Is Obama Ready to Put His Weight Behind an Alternative Energy Bill?

For months, bloggers and news organizations have weighed in (and in and in) on whether or not Obama's clout is required to move the climate bill out of limbo, and whether he and his aids are willing to put some of the presidents remaining political capital on the line for it. Early this morning, Obama seemed ready to answer that question. In a statement issued online to the millions who backed his presidential bid, the president asked his network to lend their names to a campaign to change the way America produces and consumes its energy. Later, in a speech he gave while visiting oil soaked Mississippi, Obama reiterated his support for an alternative energy bill: "Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk."

This is all encouraging news, but it still doesn't tell us if Obama is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He's passed a healthcare bill, he's averted the greatest monetary crisis since the great depression, and he's about to preside over a historic (if incomplete) financial reform bill. Will he have anything left for the environment? Looks like we'll have to wait and see.

UPDATE -- Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

Well, there we have it. As predicted, the Japanese succeeded in convincing enough countries to do an about face on protecting the porbeagle shark to bring that ban up for another vote and defeat it. That means that all eleven oceanic species up for CITES protection -- bluefin tuna, eight species of shark (not four as I posted yesterday, apparently they are listing each species of hammerhead separately) and two species of coral -- have been refused that protection.

Major freaking bummer.

Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

What a crappy month to be an animal.

Last week the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) began in the city of Doha, Qatar. Basically, every two and a half years nations from all over the world send representatives to this meeting with the express aim of regulating international trade in endangered species. This year, the species up for protection included bluefin tuna, sharks, and polar bears.

Now, no one expected winning protections for all these species at the convention was going to be easy -- there are many countries around the world, big and small, who benefit from this trade. Still, many people, myself included, had hope that at least a few of these species might receive the protection they so clearly need. The actual result? A big FU to endangered species.

First came the vote on tuna. Sponsored by the US and Monaco, most observers expected this to be the toughest of the protections to actually achieve -- Japan consumes massive quantities of bluefin (Japan alone imports 80% of all the bluefin caught in the Atlantic) and many African countries bordering the Atlantic make money by either selling bluefin directly to Japan or selling the rights for Japanese boats to fish in their waters. At the end of the day, this bloc has some serious pull (according to the CITES charter, all bans require a 2/3 majority to pass). Despite the fact that bluefin stocks are down more than 70% from their 1957 levels, this ban was, disappointingly but not unexpectedly, shot down.

Next up was a ban on the trade four different species of sharks: scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitetips, porbeagles and spiny dogfish sharks. Again, the big opponents of this bill were Asian countries, namely China and Japan, where sharkfin soup is still a delicacy. Shark fins are generally obtained by catching a shark, cutting off it's fin, and then just tossing the now debilitated shark back into the ocean where it slowly sinks to the bottom and drowns. Say what you will about American farming techniques (and I've said PLENTY), there are few things more cruel and wasteful than shark finning.

Each of these species were voted on in a separate bill. While all of the bills received majority backing, only the bill regulating porbeagle sharks was able to reach the 2/3 majority threshold, and then by only the slimmest of margins. As for this one glimmer of hope, backroom negotiations are already under way -- China and Japan hope to swing enough votes in their direction to bring this bill up for another vote before the week is out and overturn the decision.

Last on the docket: the polar bear. Honestly -- what kind of a person do you have to be to not want to save the POLAR BEAR? This majestic creature is currently under enormous strain, and most observers agree that with the additional pressure of global warming, polar bears could very conceivably disappear in the wild within the next century. So clearly, the world managed to agree that we could ban the sale of polar bear parts and skins right?

Nope, it turns out the world couldn't do that either. We can't even agree not to kill and sell pieces of the mascot for global waring endangerment. Sorry endangered animals; you didn't do to well at this conference. Better luck in two and a half years.

Image provided by flickrfavorites

Fish to Receive Protection at Some Undetermined Future Date

Now that I got you to click through to the whole article, let me take a step back; not in substance (the title is technically true) but in tone. In spite of the fact that the decision I am referring to really won't do anything what-so-ever for our current bankrupt fisheries, it is still a very important step. That decision is the announcement yesterday by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke to prohibit the expansion of commercial fishing in federal Arctic waters until researchers gather sufficient information on fish and the Arctic marine environment to prevent adverse impacts of commercial harvesting activity on the ecosystem.

That may sound a bit wonky, so let me break it down. Basically, we all know that the ice caps are slowly melting. We know that there is currently a race in which all nations with land bordering the arctic are staking claims to the various natural resources believed to be locked up underneath all that ice. We also know that there is currently a boatload (read: many many boatloads, pun intended) of money being made by large fishing companies around the world, and that these same fishing practices are driving our fish populations and ocean ecosystems to near collapse. What you (dear reader) may not know is that when it comes to sustainable fishery management, the US is actually (for once!) a real thought leader, and that the announcement above is a reflection of that. Essentially, the US just announced that it will absolutely prohibit any commercial fishing in US arctic waters until AFTER the science dictates the most sustainable way to go about it.

The plan approved will prohibit commercial fishing in a huge swath of American waters in the Arctic that have never been fished and that nobody currently wants to fish (hence the snark in my title). HOWEVER, in reality this is a very smart move because the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change will someday make the area more accessible and more commercially more attractive, not just to oil interests, but to fishing interests as well.

The plan was developed by environmentalists and the Marine Conservation Alliance, the same group that turned Alaska from a sustainable fishing nightmare in the and 50's into the model of sustainability it is today. (As I said before, fishery management is one of the few environmental areas where the US is really a thought leader: Alaska is currently recognized as one of the worlds leading sustainable fisheries and even has a theory of fishery management named after it. More on this in another post).

In spite of this announcement, the reality is that no one knows where the borders may eventually be drawn in the arctic so there is a good chance that at least some, if not all, of the area the US wishes to protect may not be within our jurisdiction. However, this announcement is symbolic in addition to practical -- the US has signaled (finally!) that it is willing to engage unilaterally in a sustainability agreement - something it has avoided doing elsewhere, most notably on climate change itself. Hopefully, this announcement will send a signal to the other Arctic nations -- including Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark-- that while there may be an economic opportunity for fishing newly uncovered areas of ocean, it must be done in a sustainable way.

Top image provided by Alan Vernon

Why We Need to Start Eating Lionfish

Apparently, thousands of lionfish have taken over large swaths of Florida's pristine coasts, decimating entire populations of native fish and corals. According to The Times Online:

"When Hurricane Andrew hit Florida in 1992, no one gave much thought to the six exotic lionfish that spilt into Biscayne Bay as the storm smashed their Miami waterfront aquarium.

Sixteen years later, thousands of the fish are wreaking havoc off America 's east coast, leading a potentially catastrophic marine invasion.

The highly poisonous hunter-killer, which is normally found in the Pacific and Indian Oceans , is the first non-native fish to establish itself in the Atlantic, where it is eating its way through other species faster than they can breed.

“They are eating almost anything that fits in their mouths,” said Lad Akins, director of special projects for the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (Reef). There could be, he added, “a severe impact across our entire marine ecosystem.”

With its needle-sharp spines and red and white stripes, the lionfish's hunting prowess is enhanced by the fact that other fish find them so baffling. “They kind of resemble a big clump of seaweed. Native fish don't see them as predators, or even as other fish,” said Mark Hixon, a coral reef ecology expert at Oregon State University. “That allows them to approach other fish and just slurp them up.”

The Hurricane Andrew Six are believed to be among several of the lionfish army's founding fathers. Private aquarium owners may have also dumped lionfish in the sea over the years, compounding their spread along the eastern seaboard and into the Caribbean. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that numbers in some areas have risen from 22 per hectare (12,000 sq yards) in 2004 to 200 per hectare in 2008.

“Lionfish are eating their way through the reefs like a plague of locusts,” said Dr Hixon. “This may well become the most devastating marine invasion in history.”

Scientists are looking at why the lionfish is reproducing more rapidly in the Atlantic than in its native waters, hoping to identify a predator to keep numbers in check.

Reef is working on another solution: educating fishermen in how to catch them, and restaurants in how to prepare and serve them. “Lionfish are very edible,” said Mr Akins. “In fact, they are quite delicious.”"

Apart from the fact that several of the above passages are slightly more hilarious than any real journalist article has the right to be, this is definitely a problem. I happen to love lionfish - I think they look great in tanks, and I wouldn't mind at all running into a couple the next time I hit up the Florida Keys on a dive. I also happen to love eating fish. According to this article, I can have my fish and eat it too. I like the sound of that.

Wonder if they are as deliciously toxic as fugu.

Images provided by jayhem and