Greenpeace

Covering nearly 70% of the surface of the planet, the oceans are not escaping the impacts of global warming. Bleaching is threatening our spectacular tropical coral reefs, and melting sea ice is reducing critical habitat for seals, polar bears, and other marine mammals. And everywhere in between, rising temperatures are starting to change currents, migration patterns and even species composition. The fish that used to live in a particular area are often no longer there. On top of that, acidification, global warming’s evil twin, is turning the oceans into a corrosive bath that is rapidly becoming inhospitable to clams, corals, and everything else that forms a calcareous skeleton.

So when Randy Olson asked me to review his new movie, a “global warming comedy,” I have to admit I was curious to see where he was going to find the humor in all this. As it happens, Sizzle is a very funny film, sometimes even spit-out-your-drink funny.

Similar to Randy’s last film, Flock of Dodos, which focused on Intelligent Design, Sizzle tries to grapple with questions about the causes of global warming, the seriousness of the problem, and the degree to which humans can do anything about it. For Randy, the hordes of scientists involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and most people who read the news, these are not controversial topics. The science is clear: global warming is happening, humans are a major cause, and we can and must do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately.

Of course, some people don’t see it that way, and Randy takes his low budget camera crew out to get their stories. Other than the guy who works for Okie Senator James Inhofe, who looked like an attack dog in search of someone to bite, the climate skeptics come across as surprisingly nice guys (if occasionally hapless). Most of these interviews are followed with a scene with Randy muttering “that’s not true” or “he’s got it all wrong,” and there are some strong segments from scientists like Naomi Oreskes, but in general there’s not much of an effort to debunk the skeptics. The sense you get is that there’s really no need – everyone knows the truth already. But if that’s true, why bother with the skeptics at all?

So I was left wishing for a little more exploration of the forces behind the skeptics. Greenpeace has researched this in depth, showing how leading climate skeptics tend to be funded by ExxonMobil. If something smells funny, follow the money.

Dr. Oreskes saves the day by convincing the crew to abandon plans to film yet another scientist and to go to New Orleans instead. In the most emotionally compelling part of the film, Randy and his crew see firsthand the impacts of the kind of disasters global warming will cause. The film points out that the biggest victims will be poor people, whether in Africa or in the richest nation on earth.

If there’s a take home message, other than the fact that it IS possible to find humor in even the most dire topics, it may be a reminder that it’s probably not going to be the newest data, powerpoint slides, or speeches from scientists that convince people to take action. The stories are there, but we may need more story tellers like Randy if we’re going to wake people up in time.

John H

Remember Omega Protein, the Houston-based company that has been turning millions of pounds of Chesapeake Bay fish into cat food, fertilizer, and chicken feed?  Omega targets menhaden, which has been dubbed "the most important fish in the world" for it's role as food for everything from whales to striped bass as well as it's value as a dead zone-fighting filter feeder.  Well, it's not just a Chesapeake problem, or even just an Atlantic one - Omega takes as much or even more menhaden out of the Gulf of Mexico.  Fishermen and environmentalists have been raising concerns about Omega's operations in the Gulf for a long time, especially about the enormous amount of bycatch they take.  Along with all those menhaden, the fleet vacuums up highly desirable sportfish like red drum and snapper and even some sharks.

Fortunately, the great state of Texas is responding to concerns and taking some important baby steps towards holding Omega accountable.  Measures are under consideration which could cap the amount of menhaden the company could take from Texas waters, and force Omega to allow independent fisheries observers on their boats.  If you ask me, Texas should just kick Omega out completely, but... this is still a good move in the right direction.

 

Together with Aaron from Gulf Restoration Network, Tom Wheatley from Marine Fish Conservation Network, and Jim Smarr from the Recreational Fishermen's Alliance, I met with Robin Riechers, the Science and Policy Director of TX Parks and Wildlife's Coastal Fisheries Division.  He's also the point person for TX on the Gulf Regional Fishery Mgt Council. 

Robin seemed impressed to see enviros working alongside sportfishing groups, but couldn't promise us much.  The state is waiting to hear from more people on this before they take action.  We know they're hearing from Omega, which is calling out all the stops trying to prevent any regulation of their fishery (as usual).  If you live in Texas, drop them a line and let them know you agree that the fishery needs a hard catch limit, with observers on board.  And while they're at it, they should ban spotter planes too - fishing with airplanes?  Come on! 

Thanks for reading -

John H

 

 

I was in Anchorage last week for the Alaska Marine Science Symposium, presenting some of the findings from our 2007 Bering Sea Canyons Expedition.  I was presenting a poster, which is a common way to feature preliminary findings at scientific conferences, showcasing new coral data. Bob Stone, the NOAA ecologist who was on board the Esperanza with us, was the other author. 

I like poster presentations because you get a chance to interact with a large number of people, as opposed to oral presentations, where aside from a few questions it's largely a one-way lecture.  This way, I got to see people do a double take when they saw the paired NOAA and Greenpeace logos on the poster.  For those that read the conclusion, they saw that we - that's Greenpeace and NOAA - "recommend that canyon coral habitats be prioritized for protection and that additional research is undertaken to fully document the sensitive habitats in the region." 

Our findings also included several coral species that were previously unrecorded in the Bering Sea, as well as others that had never been found so far north.  Five corals were described as "common" or "abundant in one or both of the canyons we visited.  In all, we found at least fourteen species.   

Michelle Ridgway teamed up with legendary geologist David Scholl for a keynote presentation linking the physical structure of the canyons with the ecology of these highly productive features. Of the more than 600 scientists, policy makers, and industry lobbyists who attended the Symposium, I think it's safe to say that nearly all of them have a better understanding of the importance of the canyons than they did a week ago.

Meanwhile, the canyons will continue to face heavy fishing pressure until policy makers act to  protect these vulnerable habitats.  How much more damage will be done in the meantime?

John H