Opinion piece in Grist gets it wrong about fishing

© 2011 Joshua Stark

There are few controversies in the environmentalist world quite like fishing.  Most folks agree that most recreational (though I hate that term) fishing is a great way for children to connect directly to the wild in a special way, a way that often begins a lifetime of love and appreciation for the outdoors; fishing is often our gateway.  Really, only the animal rights groups have a problem with recreational and subsistence fishing, and as I've pointed out before, "animal rights" is not environmentalism.

But, then there is "commercial fishing", that ugly moniker attached to images of mutilated sharks, denuded seascapes, and "Whale Wars".

Yet, there is more to commercial fishing than many give credit.  Commercial fishing, when done right, is a powerful way for many people to connect to the wild, through their food.  In fact, commercial fishing is the only major food market left with a direct connection to and need for healthy wild places.  And many organizations and fishing groups have tried to make commercial fishing an ecologically viable enterprise, especially in the past couple of decades, and especially in California. 

Also, consider commercial fishing's impact to wildness vs. farming's impact.  As one fisheries biologist points out, commercial fishing, at its worst, impacts about 30% of habitat, while agriculture, at its best, still impacts very nearly 100%, by completely altering landscapes. 

And the importance of having a group of people whose very livelihoods are affected by the health of ecosystems is vital to ensuring that those same ecosystems have a voice in our democratic systems.

I'm not defending all commercial fishing, but I am arguing that it is a powerful connection to a wild place that would suffer worse without that connection.

This is why I'm disappointed in a recent opinion piece in Grist Magazine titled the, "Sustainable Seafood Myth".  I can expect Grist to go over the top on a typical day, though I am a fan of their reporting and suffer the flash to get to the meat of their stories, but this one didn't have much meat.

Grist uses the very real dangers associated with global warming to pooh-pooh Whole Foods' (and others') attempts to provide real information to consumers about the sustainability of various fish.  Instead of asking Whole Foods why they might still sell fish with a low sustainability rating (I don't know if they do), or simply pointing out that the sustainability rating should include carbon emissions, the piece makes wild claims like, "Sadly, in the era of climate crisis, overfishing and other forms of unsustainable harvest are the least of our problems."

First of all, the least of our problems are still problems.  Second, if it's in the "problems" category, there is no reason to attack a solution.  Third, it may be the least of our problems, but it ain't the least of fish's problems.

The author of the piece does recommend that sustainability rating systems include carbon footprints, but he then wades into deeper waters with an over-simplified and risky solution:

"...dedicating portions of the ocean to farming -- while reserving large swaths for marine conservation parks. These farms need to be small and decentralized. Industrial aquaculture farms have rightly been branded as large-scale polluters producing low-quality food. Simply replacing destructive fishing fleets with destructive global fish farms will only hasten the demise of our oceans. Guided by principles of sustainability, our shorelines of the future can be dotted with organic fish farms servicing local communities."

Ah.  So, the author (an oyster farmer) sees a solution in ending our connection to the wild and replacing it with seafood only for those wealthy enough to live right next to the sea... got it.

This excerpt is so damaging on so many levels, and so completely dumbs-down so many ideas, that it becomes destructive to the greater good.  First, "marine conservation parks" can be problematic, as they often only disallow fishing, but allow for water pollution and resource extraction, both of which come with far larger carbon footprints and other ecological impacts than well-regulated fishing.

Second, dedicating portions of the ocean to farming is the same thing as saying "completely denuding wild landscapes from portions of the ocean and replacing them completely with man-made operations".  Third, not all large-scale aquaculture is bad - in fact, fully enclosed, freshwater systems are very important alternatives that remove impacts on the oceans and can provide local fish to inland consumers who aren't blessed with trust funds. 

Shorelines and oceans aren't homogenous, but pretending that one stretch of beach is the same as another is detrimental to an understanding of fish, habitats, and fishing.  The same spot that will make a great oyster farm (for example) is very often the very same spot that makes great wild habitat for varieties of species.

Last, fish farming in ocean waters is problematic, not only because of the damage it has on wild systems, but because of the political economy.  Fish farms can scale up and pressure markets and governments quickly, and without commercial fishing operations who need healthy ecosystems, there will be little pressure to keep farms' impacts in check through regulation.  (This is true for any industry:  hence, the "well-regulated" label.)

Commercial fishing has a horrible history, but there are proven ways to operate a well-regulated system that helps the environment - just think of the salmon folks fighting today to recover salmon habitat inland throughout the Pacific Northwest and California.  And the commercial folks' check on  aquaculture is vital to a well-regulated market.  We would be far worse off if we lost yet another connection to our wild oceans.

At the end of the piece, we are tasked to, "reimagine our waters as agrarian eco-spaces designed to curb seafood's carbon footprint..."  To which I say no, thank you.  I prefer not to "imagine" my waters as anything. I prefer to understand my waters as they are, and to understand and improve my relationship with them.  I do not wish to pretend that just by ending commercial fishing they will no longer suffer from global warming.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I am a board member of SalmonAid.)

The Vatican takes a stand on climate change

© 2011 Joshua Stark

The Catholic Church recently published a report from its scientific arm - a non-denominational organization, and one of the oldest scientific bodies on Earth - showing its concern over the indisputable fact of mountain glaciers retreating all over the world. 

From the introduction:

"We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious
and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused
by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other
land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without
delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of
climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain
glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home.
By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility,
we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet
blessed with the gift of life.

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet
receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink
as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect
the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant
us this wish."

The future of federal climate change work

© 2011 Joshua Stark

Though I do not consider myself an expert, I have had the honor of advocating for efforts to fight climate change on-and-off for the past four years.  I do have a perspective that is not tainted by decades in the trenches, political or financial connections to powerful people with a dog in the fight, or even a personal history of traditional environmentalism, and with that in mind, and considering this is a new year with new challenges and government leadership, I'd like to offer some general suggestions for folks looking to get our governments to work fixing climate change:

1)  Don't spend a dime on getting any kind of positive climate change legislation passed in the House of Representatives

All of our House efforts need to go to supporting only the staunchest allies in climate change, and in fighting the horrific legislation that will come out of a House leadership, especially the Natural Resources Committee Chair who has specifically singled out the EPA's Supreme Court-mandated regulation of greenhouse gasses.

2)  Turn some federal energies to the EPA

For the past ___ years (fill in the blank with the number of years you've been working on climate change legislation), the federal legislature has refused to acknowledge carbon as a pollutant.  Meanwhile, due to a Supreme Court decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is mandated to regulate carbon as precisely that.  Focus all your efforts on EPA decisions about carbon.  My specific recommendation?  Look at the "cumulative impacts" condition that the EPA (and other federal agencies) must address through NEPA (the National Environmental Protection Act).  It is reasonable to assume that any government activity resulting in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere may exceed the cumulative impact threshold for carbon in the atmosphere.  At the least, this should cause the EPA to pick a number, and it may effectively eliminate Environmental Assessments (a common shortcut in NEPA) for a time, as agencies are forced to determine their carbon footprint per project.  The idea should be to get the EPA to enact actual regulatory measures.  We have frightened and imagined ourselves out of straight regulation, believing that we need a consensus in the House and Senate before we can accomplish anything.  But we can't achieve a system-wide trust in regulations unless we have regulatory agencies willing to regulate.  The environmental communities can help rebuild that trust by going to the EPA to get the ball rolling. 

Bottom line:  Don't waste time on the House and Senate.  Focus on where you have leverage.

3)  Turn the rest of your federal energies to get training from your state-level allies and advocates, to improve state and regional climate change efforts

Two regions are putting in place carbon prices and markets, and California has already set limits, determined many of its industries' carbon emissions, and begun enforcement of carbon-cutting programs.  Get on board here, and lobby and cajole other states to sign on to regional efforts.  I've been beat over the head with the "don't let the perfect get in the way of the good", and I've got one in response:  Don't let the dream of being in the room when the President signs carbon-capping legislation get in the way of actually cutting carbon emissions.  The current regional proposals are far from perfect, but if everybody were fighting on those fronts to improve them, we'd have better proposals and actions. 

It all comes down to this:  While the federal legislature fiddles, the executive has been ordered by the judiciary to regulate carbon.  Meanwhile, state and regional efforts are actually debating the numbers - tons of greenhouse gasses, allocation of allowances, etc. - that will determine the course of action in just a few months.  Many advocates who've been working on state and regional carbon regulations now have tremendous knowledge concerning actual working numbers.  The federal advocates can really learn from their knowledge and experience, and can bring extra weight to bear on getting the best possible decisions out of local and state policymakers. 

In California, for example, we have a new governor who is probably much more amenable to reading the vital economic analysis of our state's proposed carbon allowance trading program.  Considering CARB's recent decision, its staff still believes itself too vulnerable to follow the economically (and frankly, ethically) preferable action of auctioning allowances right away.  However, we probably have a Governor now who understands that this is really a carbon fee, and if we give away allowances, then we hand over fee collection to the companies who pollute the most, and this isn't right.  The environmental communities need to let the Governor know, every day, that there are better ways to cut carbon emissions, and every day spent in the House of Representatives is a day not spent in the Governor's office. 

It is time for the environmental communities to consider where the work is being accomplished, and focus our energies there.

Why does Bjorn Lomborg get paid to publish and I have to do mine for free?

© 2011 Joshua Stark

I had decided a long time ago not to do a post on Mr. Lomborg, what with my desire to stay away from popular topics...

Really, I felt (and still do) that he doesn't have much credibility concerning the things he discusses.  For years, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Lomborg was the poster boy for deniers of human-caused climate change.  Since I felt (and still do) that the science proving human-caused global warming was pretty solid, and that a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager fits nicely into the notion, I decided that this fellow didn't need any publicity I would give him.

Now, of course, he's changed his tune, and argues that we must do something about human-caused climate change.  So he's now entered the 1990's in terms of scientific advances; good for him.  But I wasn't going to spend my time on him, except that this time he tries to stray into planning, efficiency arguments, and science, and he falls so flat (without any real attacks on his claims) that I've got to clear the air. 

Mr. Lomborg, in his piece, argues that efficiency actually worsens our ability to fight climate change, and he does so by completely misrepresenting the rebound effect (where efficiency gains lead to people increasing consumption).
Fortunately, one doesn't have to do any research to debunk Mr. Lomborg's claim, as he effectively counters his own conclusions with the data he uses as example.  So without further ado, Lomborg claims, in his own words:
  From this:
"Back in the early 1970s, the average American expended roughly 70 million British thermal units per year to heat, cool, and power his or her home. Since then, of course, we have made great strides in energy efficiency. As the Washington Post recently reported, dishwashers now use 45 percent less power than they did two decades ago, and refrigerators 51 percent less. So how much energy do Americans use in their homes today? On a per capita basis, the figure is roughly what it was 40 years ago: 70 million BTUs."
  And this:
"the proportion of resources that we expend on lighting has remained virtually unchanged for the past three centuries, at about 0.72 percent of gross domestic product. As Saunders and his colleagues observe in their journal article, "This was the case in the UK in 1700, is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies.""
  To this:
"the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it."

I have one simple question for Mr. Lomborg:

Does "greater than" = "nearly equal to"?

There are more mistakes in his article... in fact, I was pretty amazed at his ability to throw together so many mistakes in such a small space.

Ultimately, readers should ask what Mr. Lomborg was attempting in his article.  His trite little ending, encouraging people to get their leaders to think up good ideas, is completely uninspired and silly, considering this is supposed to be a tremendous scientific mind at work trying to help fix climate change.  The only lesson this article illustrated to me is that aggressive exaggeration gets published, regardless of the logic, even when a person's popularity and "credibility" came from a background in science.

Perhaps he was more helpful when he pretended he didn't believe in human-caused climate change.  We look worse having him as a "cheerleader."

Women and Climate

© 2010

Grist reports that the 19-member panel tasked with saving the Earth from our bad choices by looking for potential revenue sources to help mitigate climate change impacts in poor countries will include exactly zero women.

Do I really think that having an equal number of women on the board will have a positive impact on its success? I do.

In addition to that belief, the authors note that women bear a disproportionate burden of climate change impacts.

Take a couple of minutes and read the article. It's short, but provides some striking claims. Then, meet back here and let's talk about it!

Offsets Bad!

© 2010 Joshua Stark

My favorite weekday radio program, Marketplace, reports on offset problems in Brazil. This report adds another problem to the "offsets" concept.

First, a quick definition of "offsets". In a carbon pricing mechanism, government first caps the total amount of carbon allowed, then allows a price to be set for the remaining carbon. In it's most simple and fairest form, this price is set through a government auction of the carbon permits. An offset is a project or action that a company can take that will pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere (called "sequestering") as it is polluting beyond its permits.
flx1247rg
Theoretically, a company would buy a certain number of carbon permits, and if it couldn't cut its carbon pollution to a level below its permits, it would then purchase something that would sequester the carbon above its permitted level.

Examples of carbon offset projects include forests and solar panel projects that replace fossil-fuel generation.

I have written about my dislike of offset projects (look here, for example), and I think this post's title sums up my thoughts pretty succinctly. It isn't the idea in and of itself that offends, but the downstream potential for slacking-off in monitoring its effectiveness, the potential for gaming an already-complex system, and the impacts on co-pollutants that bothered me so much.

A few months ago, my wife asked another vital question: What will these incursions on wildlands have on the people who live there? She had her doubts about these projects, too. Marketplace gave one answer, and you can add that problem to my list of reasons to disapprove of offsets.

Offsets highlight a major problem in our political system: regulatory oversight, both by actual regulators, and also by non-governmental entities. Government regulatory oversight, especially around politically hostile topics like the environment, is often, ironically, irregular. Political powers shift, sometimes within the same administration, and leadership positions within regulatory agencies are often seen as rungs on a ladder, rather than places where permanence and stability are desired.

In addition, the hard slog of maintaining a regular presence at agency meetings and in regards to regulatory measures is very difficult for private individuals and non-profit organizations. The Next Big Bill in the legislature or Congress is far sexier to both media and donors, and nonprofits, like everybody else, are constantly forced to reconcile their hours with their budgets.

Offsets add problems and complications to any carbon-capping mechanism we choose. If international, how can we trust in compliance? If national, how can we trust in regulatory consistency? Plus, if the forests are seen as carbon stands rather than complex systems, how will the ensuing piles of money impact other services we get from these places? (I've written about the impact of pricing carbon benefits in European forests here.)

A major problem the environmental justice community has with carbon offsets concerns major polluters. It so happens that the biggest carbon polluters are also the biggest emitters of other pollution, pollution much more harmful to folks adjacent to the facilities. These companies will also have the hardest time curbing their carbon emissions, and will lean on the offset crutch, buying rights to an Amazon rainforest, instead of installing pollution-reduction equipment at home.

And now we are finding out that the long-term implications for carbon offset projects in that same rainforest can also negatively impact folks living in them.

Offsets bad!

Climate Change impacts to hunting and fishing

© 2010 Joshua Stark

At first I thought the idea I'm going to post here would make me look incredibly slow - maybe it does - but after I did a little googling, I've realized that, with few exceptions, we must all be slow.
flx1247rg
I thought, "gee, I wonder if anybody has done any work on the impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing, not just as pastimes or endeavors, but also to the industries that serve them, and to the habitats, animals, and folks that these pastimes protect."

After poking around a bit, I found two good websites that start this discussion. One, of course, comes from the National Wildlife Federation: Target Global Warming (http://www.targetglobalwarming.org/). This is a beautifully designed website with some amazing photos, and is a good place to start when you want to find out about potential global warming impacts on habitats and animals. However, I found no forecasts on the impacts to industries, or to hunting and fishing as ways of life, and links to their information take you back to NWF articles and publications about more general impacts. That is fine, but it would be nice to see some more hunting- or fishing-focused stuff.

The second website, Season's End (http://www.seasonsend.org/), is the kickoff of the book by the same name, edited by staff at the Bipartisan Policy Center. BPC is an organization founded by Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, and George Mitchell. This is THE place for information on the potential impacts of climate change to hunting and fishing. The book is free on the website as a download (8 MB), the site is also beautifully designed, and the information is great. They break down impacts by game (waterfowl, big game, etc.), and you can click on links that give you a little bit of information and a taste of what the book offers. For example, they state that the Prairie Pothole region may see a 90% loss in its wetlands, and the Chenier Plain Marshes of Louisiana may lose 99% of its waterfowl.

My one complaint is that their blog hasn't been updated since July of 2009.

Season's End is supported by a number of well-known hunting organizations - perhaps you are a member of one - and is well worth a look. So is NWF's site.

If you tend not to believe in the science of human-cause global warming, just remember that conservation is good in and of itself. Also, please reconsider your position by reading, especially since every outdoors organization that I know of, regardless of political affiliation, is concerned about it and trying to educate and help solve it as a problem.

President Obama suggesting Cap & Trade may be separated from Energy Bill

© 2010 Joshua Stark

The NY Times reports that Obama is suggesting that the only way for the energy bill to get passed is if C&T is separated from it, and then passed later, on its own.

It won't. Pass on its own, that is.
flx1247rg
So, we can continue to pay for carbon damages on the back end, through climate change, rather than on the front-end, and we can continue to subsidize carbon emissions in their market competition with non-carbon emitting energy practices and conservation.

Now, I'm no fan of the current proposal. But, considering the changing political climate around carbon, and the (contrived) exhaustion politicians get when they don't get something passed the first time, this is not good news for actual carbon reductions, or for alternative decisions for folks to have.

The feds keep slip sliding away, pushed, it would appear, by big ag. interests. Take a look at the folks most worried about cap & trade in the Senate, and ask what industries might be influencing their decisions.

Meanwhile, farmers continue to be beholden to large ag. industry, hamstrung by infertile seeds and feedlots, carbon-heavy institutions that profits only a few huge corporations.

Meanwhile, California is moving forward with its Cap & Trade proposal. Please, please, Air Resources Board, read and incorporate the recommendations on cap & trade made by some of the best minds in environmental economics in their report to you, especially the parts about the 100% auction and revenue directly to Californians.

Hello! Hunting organizations, sign up!

© 2010 Joshua Stark

To elaborate on a passing reference I made two blogs earlier, the biggest threat to Southern California's wild lands is development, and more specifically, the development of solar thermal facilities and their subsequent energy corridors.
flx1247rg
In this light, Senator Feinstein has authored a bill, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, that would set aside more land for protection. You can read a good summary of the bill here at the Senator's website.

Now, the NRA-ILA is fighting hard to maintain hunting in Mojave National Preserve, but where are they in supporting this issue? The reason I ask is because, like the Ca. Desert Protection Act of 1994, it specifically supports hunting as an activity in much of the lands it is attempting to protect.

At the very least, let's see some hunting groups signing on, because I know full-well that the NRA isn't a hunting organization.

Here's a list of supporters:

• The California Wilderness Coalition
• The Wildlands Conservancy
• The Wilderness Society
• The National Parks Conservation Association
• Friends of the River
• Campaign for America's Wilderness
• Cogentrix Energy
• Edison International (parent company of Southern California Edison)
• Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve
• Friends of the Desert Mountains
• Mojave Desert Land Trust
• Desert Protective Council
• Amargosa Conservancy
• Death Valley Conservancy
• Cities of Barstow, Desert Hot Springs, Hesperia, Indio, Palm Springs, San Bernardino and Yucaipa
• Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley
• San Bernardino County Supervisor Neil Derry
• Imperial County Supervisor Wally Leimgruber
• Coachella Valley Association of Governments
• SummerTree Institute
• Route 66 Preservation Foundation

Show me one hunting group there...

This bill also straddles the constituent fence, as it were, by both adding wilderness land and including space for OHV use. Neither side in that battle will probably be happy in public, but the long-term effects of having the federal legislation specifically refer to both of them will help both groups.

Come on, hunters, this is something to support!

Special thanks to Defenders of Wildlife for bringing this to my attention.