The film did not get very much [...]]]> “The Cove,” a documentary film about the slaughter of dolphins for meat in Taiji, Japan, won best feature documentary at the 2010 Academy Awards. I wrote about the powerful film a few months ago [see: "The Cove, a Must See Documentary"], and was hoping that it would win.

The film did not get very much press coverage in Japan, and was only shown at two small engagements. The company that has bought the rights to the film is working on a version that hides the identity of the residents of Taiji (as the film was shot clandestinely and without permission.

It is too early to tell if the best documentary award will lead to widescale screenings of the film around Japan. Though with the Oscar buzz, hopefully more people in Japan will see the film and demand a stop to the slaughter. It is at least now getting some media attention.

Boyd Harnell, a journalist who has been reporting on this issue since 2005 said, “I am very happy the film won the award because it’s important that people know this type of (activity) is a health issue. The real issue is that fishermen (are) poisoning their own people.”

Again, the most troubling issue is that dolphin meat contains very high concentrations of methyl mercury, a known neurotoxin. Town officials from Taiji insist that the the dolphin hunt and eating dolphin meat is a cultural tradition.

This issue will continue to be in the media, as Animal Planet has greenlit a TV show tentatively titled “Dolphin Warriors” to pick up where the film left off. Apparently dolphins are no longer slaughtered in the cove, but in offshore nets away from prying eyes. The show will follow Rick O’Barry, who was the main star of “The Cove” as he continues his fight to help dolphins worldwide.

The US government is now officially supporting Monaco’s proposal to ban the trade of bluefin tuna in an effort to save the species from extinction, as announced by the [...]]]> As I reported a few weeks ago, the bluefin tuna may be listed as an endangered species at the next meeting of CITES in a few weeks.

The US government is now officially supporting Monaco’s proposal to ban the trade of bluefin tuna in an effort to save the species from extinction, as announced by the assistant Secretary of the Interior Tom Strickland:

“[In] light of the serious compliance problems that have plagued the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fishery and the fact that the 2010 quota level adopted by ICCAT is not as low as we believe is needed, the United States continues to have serious concerns about the long-term viability of either the fish or the fishery,” said Strickland.

Bluefin Tuna at Auction at the Tsukiji Fish Market, Tokyo. Source: Flickr user stevecadman.

Support for the ban has also come from the U.N., which has said that the bluefin meets the endangered species criteria. The European Commission has recommended that the EU support the ban, though no firm decision has been made. Powerful EU countries such as France and Spain have said that they would support the proposal but are asking for a 12 month delay in the ban to allow for more scientific information from ICCAT.

While the ban would only apply to international commercial trade of bluefin (domestic catch and sale would still be allowed), it would still make many of the commercial tuna boats unprofitable and force them to give up, according to Carl Safina, who directs the Blue Ocean Institute.

Bluefin tuna are prized fish that command stellar prices worldwide, mainly in Japan. Japan consumes 80% of the world’s bluefin tuna, and the government is vehemently opposed to the proposed ban in bluefin trade. The Japanese top fisheries negotiator said that were the bluefin to be listed as endangered, Japan would ignore the ban and leave its market open to continued imports.

Japan would be wise to support the ban, as if drastic measures to halt the rampant overfishing of the bluefin in the Atlantic are not taken, the fish would likely disappear from sushi menus in a few years anyway. Only then, it would permanent.

See also: Richard Ellis: Q & A

One of the largest issues with electronics appliances has to do with the waste they generate. [...]]]> Green products are on the rise, but what does that necessarily look like? This quick video from Scientific American offers a brief glimpse at some of the electronics products that were on display at the recent Greener Gadgets Conference 2010.

One of the largest issues with electronics appliances has to do with the waste they generate. While energy use is certainly a concern as well, as is packaging waste, waste from electronic appliances has risen dramatically in recent years due in part to our increasing use of computers, cell phones, and other personal devices. The life-cycle of these products, cell phones and computers in particular, is often only a few years at best, and they have been accumulating in warehouses and junkyards everywhere. More often than not, electronics are made with materials that contain heavy metals which can be toxic if exposed to the elements.

The exportation of waste overseas to countries in Africa and Asia (see video below), where they are stripped and scrapped for their metals, has arisen as an enormous environmental justice issue as the disposal of parts once the valuable components are retrieved is hazardous to workers and exposes people highly toxic contaminants. A number of organizations have sprung up in recent years to more closely regulate this hazardous trade.

You can ensure that you are not contributing to the growing stockpiles of e-waste by recycling your electronics responsibly after their useful life, and purchasing products with more environmentally sound components.

The Greener Gadgets Guide provides a Greener Electronics Guide that you can browse to find resources that will help you make smarter consumer decisions around the electronic products you use, and dispose of.

To learn more about E-Waste, watch the video from the Asia Society below.

(Photo: Creative Corps / Flickr)

That sense of peculiarity has returned to me these last couple months. First [...]]]> When I was younger I remember feeling the Loma Prieta quake while at an after-school program, and then upon returning home, heading next door to see my neighbor’s swimming pool still thrashing about. It was a peculiar sight.

(Photo: Creative Corps / Flickr)

That sense of peculiarity has returned to me these last couple months. First the earthquake in Haiti occurring a little less than a year after I was in the country assisting with a post disaster environmental assessment. And now the earthquake in Chile. Concepcion, Chile, the second largest city in the country that has sustained some of the most horrific damage, was my home for the better part of five months a number of years ago. The epicenter of the quake itself was disturbingly close to a remote stretch of coastline where my friends and I would retreat to camp and surf.

Both of these earthquakes are reminders that Earth is not a static place, but a changing and at times violent one. Some of those changes are gradual, and other times, as we have observed, they are sudden and severe. Both Haiti and Chile offer two examples of the latter case.

Chile and Haiti are two very different places. Chile is one of the most prosperous countries in South America, and Haiti, the poorest in the western hemisphere. Chile has a civil and social infrastructure and a strong government. Haiti’s government has been plagued by corruption, a lack of resources, and depends heavily on foreign assistance. However, if there are some lessons to be drawn from these events, we would be wise to take note.

One of the main lessons and distinctions I see between these two events has to do with building codes in each country. It is not the earthquake per se that leads to the most deaths, but the response of our built environment to these events that seals our fate. Or as a professor of mine once said, “earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings do.” The magnitude of the quake certainly determines the destructive potential, but aside from landslides and tsunamis, if you take buildings out of the equation, there would be relatively few deaths resulting from earthquakes. More often than not, poverty determines the readiness of the built environment.

Cinder block housing in Haiti

There are no building codes in Haiti, and the overwhelming majority of buildings, both commercial and residential, were built with stacked cinderblocks, cheap cement, poor support beams, and even sticks as side pillars – if they were even present at all (see a photo album on building practices in Port-au-Princes). Many buildings were stacked upon each other in this fashion, which is why so many of the buildings in Port-au-Prince essentially pancaked upon each other. Throw high density into the mix, and the death toll skyrockets.

Chile, on the other hand, does have building codes and even many of the more inexpensive dwellings are built to minimum structural standards so they are quake resistant. While many of the buildings in Chile have been very heavily damaged, they have not pancaked or collapsed to the same degree as they did in Haiti, and those structural requirements are likely a big reason for that. The significantly lower death tolls in Chile are no doubt a result of this as well.

Given how many cities across the world are vulnerable to earthquakes, it might be a good idea to at the very least make sure we are building to code, and not cutting corners with the materials we use. In areas where people are left with no choice but to do so anyway, as was the case in Haiti, we must ask ourselves whether we would rather help transform the building sector in these parts of the world, or bear witness to more tragedies like we have seen these past two months.

For more information:

Listen here for an analysis from the USGS: Lessons from Chile: Preparation is Key.

Andrew Revkin from the New York Times wrote a really good piece about the risk that cities around the world face from earthquakes, and his timing was eerily spot on.

And check out this graphic showing the distribution of earthquakes across the planet.

Earthquake distribution across the planet

For myself and countless other individuals, the science and empirical evidence confirming that climate change is happening is without question (the papers listed below are a good place to start should you find [...]]]> What do we know about Climate Change? A lot, actually. Have a look at this great video from Peter Sinclair of Greenman Studios:

For myself and countless other individuals, the science and empirical evidence confirming that climate change is happening is without question (the papers listed below are a good place to start should you find yourself skeptical of the notion that humans could possibly change the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans). But in mainstream media circles, a disproportionate amount of airtime is devoted to calling into question global warming. Why is this the case? I suspect it due to any combination of these factors:

1. A steady release of studies and journal articles confirming certain aspects of the causes and/or consequences of climate change does not make for hard-hitting news. You rarely see Wolf Blitzer lead off his newscast with the headline: “Study shows that downward longwave radiation has been increasing 2.2 watts per square meter per decade since 1978.” Climate change, unless there is video of a polar bear drowning or humans dying of thirst, does not fit into the 24-hour news environment.

2. The climate skeptic/denial community is both extremely well funded and organized.

3. Humans don’t seem to deal well psychologically with “slow drip” problems such as climate change.

Your thoughts on the matter?

Here are the studies that are cited in the video for your reading pleasure (though some may require a subscription):

Comparison of GHG isotopes:
- Ghosh, P. and W.A. Brand (2003) “Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research“. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 228: 1-33.

Changes in solar irradiance:
- Lean, J.L. (2010) “Cycles and trends in solar irradiance and climate“. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change.

Measurements of longwave radiation forcing:
- Harries, J.E. et al. (2001) “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997“. Nature 410: 355-357.
- Philipona, R. et al. (2004) “Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect“. Geophysical Research Letters 31.
- Wang, K. and S. Liang (2009) “Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008” Journal of Geophysical Research 114.

Meta-data analysis of changes in earth systems:
- Rosenzweig, C. et al. (2008) “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change“. Nature 453: 353-357. Also see the press release.

The earth’s energy imbalance:
- Hansen, J. et al. (2005) “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications“. Science 308: 1431-1435.

Global Sea Level Change, Measured at The Battery, NYC

Check out this [...]]]> China is rapidly becoming the world’s leading manufacturer of renewable energy products. China is now producing 35-45% of the planet’s photovoltaic (PV) solar panels, though over 95% of these panels are exported. The Chinese government is now looking into preferential pricing policies (such as a feed-in tariff) to promote solar energy deployment domestically.

Check out this informative video on solar photovoltaic (PV) production in China from Climateworks:

As this video notes, 60-70% of the jobs in solar energy are in the design and installation of solar systems, rather than manufacturing. There has been a lot of rhetoric from President Obama and others as of late about how the US is lagging behind green energy development.

Solar Photovoltaic Array in Death Valley, CA

But as a lot of green jobs will have to be local (installation, retrofitting, and maintenance), even if China dominates green tech manufacturing (as they are doing in most other sectors), why worry so much about it? As long as renewable energy deployment is encouraged (and the true cost of burning fossil fuels is accounted for), the US economy should realize most of the gains from the transition to a clean energy economy.

Thoughts?

A Massive Earthquake Rocks Chile – Why the Discrepancy in Damage and Death? The 8.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Chile yesterday was 501 times as powerful as the earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince, yet the death toll in Chile has been almost insignificant in comparison – >250,000 vs. 704 (at last count). The differences in geography, development, [...]]]>

A Massive Earthquake Rocks Chile – Why the Discrepancy in Damage and Death?
The 8.8 magnitude earthquake that struck Chile yesterday was 501 times as powerful as the earthquake that leveled Port-au-Prince, yet the death toll in Chile has been almost insignificant in comparison – >250,000 vs. 704 (at last count). The differences in geography, development, and preparedness are described by The Washington Post. Also check out USGS shake maps for Chile and Haiti.

Leading Arguments on Why We Need to Deal With Global Warming
Two articles in The New York Times today make the case for agressive action on combating climate change. Al Gore writes a persuasive op-ed on how climate change is an existential threat, while Robert Frank argues that the consequences of inaction in tackling climate change is far greater than the costs of dealing with it.

Floating Garbage Patch in the Atlantic Ocean Found
Plastic debris is continuing to accumulate in the world’s oceans and is concentrated in certain areas due to ocean currents. One area, known as the “Pacific garbage patch” is the size of Texas and located between the US west coast and Hawaii. Researchers have now found a similar area in the Atlantic, with a maximum plastic density of 200,000 pieces per square kilometer. Floating plastic “stuff” is ingested by and ensnares fish, seabirds, and other forms of marine life.

Is Cap-and-Trade Dead?
The Washington Post reports that three key senators (Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham) have been working feveroushly to draft an alternative to cap-and-trade. Instead of a setting up a national cap on emissions, their plan would target three sectors – electric utilities, transportation, and industry differently. Expect more news on this in the coming weeks as this plan is formally unveiled.

As the rains fall here in Northern California, and snowstorms pound the Northeast of the United States, water is on my mind. It is a topic that is of vital importance but continues to be misunderstood. Perhaps most importantly, it is at the center of considerations that must [...]]]>

Water on my mind (Photo: Scott MacKenzie)

As the rains fall here in Northern California, and snowstorms pound the Northeast of the United States, water is on my mind. It is a topic that is of vital importance but continues to be misunderstood. Perhaps most importantly, it is at the center of considerations that must be taken into account in considering how humanity will adapt to climate change.

A recent article in Reuters highlighted this very issue, discussing how “water should have a more central role in debates on food security, peace, climate change and recovery from the financial crisis.”

More to the point, “efforts to combat global warming will themselves put more strains on water because of rival economic demands — such as for irrigation, biofuels or hydropower.”

I recently came across this presentation by Geoff Dabelko at the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program, on the role of water and water security more broadly. He is at the forefront of thinking on the interface between the environment, human vulnerability, and security issues, and I found this quick video to be a good refresher.

Although it was relegated to second tier status at COP-15, water remains one of the most important issues surrounding climate change and sustainable development across the planet.  With drier and drier years ahead for many parts of the world, but particularly already vulnerable areas such as Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, beginning the dialog process on water issues is a crucial step to ensuring that the strain of scarcity is handled cooperatively, and not through violence and conflict.

Although it is not always to the top headline, water security issues permeate the news. Recent surveys from Iraq show water to be a top issue for most people (along with electricity and basic utilities more generally), and as Circle of Blue reports, “Water supply problems because of war, under-investment, poor management and drought are evident throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, where nearly 15 percent of its 8 million residents do not have access to potable water, officials are trying to gain control over the distribution system.”

Another article from Circle of Blue paints an equally difficult picture next door, with water woes in Syria. Most recently, water was a topic on the table as India and Pakistan met in high level talks for the first time since the Mumbai terrorist attacks over a year ago.

There is evidence that water can in fact be a conduit for cooperation, even in areas of high tension and distrust. Despite years of brutal conflict and war, India and Pakistan have been able to maintain open dialog on the sharing of the Indus river, and the 10 African nations that share the Nile river are actively communicating to ensure that the river’s resources are not exhausted by in a manner that would adversely impact downstream partners. Perhaps one of the more successful efforts so far, is the Mekong river in Southeast Asia, where Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Laos have active mechanisms in place to help guide governance of the waterway and the disputed issues that arise along with it.

But while these steps are important reminders of the possibilities, they are not indicative of the outlook in its entirety, and more of a snapshot of what steps in the right direction look like. Water remains largely misunderstood as an international issue, and is frequently hyped as the next great source of conflict and wars. This is not an entirely accurate representation. To get more of a sense of what the Future Faces of Water Conflict may look like, watch another ECSP video below with Dabelko and Ken Conca, from the University of Maryland.