offers water filtration systems, ionizers, and tools to ensure healthy drinking water.
Here’s how 1% for the Planet works:
Join: Business members join the 1% network, committing to donate the equivalent of 1% of gross sales through a combination of monetary, in-kind and approved promotional support directly to environmental nonprofits.
Advise: 1% for the Planet provides partnership advising, pairing members with environmental nonprofits that align with their values, their brand and that make the biggest impact possible.
Donate: Business members support their nonprofit partner(s) directly—no intermediary necessary, forging meaningful relationships between partners.
Certify: 1% for the Planet certifies all member donations—legitimizing members’ commitment by reviewing and confirming sales and donation details annually.
It’s that easy—and also incredibly effective. To date, 1% program members have invested over $250 million in environmental nonprofit solutions through the 1% for the Planet network.
If you’re already a member of 1% for the Planet and would like to donate to our program — or are interested in becoming a member — let us know. We are also listed in their directory. You’ll be able to use their branding on your website and products, etc, as well as the assurance of knowing you’re working with pre-approved nonprofits that are doing work to improve the planet. You can choose multiple organizations to give to, or give exclusively.
On this episode of the Changing Waters podcast, host Brad Warren speaks with Dr. Greg Rau of Planetary Hydrogen about using ocean chemistry to capture and store CO2, the toolkit for ocean carbon removal options, and why Greg thinks that the abiotic, natural chemistry of the ocean shows particular promise. Planetary Hydrogen is upending the global hydrogen market with the first scalable, truly carbon-negative form of hydrogen production. Their process converts greenhouse gases directly out of the air into an antacid for oceans damaged by climate change. This Ocean Air Capture (OAC) system is the first to be able to both remove the carbon dioxide that is causing climate change and to restore ocean chemistry.
We lost a champion for salmon, for fishing people, and for the rivers and waters that produce fish for everyone. Thane Tienson, a founding board member of the National Fisheries Conservation Center, died in January. “Thane was a mentor, a brother, and a dear friend to me and to this organization. We were fortunate to work with him more than 25 years,” said GOH Director Brad Warren. His hometown newspaper, The Daily Astorian, published a fine tribute here.
Check out the lovely podcast Celebrating the Life and Legacy of Thane Tienson:
“Peter Ravella and Tyler Buckingham are joined by Brad Warren and Greg Tozian to celebrate Thane’s life and his legacy as a person and devoted advocate for the fisheries, environment, and the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest. Thane lived a remarkable life. He cared deeply about people, especially the little guys, and quietly and steadily devoted his professional skills to help others.
He was a renowned environmental lawyer, admired throughout the Pacific Northwest, and is remembered for his unfailing generosity, superb storytelling and indelible courage. Along with Brad, Thane co-founded the National Fisheries Conservation Center to protect PNW fisheries and together they created and co-hosted the Changing Waters podcast. Tozian, an author and playwright now in Tampa, was one of Thane’s dearest friends in Portland, Oregon.
Thane leaves a coastal legacy of advocacy for the voiceless, especially for the environment, fishermen, and Native Americans. The National Fisheries Conservation Center has set up a salmon conservation fund in Thane’s honor, which can be contributed to below. We’re going to miss Thane tremendously. He was a lovely man.”
The AIA is a department-wide effort to align USDA’s resources, programs, and research to provide farmers with the tools they need and to position American agriculture (including aquaculture) as a leader in the effort to meet the food, fiber, fuel, feed, and climate demands of the future. Specifically, USDA will stimulate innovation so that American agriculture can achieve the goal of increasing U.S. agricultural production by 40 percent while cutting the environmental footprint of U.S. agriculture in half by 2050.
They’d like to hear from you
Submit comments to our open Request for Information (RFI) on the most innovative technologies and practices that can be readily deployed across U.S. agriculture to meet our goal.
What’s killing west coast kelp and what we stand to lose.
In the latest episode of Changing Waters, Global Ocean Health’s Deputy Director Julia Sanders interviews kelp guru, Dr. Tom Mumford from the Friday Harbor Laboratories, University of Washington in Seattle. From Northern California to Southern Oregon, kelp is undergoing devastating losses, with 95% of kelp forests transformed into urchin barrens. Tom explains what happened and the miraculous benefits kelp provides as an ecosystem engineer and as a source for new scientific discoveries. From kelp-derived plastic you can eat, to wound care, from rediscovering how kelp can help farmers, to a critical contributor to biodiversity and marine food webs, there is much to be gained from kelp. Catch this episode of Changing Waters and open your eyes to a miracle macroalgae and the struggle to keep it thriving in changing ocean conditions.
Predicting the future is hard, unless you’ve got a crystal ball. In the basement of the Sitka Sound Science Center, a researcher has designed an experiment to study the future of ocean acidification, and her “crystal ball” is herring.
In Part 2 of KCAW’s two-part story on the 2020 herring season in Sitka Sound, Katherine Rose visits the lab of doctoral researcher Lauren Bell, as she explores possible futures for our oceans, and one of its most important resources.
Lauren Bell stands in about an inch of water, hovering over one of over twenty tanks in the basement of the Sitka Sound Science Center. The equipment used in this experiment is loud, and artificial sunlight bounces off Bell’s face as she tells me about the different types of seaweed she’s growing.
“The seaweed have grown a lot, they’ve been sitting in these conditions for about a month now,” she says.
Bell is a PhD student at UC Santa Cruz, and for the last couple of years she’s been doing her research in the center’s basement. She’s been trying to replicate what Southeast Alaska’s waters will look like when our grandchildren are getting up there in age.
“The projected change in Sitka Sound due to climate change, these added carbon emissions that are coming into our atmosphere, is that we’re going to see a gradual warming of our waters throughout the year,” she says. “At any time of the year they expect that within 80 years we’re going to see about a a 7 degree increase Fahrenheit in water temperature.” The excess carbon means nearby waters will become more acidic- the phenomenon known as “ocean acidification.”
Bell uses hot tub heaters to simulate future temperatures and then bubbles in carbon dioxide, creating acidified water. Then researchers can put any marine organism from Sitka Sound into those conditions and see how they respond. This spring, they looked at two different kinds of seaweed.
“We’re seeing how that impacts their growth, their productivity, how they photosynthesize in different light, their chemical defenses,” Bell says. Seaweed may or may not do better under some of these conditions. She doesn’t have results for this experiment yet- that takes a little while.
But last year, I visited her in the same basement, where she was monitoring herring roe to see how climate change could affect Pacific herring, and she now has the preliminary results from that study. Bell compared herring eggs from fertilization to hatch in four different conditions. She looked at how they were affected by warmer temperature, more acidic conditions, and water that was both warmer and more acidic. Bell found significant differences between herring eggs grown under those future conditions, and those grown in today’s conditions.
“It seemed like warming and acidification had very different impacts on actually what they looked like, how big they were and how well they could use their yolks,” Bell says. “And they had opposite effects.”
Bell says the fish that were exposed to only higher temperatures were shorter with larger yolks. And when you looked at ocean acidification they were actually longer with smaller yolks.
“So clearly these two different things that are stressing them out are stressing them out in different ways,” she says.
But here’s the really interesting thing: When Bell examined herring in future conditions, raised in both warmer temperatures and more acidic waters at the same time, the herring didn’t look much different from the herring raised in today’s conditions. Bell says it was like the two factors cancelled each other out. The fact that they were raised in harsher conditions was invisible to the naked eye…and the scale.
But when you looked at them at the molecular level, at the RNA to DNA ratio, Bell says the eggs raised under future conditions were compromised.
“It hides the fact that they’re stressed because they almost cancel each other out, but they’re still affected,” she says. “You look at their molecular level, they’re still not in good condition. That’s kind of terrifying. Like, okay, well maybe in the future look at them and we go ‘Oh, they’re fine, they look fine!’ but actually if you look at their protein expression they’re not functioning as well as they used to.”
Bell says she doesn’t know exactly why the two factors would cause this reaction, but the effects are hard to ignore.
“There’s something going on, they’re stressed out, and we need to be very careful about what we’re using to determine how stressed they are in order to say whether they’re going to be compromised in the future,” she says.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game doesn’t take the RNA:DNA ratio into account when it’s monitoring Sitka’s herring population, although it does keep tabs on average weight and age classes. ADF&G biologist Sherri Dressel says the department takes climate change into account in its model by keeping tabs on temperature.
“If temperature changes for a block of years and that affects herring survival, we are able to estimate a survival during blocks of similar temperature,” says Dressel. “If there is long-term climate change, and the temperature continues to go up, this model allows us to estimate estimates, frankly of temperature over time.”
She says modeling takes ocean acidification into very broad account because there haven’t been many studies of the effects of ocean acidification on Pacific herring. She’s excited to see Bell’s results.
“With research like Lauren is doing- when we learn sort of the trigger points, or how ocean acidification affects certain life stages, then we may be able to incorporate it more effectively and more narrowly.”
July 2nd, 2020, by Annie Hawkins, NationalFisherman.com
By now, you have probably seen quite a bit about offshore wind energy development planned for multiple regions of the United States. Fishermen and related businesses understandably run the gamut from bewildered (“That would never happen where I fish”), to overwhelmed (“There’s too much else going on to pay attention”), to laser-focused (“Leases are on my fishing grounds”). Here are seven key reasons you should get involved now.
1. Wind is big
Just a few years ago, pilot or demonstration projects were the name of the game in U.S. offshore wind energy, but times have changed. Qualified companies are large and almost exclusively foreign-owned. Many or most are linked to governments and national oil and gas companies. They work closely with highly active trade associations, embassies, and investment firms.
The projects themselves are no less extraordinary. Current generation offshore wind turbines are three times the height of the Statute of Liberty, and the blades are among the largest composite human-made structures in existence. In the North Sea, Denmark even plans to build two artificial islands to house the large amount of offshore wind infrastructure there and export the power.
2. Conflicts are complex
There are so many aspects of interactions between offshore wind and fisheries that will be better understood the more the fishing industry brings its knowledge to the table. Offshore wind projects are not simply a series of “sticks in the water.”
In deeper waters of the Pacific, Hawaii and Gulf of Maine, floating platforms will be connected through a series of suspended cables. Inter-array cables run between turbines, and scour protection and mattressing extend far beyond the bases. The southern New England lease area alone is 1,400 square miles in area and transit distances around installations could be significant if adequate safety corridors are not required.
When viewed in conjunction with strict fisheries management measures, everything from interactions with protected resources to changes in port traffic and access will affect fisheries in ways that those outside the industry aren’t well-suited to understand without your involvement.
3. Early projects will set precedent
Just because the current projects are not located in your area doesn’t mean they won’t affect you. A relatively small group of developers own the leases, and the federal permitting process is being tested and tweaked in real time.
Even states are following closely in the footsteps of others, as was recently seen when Massachusetts largely followed a Rhode Island-developed process for compensatory mitigation for the Vineyard Wind project. The developer stated its intent for that process to set precedent for every project in every state. What’s more, practices for fisheries mitigation and conflict reduction are often being imported wholesale from Europe, and we’re seeing that trend in everything from the regulatory process to Coast Guard recommendations to the army of wind consultants developing “stakeholder” outreach plans.
While that can be positive where early lessons have been learned, it can also interfere with a full ability to address location-specific issues. The key point: for better or worse, we’re not starting from ground zero.
4. The process is nothing like fisheries management
Those familiar with the regional fishery management councils are used to transparent, inclusive decision making: whether you love or hate the outcome, you know where to go to be heard. Regardless of BOEM’s ultimate jurisdiction, in practice offshore wind planning is highly decentralized among federal agencies, and most design decisions are driven through state processes that also include multiple agencies and private sector groups.
A lot happens behind closed doors before any public announcements, particularly when it comes to the studies that determine siting locations. Public comment periods are very specific to given project decisions and phases, but there has been no early, comprehensive review of fisheries impacts.
5. Projects aren’t necessarily isolated
Project siting isn’t limited to areas with large coastal electricity markets and adequate shoreside transmission capacity. It also is, or will be, used to power remote industrial uses too — even oil and gas platforms! Entire conferences in Europe have been convened for years around topics like co-location of other activities in offshore wind arrays and the role of oil and gas in offshore renewables.
There is also evidence that a surge in renewables could require expansions in seabed mining for battery and technology components and offshore gravel extraction for materials. Regional planning approaches have linked these uses and the broader offshore wind community with MPA designations and large-scale ocean exploration and research efforts. The fishing industry is historically not great at tracking and engaging in these efforts.
6. Limited research exists on effects to fish
Although offshore wind has been in Europe for over a decade, there are very few peer-reviewed studies on its impacts to fisheries and fish stocks (a 2019 NMFS meta-analysis showed only 11 in total). Much of the known research is generated by wind companies and consultants, and the data they collect is often considered proprietary.
A newly released comprehensive Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan was released in May 2020, with participation from leading experts, organizations, agencies, and tribes. Kelp are a foundation species critical to the health of marine biodiversity, including important commercial fisheries. Devastating losses have occurred on the West Coast since the advent of the Warm Blob, and continuing marine heat waves are taking their toll. Puget Sound is feeling the loss as well, and this newly released plan provides background information and a roadmap to kelp conservation and recovery.
Background information: Extensive bull kelp losses in South and Central Puget Sound, along with localized declines throughout the region, are cause for concern for the health and stability of bull kelp and understory kelp forests in Puget Sound. Kelp forests provide a variety of direct and indirect services for nearshore marine habitats and human coastal populations. Kelp forests of Puget Sound are ecosystem foundations, like coral reefs and tropical rainforests, which supports diverse and productive communities. Like eelgrass, kelp ecosystems provide critical habitat that increases overall biodiversity and are important for many economically valuable threatened salmon species and endangered rockfish.
Initiated in 2016 as part of the Puget Sound rockfish recovery effort, scientists and resource managers used a collaborative approach to review local science and policy relating to kelp forests. Coordinated action is needed to reverse downward trends in kelp populations by addressing both longstanding and emerging stressors. The Puget Sound Kelp Conservation and Recovery Plan provides a research and management framework for coordinated action to better understand kelp population dynamics and drivers of declines while also working to strengthen implementation and enforcement of protective measures. Successfully achieving kelp conservation and recovery will require a collaborative effort between our community of Tribes, managing entities, and stakeholders in Puget Sound.