The policymaking process in the United States relies heavily on society’s desire for action. This point cannot be underemphasized. Without gaining public support for an issue, the legislature has little political incentive to develop a plan of action. The two primary ways of generating public support for an issue are 1) through organized groups who are able to educate others about the problem, and 2) through the media.
If an environmental campaign is successful, interest groups and elected officials will have the necessary information to both 1) understand the problem and 2) identify what policy measures will effectively fix it
In the U.S., a policy cycle begins with the creation of a course of action, followed by enactment of a law, and then actions that are designed to carry out that law successfully. Then, when any policy has been in place for a reasonable period of time, it should be re-evaluated to determine if it has achieved the original goals, what the costs were, and what changes, if any, need to be made. This was keenly pointed out by Vig and Kraft in their seminal book, Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, 2006).
While the job of writing effective environmental legislation falls to the Congress, the president – in this case President Obama — also has an important role to play. Beyond simply signing or vetoing a bill sent to him by the Congress, the president is involved in setting the policy agenda. For example, a president concerned with taxes, downsizing and meeting the needs of large businesses will likely have a very different set of goals he wants achieved during his term than will a president who wishes to put more emphasis on the environment and conservation of natural resources. With the right combination of public support, Congressional leadership, and bipartisanship, effective environmental regulations and laws can be made. By delegating staff and other experts to particular issues, and by working with Congress to reach a desired outcome, the White House can influence the shape of environmental laws. Of course, the process is often complicated by gridlock. Rarely – if ever – does a significant majority of legislators agree on anything. Bills may or may not even reach the floor for a vote, depending on the party in power, the ability to reach agreement, and seemingly inevitable gridlock due to stalling tactics.
In Washington, the actual job of carrying out the implementation of a policy falls on the different executive departments. While all departments are involved in environmental quality to varying degrees, major regulators include the EPA, Interior Department, the Fish and Wildlife Service and Department of Agriculture or USDA. And, as part of the balance of power in the U.S., the judiciary inevitably becomes involved in challenges to environmental policy.
Environmental law – checks and balances
Jurisdiction and the wording of the law are never crystal-clear. Legal challenges help to define boundaries on the reach of the regulatory agencies. A timely example of this policymaking process at work can be seen in the discussion of climate change and energy usage.
The climate change example breaks down like this: We’ve known for years that our current energy economy, based largely on fossil fuels, is unsustainable. Burning coal and oil to generate electricity, heat our homes, and fuel our cars not only pollutes the air and water but also adds staggering amounts of carbon to the atmosphere and oceans, which leads to climate change and the destruction of ecosystems. Yet, the United States has done little over the past few decades to curb energy use and carbon emissions. As a nation we’ve lacked the critical threshold of vocal citizens demanding change, and we’ve lacked political will to generate more enthusiasm for change. Only now are we beginning to see a possible shift in this state of mind. More people are concerned about energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and the science has improved to the point where there is very little doubt that humans are the driving force behind this phenomenon. Also, the current president (who campaigned on a desire to combat climate change) along with a relatively sympathetic Congress, United Nations, not to mention Corporate Leaders for Climate Change, share many similar policy goals. He has an easier time setting the agenda than if the party makeup of the House and Senate was more conservative, as it had been just several years ago.
While the political will for something like the Kyoto Protocol did not exist in the previous decade, we now are looking at a somewhat more favorable environment for that kind of legislation. The House recently passed the so-called Waxman-Markey bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212 (Govtrack.us 2009). While the bill’s fate in the Senate is far from certain, clearly the right combination of attitudes and leadership exist to make this possible. Should climate legislation pass, the other steps in the policy cycle must also be seen through. Simply setting standards will not be enough.
In the final analysis, U.S. policy processes for environmental regulation do represent the American democratic process. An honorable legacy with our own children as well as our legacy as a nation is at stake. The hope is that this fair, reasonable democratic process will allow for suitable, correct action from policymakers with regards to this legacy.
COURTSEY. ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Maldives 'tourism boom' putting manta rays at risk
Despite its recent status as a Marine Protected Area (MPA), a popular tourist destination in the Maldives is facing a massive decline in wildlife and tourism unless proper management is put in place. Since being awarded MPA status in 2009 and receiving increased media interest, Hanifaru Bay in Baa Atoll has seen its tourism trade triple.But Guy Stevens, director of the Maldives Manta Ray Project, warns that without proper management this 'cannot go on', and suggests that in just 'five years we will see a massive decline in the number of animals that will come to Hanifaru'. Stevens says the area is 'failing as a Marine Protected Area', with no management or enforcing of regulations; he says it hasn't been a priority for the Maldives government and is just a 'paper park'. He adds that pressure is now on the authorities to 'sort it out' before the start of the next manta ray season.
Although the main area is only the size of a football pitch, Hanifaru is a world-famous feeding site for up to 250 manta rays, which have an average wingspan of 3m.
Stevens explains the problem is the 'sheer volume of people in the water' - he has seen as many as 13 boats and almost 200 people there at one time, inhibiting the animals' ability to feed: 'They just physically cannot swim through the water to feed on the plankton... The contact from people, touching, bumping into the animals disturbs their feeding behaviour.'
by ENN
Although the main area is only the size of a football pitch, Hanifaru is a world-famous feeding site for up to 250 manta rays, which have an average wingspan of 3m.
Stevens explains the problem is the 'sheer volume of people in the water' - he has seen as many as 13 boats and almost 200 people there at one time, inhibiting the animals' ability to feed: 'They just physically cannot swim through the water to feed on the plankton... The contact from people, touching, bumping into the animals disturbs their feeding behaviour.'
by ENN
Bangladesh, India most at risk from climate change
Bangladesh and India are the countries most vulnerable to climate change, according to an index on Wednesday that rates the Nordic region least at risk.
British consultancy Maplecroft said its rankings showed that several "big economies of the future" in Asia were among those facing the biggest risks from global warming in the next 30 years as were large parts of Africa.
It said poverty and large low-lying coastal regions prone to floods and cyclones were among factors making Bangladesh the most exposed country. India, in second place, was vulnerable because of pressures from a rising population of 1.1 billion.
Madagascar was in third place, followed by Nepal, Mozambique, the Philippines, Haiti, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Vietnam, in 13th place and flood-hit Pakistan in 16th were also in the most exposed group.
"Understanding climate vulnerability will help companies make their investments more resilient to unexpected change," wrote Matthew Bunce, principal analyst at Maplecroft, who noted that many Asian countries were attracting large investments.
Norway was bottom of the list of 171 nations, least vulnerable ahead of Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark -- all rich north European nations which may initially gain from factors such as longer crop growing seasons.
The ranking combined exposure to extremes such as droughts, cyclones and mudslides, sensitivity to damage tied to poverty, population, internal conflicts and dependence on agriculture, and the capacity of a country to adapt.
The U.N. panel of climate scientists says it is at least 90 percent likely that a build-up of greenhouse gases, mainly from human use of fossil fuels, is responsible for most warming in the past 50 years.
COURTSEY ENN
British consultancy Maplecroft said its rankings showed that several "big economies of the future" in Asia were among those facing the biggest risks from global warming in the next 30 years as were large parts of Africa.
It said poverty and large low-lying coastal regions prone to floods and cyclones were among factors making Bangladesh the most exposed country. India, in second place, was vulnerable because of pressures from a rising population of 1.1 billion.
Madagascar was in third place, followed by Nepal, Mozambique, the Philippines, Haiti, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Vietnam, in 13th place and flood-hit Pakistan in 16th were also in the most exposed group.
"Understanding climate vulnerability will help companies make their investments more resilient to unexpected change," wrote Matthew Bunce, principal analyst at Maplecroft, who noted that many Asian countries were attracting large investments.
Norway was bottom of the list of 171 nations, least vulnerable ahead of Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Sweden and Denmark -- all rich north European nations which may initially gain from factors such as longer crop growing seasons.
The ranking combined exposure to extremes such as droughts, cyclones and mudslides, sensitivity to damage tied to poverty, population, internal conflicts and dependence on agriculture, and the capacity of a country to adapt.
The U.N. panel of climate scientists says it is at least 90 percent likely that a build-up of greenhouse gases, mainly from human use of fossil fuels, is responsible for most warming in the past 50 years.
COURTSEY ENN
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Honda Crowned Greenest Automaker
The Union of Concerned Scientists released their annual "green" ranking of automakers, and for the fifth year in a row, Honda has taken top honors.
The study looked at 2008 models because that was the most recent year that had complete data from the EPA and Transportation Department. The group analyzed the top eight automakers selling cars in the U.S. on both fuel economy and emissions for the entire fleets. Good fuel economy and low emissions had to hold strong across all sizes of vehicles to get the best scores. Results were also weighted based on sales.
Behind Honda by only one point was Toyota in second place and then Hyundai in third. American automakers like Ford, GM and Chrysler made up the bottom three.
The group noted that the Prius is a major factor in Toyota's score. If the Prius was removed, it would rank fourth overall, but the efficiency and healthy sales of the car boosted its score.
The American automakers suffered because many of the hybrid models don't offer any significant fuel savings and larger vehicles are highly inefficient.
via NY Times
The study looked at 2008 models because that was the most recent year that had complete data from the EPA and Transportation Department. The group analyzed the top eight automakers selling cars in the U.S. on both fuel economy and emissions for the entire fleets. Good fuel economy and low emissions had to hold strong across all sizes of vehicles to get the best scores. Results were also weighted based on sales.
Behind Honda by only one point was Toyota in second place and then Hyundai in third. American automakers like Ford, GM and Chrysler made up the bottom three.
The group noted that the Prius is a major factor in Toyota's score. If the Prius was removed, it would rank fourth overall, but the efficiency and healthy sales of the car boosted its score.
The American automakers suffered because many of the hybrid models don't offer any significant fuel savings and larger vehicles are highly inefficient.
via NY Times
Kodiak Island Ditches Diesel, Digs Wind
Kodiak Island, Alaska is an isolated island off the south coast of the state and gets no power from the state's main grid. Like other isolated islands, Kodiak has relied upon diesel generators to provide a large chunk of their energy needs, but the island is starting to ditch the diesel and harness the wind.
Up until recently, the island got 80 percent of its energy from a two-unit hydroelectric plant and the other 20 percent from seven diesel generators. The island installed three 1.5-MW wind turbines atop Pillar Mountain last year and as of this past August, those wind turbines have replaced most of their need for diesel, with the oil only accounting for 7.7 percent of their energy.
The Pillar Mountain Wind Project will save over a million gallons of fuel a year. The Kodiak Electric Associaton (PDF) hopes to produce 95 percent of their energy through renewable sources by 2020 and they're already most of the way there.
While Kodiak Island only has a population of 12,000, it seems places like this are leading the way to a clean energy future.
via Earth Techling
Up until recently, the island got 80 percent of its energy from a two-unit hydroelectric plant and the other 20 percent from seven diesel generators. The island installed three 1.5-MW wind turbines atop Pillar Mountain last year and as of this past August, those wind turbines have replaced most of their need for diesel, with the oil only accounting for 7.7 percent of their energy.
The Pillar Mountain Wind Project will save over a million gallons of fuel a year. The Kodiak Electric Associaton (PDF) hopes to produce 95 percent of their energy through renewable sources by 2020 and they're already most of the way there.
While Kodiak Island only has a population of 12,000, it seems places like this are leading the way to a clean energy future.
via Earth Techling
green rankings global top100
Showing Results 1 to 20 of the Green Rankings Global Top 100PreviousNextPageof 5 Rank Company Industry Sector Green
Score Envtl.
Impact Green
Policies Rep.
Survey
1 International Business Machines» Technology 100.00 93.96 91.30 96.00
2 Hewlett-Packard» Technology 99.33 58.92 95.56 92.87
3 Johnson & Johnson» Pharmaceuticals 98.51 42.98 100.00 77.58
4 Sony» Consumer Products, Cars 96.40 56.94 97.26 64.32
5 GlaxoSmithKline» Pharmaceuticals 94.18 64.95 91.36 73.62
6 Novartis» Pharmaceuticals 91.48 53.97 89.64 67.43
7 Deutsche Telekom» Technology 91.40 95.94 84.04 67.04
8 Panasonic» Consumer Products, Cars 90.67 44.96 90.63 64.19
9 HSBC Holdings» Banks and Insurance 90.18 96.93 78.80 81.72
10 Toshiba» Technology 87.73 52.98 86.61 55.09
11 Vodafone» Technology 87.09 62.97 83.22 61.81
12 Barclays» Banks and Insurance 86.55 88.91 78.22 64.28
13 Intesa SanPaolo» Banks and Insurance 86.42 92.97 82.92 37.50
14 Nokia» Technology 86.01 79.90 71.97 100.00
15 ING Groep» Banks and Insurance 85.56 70.99 80.22 59.85
16 Nippon Telegraph & Telephone» Technology 85.41 94.95 79.42 45.87
17 Toyota Motor» Consumer Products, Cars 85.15 33.97 82.40 75.71
18 Honda Motor» Consumer Products, Cars 84.98 29.91 85.31 68.43
19 Allianz» Banks and Insurance 84.32 69.90 75.28 73.91
20 Pfizer» Pharmaceuticals 83.18 54.96 78.11 59.27
Order 2010 Green Rankings Reports for expanded analysis.Showing Results 1 to 20 of the Green Rankings Global Top 100PreviousNextPageof 5 *Green number denotes overall list ranking
For the 2009 Green Rankings list go to greenrankings2009.newsweek.com
More In Green Rankings
Why There's Still Hope for Cutting Carbon Interactive: 100 Places To Remember 10 Big Green Ideas
View the 2009 Green Rankings list.
Score Envtl.
Impact Green
Policies Rep.
Survey
1 International Business Machines» Technology 100.00 93.96 91.30 96.00
2 Hewlett-Packard» Technology 99.33 58.92 95.56 92.87
3 Johnson & Johnson» Pharmaceuticals 98.51 42.98 100.00 77.58
4 Sony» Consumer Products, Cars 96.40 56.94 97.26 64.32
5 GlaxoSmithKline» Pharmaceuticals 94.18 64.95 91.36 73.62
6 Novartis» Pharmaceuticals 91.48 53.97 89.64 67.43
7 Deutsche Telekom» Technology 91.40 95.94 84.04 67.04
8 Panasonic» Consumer Products, Cars 90.67 44.96 90.63 64.19
9 HSBC Holdings» Banks and Insurance 90.18 96.93 78.80 81.72
10 Toshiba» Technology 87.73 52.98 86.61 55.09
11 Vodafone» Technology 87.09 62.97 83.22 61.81
12 Barclays» Banks and Insurance 86.55 88.91 78.22 64.28
13 Intesa SanPaolo» Banks and Insurance 86.42 92.97 82.92 37.50
14 Nokia» Technology 86.01 79.90 71.97 100.00
15 ING Groep» Banks and Insurance 85.56 70.99 80.22 59.85
16 Nippon Telegraph & Telephone» Technology 85.41 94.95 79.42 45.87
17 Toyota Motor» Consumer Products, Cars 85.15 33.97 82.40 75.71
18 Honda Motor» Consumer Products, Cars 84.98 29.91 85.31 68.43
19 Allianz» Banks and Insurance 84.32 69.90 75.28 73.91
20 Pfizer» Pharmaceuticals 83.18 54.96 78.11 59.27
Order 2010 Green Rankings Reports for expanded analysis.Showing Results 1 to 20 of the Green Rankings Global Top 100PreviousNextPageof 5 *Green number denotes overall list ranking
For the 2009 Green Rankings list go to greenrankings2009.newsweek.com
More In Green Rankings
Why There's Still Hope for Cutting Carbon Interactive: 100 Places To Remember 10 Big Green Ideas
View the 2009 Green Rankings list.
Post-BP Gulf gets slightly lower grades from experts
Post-BP Gulf gets slightly lower grades from experts
Average health score is 65, down from 71; big questions about spill impacts lie below the sea Interactive
Grading the Gulf Advertisement | ad info
Patrick Semansky / AP
An oil-covered crab crawls on a glove worn by Plaquemines Parish coastal zone director P.J. Hahn in Bay Jimmy, La., last Thursday.
By Cain Burdeau and Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
ST. PETE BEACH, Fla. — Six months after the rig explosion that led to the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, damage to the Gulf of Mexico can be measured more in increments than extinctions, say scientists polled by The Associated Press.
More U.S. news Dems make $250 pre-election pitch to seniors
Democrats are making a pre-election pitch to give Social Security recipients a one-time payment of $250, part of an effort to lure senior voters. Full story
Updated 6 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:27:53 PM +00:00 JetBlue attendant in famous meltdown pleads guilty Updated 24 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:09:51 PM +00:00 Police account of NY student's death is questioned Updated 14 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:19:35 PM +00:00 Nurse: 3 soldiers unafraid facing Fort Hood gunman Updated 55 minutes ago 10/19/2010 3:38:51 PM +00:00 Police hunt shooter after bullets hit Pentagon In an informal survey, 35 researchers who study the Gulf lowered their rating of its ecological health by several points, compared to their assessment before the BP well gushed millions of gallons of oil. But the drop in grade wasn't dramatic. On a scale of 0 to 100, the overall average grade for the oiled Gulf was 65 — down from 71 before the spill.
This reflects scientists' views that the spilled 172 million gallons of oil further eroded what was already a beleaguered body of water — tainted for years by farm runoff from the Mississippi River, overfishing, and oil from smaller spills and natural seepage.
The spill wasn't the near-death blow initially feared. Nor is it the glancing strike that some relieved experts and officials said it was in midsummer.
"It is like a concussion," said Larry McKinney, who heads the Gulf of Mexico research center at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. "We got hit hard and we certainly are seeing some symptoms of it."
Will the symptoms stick around or just become yesterday's headaches? That's the question that couldn't be answered at a conference earlier this month of 150 scientists at a hotel on a Florida beach untainted by the spill. The St. Pete Beach gathering was organized by the White House science office to coordinate future research.
"There's the sense that it's not as bad as we had originally feared; it's not that worst case scenario," said Steve Lohrenz, a biological oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi. "There's still a lot of wariness of what that long-term impact is going to be."
Steve Murawski, the chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, compared scientists research to a TV crime drama: "It's the end of the story that counts, not all the steps along the way."
We're only at the 30-minute break in an hour-long drama, Murawski said.
Focus turns to sea bottom
And there's a plot twist. Research findings already released have led scientists and the government to shift their focus from the sea's surface to deeper waters and the ocean bottom.
A month-long cruise by Georgia researchers on the ship Oceanus reported oil on the sea floor that they suspect is BP's but haven't proven yet. Government officials still question whether there is oil on the sea floor, but the Georgia scientists say the samples smelled like an auto repair shop.
They took 78 cores of sediment and only five had live worms in them. Usually they would all have life, said University of Georgia scientist Samantha Joye. She called it a "graveyard for the macrofauna."
"The fact that there isn't living fauna is a signal that something happened to these sites and these sediments," Joye said. "The horrible thing is they've been inundated with this oily material... There's dead animals on the bottom and it stinks to high heaven of oil."
University of South Florida's Ernst Peebles said the oil on the floor "is undermining the ecosystem from the bottom up."
David Hollander, also at South Florida, found some of the first plumes of the oil beneath the surface, something that government officials first disputed but now concede is real. Keeping the oil off the surface minimized damage to wetlands, beaches and some wildlife, so in some ways, "we dodged the bullet," he said.
Patrick Semansky / AP
Plaquemines Parish coastal zone director P.J. Hahn walks through oiled marsh grass in Bay Jimmy, La., last Thursday.
There are several reasons a sizable amount of oil didn't make it to the surface where it could do more visual harm. For one thing, BP used 1.8 million gallons of chemical dispersants to break up the oil. But scientists give more credit to the high pressure and high temperature of the gusher that spewed the oil in droplets so tiny, they didn't float to the surface.
"We still don't know the long-term effect," Hollander said.
Scientists worry the oil deep below will get into plankton and the food web, maybe not killing species directly but causing genetic mutations, stress or weakening some species, with effects that will only be seen years later.
"I think populations are going to be affected for years to come," said Diane Blake, a Tulane University biochemist. "This is going to cause selective (evolutionary) pressure that's going to change the Gulf in ways we don't even know yet."
It was a long-term assault from the well. From April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 people, to July 15 when the well was initially plugged, oil bled at a prodigious rate that BP and government officials had a hard time understanding. Initially, officials said only 42,000 gallons a day was flowing, but government scientists eventually said it was as much as 2.6 million gallons a day.
Example of Exxon Valdez and herring
One of the species mentioned most often during two days of scientific sessions in Florida doesn't even live in the Gulf. It's herring. After 1989's much smaller Exxon Valdez spill, it took awhile for the effects on Alaska's herring to be noticed, but the once prolific species crashed to extremely low levels. While other species in Prince William Sound recovered, the herring population has yet to bounce back. And Gulf researchers are wondering if that sort of thing will happen again.
Only on msnbc.com 'Double standard' in White House leak probes? Hot-button issue: Discussing politics at work What to do if we find alien life Could Hollywood be the next Chinatown? PhotoBlog: Faces of the Tea Party Moms, teach your daughters about money too If one species in the Gulf is likely to wind up like the herring, it's probably the bluefin tuna. And answers about its fate may be sitting in a lab in Poland.
Thanks to a 30-year agreement that dates to Cold War politics, that distant lab is analyzing samples of Gulf water collected in the spill area for the U.S. government. The tests are to find out what the oil did to the larvae. The bluefin was already in trouble before the spill, its spawning stock down 90 percent in the last 30 years.
The spill, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, happened in the precise place at just the right time to threaten the bluefin larvae bobbing on the surface. The Gulf of Mexico is the only known spawning area for western Atlantic bluefin.
"Was it catastrophic for the bluefin? Probably not," said NOAA's John Lamkin, who expects data back from Poland near the end of the year. But he added: "Any larvae that came into contact with the oil doesn't have a chance."
Average health score is 65, down from 71; big questions about spill impacts lie below the sea Interactive
Grading the Gulf Advertisement | ad info
Patrick Semansky / AP
An oil-covered crab crawls on a glove worn by Plaquemines Parish coastal zone director P.J. Hahn in Bay Jimmy, La., last Thursday.
By Cain Burdeau and Seth Borenstein
The Associated Press
ST. PETE BEACH, Fla. — Six months after the rig explosion that led to the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, damage to the Gulf of Mexico can be measured more in increments than extinctions, say scientists polled by The Associated Press.
More U.S. news Dems make $250 pre-election pitch to seniors
Democrats are making a pre-election pitch to give Social Security recipients a one-time payment of $250, part of an effort to lure senior voters. Full story
Updated 6 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:27:53 PM +00:00 JetBlue attendant in famous meltdown pleads guilty Updated 24 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:09:51 PM +00:00 Police account of NY student's death is questioned Updated 14 minutes ago 10/19/2010 4:19:35 PM +00:00 Nurse: 3 soldiers unafraid facing Fort Hood gunman Updated 55 minutes ago 10/19/2010 3:38:51 PM +00:00 Police hunt shooter after bullets hit Pentagon In an informal survey, 35 researchers who study the Gulf lowered their rating of its ecological health by several points, compared to their assessment before the BP well gushed millions of gallons of oil. But the drop in grade wasn't dramatic. On a scale of 0 to 100, the overall average grade for the oiled Gulf was 65 — down from 71 before the spill.
This reflects scientists' views that the spilled 172 million gallons of oil further eroded what was already a beleaguered body of water — tainted for years by farm runoff from the Mississippi River, overfishing, and oil from smaller spills and natural seepage.
The spill wasn't the near-death blow initially feared. Nor is it the glancing strike that some relieved experts and officials said it was in midsummer.
"It is like a concussion," said Larry McKinney, who heads the Gulf of Mexico research center at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. "We got hit hard and we certainly are seeing some symptoms of it."
Will the symptoms stick around or just become yesterday's headaches? That's the question that couldn't be answered at a conference earlier this month of 150 scientists at a hotel on a Florida beach untainted by the spill. The St. Pete Beach gathering was organized by the White House science office to coordinate future research.
"There's the sense that it's not as bad as we had originally feared; it's not that worst case scenario," said Steve Lohrenz, a biological oceanographer at the University of Southern Mississippi. "There's still a lot of wariness of what that long-term impact is going to be."
Steve Murawski, the chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, compared scientists research to a TV crime drama: "It's the end of the story that counts, not all the steps along the way."
We're only at the 30-minute break in an hour-long drama, Murawski said.
Focus turns to sea bottom
And there's a plot twist. Research findings already released have led scientists and the government to shift their focus from the sea's surface to deeper waters and the ocean bottom.
A month-long cruise by Georgia researchers on the ship Oceanus reported oil on the sea floor that they suspect is BP's but haven't proven yet. Government officials still question whether there is oil on the sea floor, but the Georgia scientists say the samples smelled like an auto repair shop.
They took 78 cores of sediment and only five had live worms in them. Usually they would all have life, said University of Georgia scientist Samantha Joye. She called it a "graveyard for the macrofauna."
"The fact that there isn't living fauna is a signal that something happened to these sites and these sediments," Joye said. "The horrible thing is they've been inundated with this oily material... There's dead animals on the bottom and it stinks to high heaven of oil."
University of South Florida's Ernst Peebles said the oil on the floor "is undermining the ecosystem from the bottom up."
David Hollander, also at South Florida, found some of the first plumes of the oil beneath the surface, something that government officials first disputed but now concede is real. Keeping the oil off the surface minimized damage to wetlands, beaches and some wildlife, so in some ways, "we dodged the bullet," he said.
Patrick Semansky / AP
Plaquemines Parish coastal zone director P.J. Hahn walks through oiled marsh grass in Bay Jimmy, La., last Thursday.
There are several reasons a sizable amount of oil didn't make it to the surface where it could do more visual harm. For one thing, BP used 1.8 million gallons of chemical dispersants to break up the oil. But scientists give more credit to the high pressure and high temperature of the gusher that spewed the oil in droplets so tiny, they didn't float to the surface.
"We still don't know the long-term effect," Hollander said.
Scientists worry the oil deep below will get into plankton and the food web, maybe not killing species directly but causing genetic mutations, stress or weakening some species, with effects that will only be seen years later.
"I think populations are going to be affected for years to come," said Diane Blake, a Tulane University biochemist. "This is going to cause selective (evolutionary) pressure that's going to change the Gulf in ways we don't even know yet."
It was a long-term assault from the well. From April 20, when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing 11 people, to July 15 when the well was initially plugged, oil bled at a prodigious rate that BP and government officials had a hard time understanding. Initially, officials said only 42,000 gallons a day was flowing, but government scientists eventually said it was as much as 2.6 million gallons a day.
Example of Exxon Valdez and herring
One of the species mentioned most often during two days of scientific sessions in Florida doesn't even live in the Gulf. It's herring. After 1989's much smaller Exxon Valdez spill, it took awhile for the effects on Alaska's herring to be noticed, but the once prolific species crashed to extremely low levels. While other species in Prince William Sound recovered, the herring population has yet to bounce back. And Gulf researchers are wondering if that sort of thing will happen again.
Only on msnbc.com 'Double standard' in White House leak probes? Hot-button issue: Discussing politics at work What to do if we find alien life Could Hollywood be the next Chinatown? PhotoBlog: Faces of the Tea Party Moms, teach your daughters about money too If one species in the Gulf is likely to wind up like the herring, it's probably the bluefin tuna. And answers about its fate may be sitting in a lab in Poland.
Thanks to a 30-year agreement that dates to Cold War politics, that distant lab is analyzing samples of Gulf water collected in the spill area for the U.S. government. The tests are to find out what the oil did to the larvae. The bluefin was already in trouble before the spill, its spawning stock down 90 percent in the last 30 years.
The spill, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, happened in the precise place at just the right time to threaten the bluefin larvae bobbing on the surface. The Gulf of Mexico is the only known spawning area for western Atlantic bluefin.
"Was it catastrophic for the bluefin? Probably not," said NOAA's John Lamkin, who expects data back from Poland near the end of the year. But he added: "Any larvae that came into contact with the oil doesn't have a chance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)