Sierra Nevada Snowpack Shrinks to Lowest Level in 500 Years 9/24/15
The snowpack in California's Sierra Nevada mountains has reached its lowest point in the past 500 years — primarily the result of the region's dry winter, researchers report.
And the researchers don't expect normal snowpack levels to be replenished anytime soon. "We should be prepared for this type of snow drought to occur much more frequently because of rising temperatures," study researcher Valerie Trouet, a dendrochronologist (a scientist who studies tree rings) at the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, said in a statement. "Anthropogenic [human-caused] warming is making the drought more severe." |
According to the US Geological Survey, mountain snow is critical for balance in the natural water system, because the snowpack acts as a natural way to store water. Without this natural balance in the system, dry spells last longer, crop yields suffer and there is less water available for public use.
Snow drought
During the winter months, snowpack typically builds up a large store of water. Then, starting in the spring months, the snowpack melts and helps replenish streams, lakes, groundwater and reservoirs. But when these regions experience a dry winter, like the 2014-2015 seasonaccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this backup of stored water shrinks.
In turn, less meltwater enters the system during the spring and summer, causing the dry season to extend into the spring, said Lorraine Flint, a hydrologist at the USGS California Water Science Center who was not involved in the new study. Making matters worse, the hot weather means more moisture is sucked out of vegetation, thus creating a greater demand for water, Flint added. [The 10 Driest Places on Earth]
Trouet and her colleagues got the idea for their study after California Gov. Jerry Brown declared the first-ever mandatory water restrictions throughout the state — a result of record-low snowpack that winter and the resulting water scarcity. That made Trouet and her colleagues interested in reconstructing the paleohistory — the study of how something has changed over time — of the Sierra Nevada snowpack.
Tree rings
To do this, the researchers looked at published tree-ring data in central California from 1405 to 2005, which recorded seasonal wet precipitation, rain, and annual snowpack measurements since the 1930s. The researchers also used published reconstructions of winter temperatures in southern and central California from 1500 to 1980.
Growth rings in trees shrink and expand according to the amount of precipitation the tree experienced in the spring, summer, winter or fall, so they are fairly accurate markers of environmental factors like precipitation, temperature and sunlight that affect vegetation growth. Scientists have a particularly long and well documented record of this region's blue oak (Quercus douglasii) tree rings dating back to 1405. Blue oaks also live in regions that get water from the same storms that dump snow in the Sierra Nevada, which makes them a particularly good proxy for snowpack.
According to Flint, scientists at the California Water Science Center have observed for several years that, as temperatures rise, more precipitation comes in the form of rain than snow. In the western United States, the rise in air temperatures has caused warmer winters that produce more rain than snow. The recent study compared snowpack and rainfall records, which confirmed that rising temperatures are causing precipitation dynamics to change. The results show that rising temperatures have resulted in a higher ratio of rain to snow in recent years.
"The problem there is that you can't store the water later in the season so that it melts and sustains the water supply throughout the summer," Flint said. Instead, she said, that water rushes into the ocean.
Flint agreed with Trouet's assessment that drought conditions are only going to worsen, but added, "Rising temperatures, regardless of the current drought situation, will continue to exacerbate [the natural water storage system] because more precipitation will fall as rain than as snow."
Snow drought
During the winter months, snowpack typically builds up a large store of water. Then, starting in the spring months, the snowpack melts and helps replenish streams, lakes, groundwater and reservoirs. But when these regions experience a dry winter, like the 2014-2015 seasonaccording to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this backup of stored water shrinks.
In turn, less meltwater enters the system during the spring and summer, causing the dry season to extend into the spring, said Lorraine Flint, a hydrologist at the USGS California Water Science Center who was not involved in the new study. Making matters worse, the hot weather means more moisture is sucked out of vegetation, thus creating a greater demand for water, Flint added. [The 10 Driest Places on Earth]
Trouet and her colleagues got the idea for their study after California Gov. Jerry Brown declared the first-ever mandatory water restrictions throughout the state — a result of record-low snowpack that winter and the resulting water scarcity. That made Trouet and her colleagues interested in reconstructing the paleohistory — the study of how something has changed over time — of the Sierra Nevada snowpack.
Tree rings
To do this, the researchers looked at published tree-ring data in central California from 1405 to 2005, which recorded seasonal wet precipitation, rain, and annual snowpack measurements since the 1930s. The researchers also used published reconstructions of winter temperatures in southern and central California from 1500 to 1980.
Growth rings in trees shrink and expand according to the amount of precipitation the tree experienced in the spring, summer, winter or fall, so they are fairly accurate markers of environmental factors like precipitation, temperature and sunlight that affect vegetation growth. Scientists have a particularly long and well documented record of this region's blue oak (Quercus douglasii) tree rings dating back to 1405. Blue oaks also live in regions that get water from the same storms that dump snow in the Sierra Nevada, which makes them a particularly good proxy for snowpack.
According to Flint, scientists at the California Water Science Center have observed for several years that, as temperatures rise, more precipitation comes in the form of rain than snow. In the western United States, the rise in air temperatures has caused warmer winters that produce more rain than snow. The recent study compared snowpack and rainfall records, which confirmed that rising temperatures are causing precipitation dynamics to change. The results show that rising temperatures have resulted in a higher ratio of rain to snow in recent years.
"The problem there is that you can't store the water later in the season so that it melts and sustains the water supply throughout the summer," Flint said. Instead, she said, that water rushes into the ocean.
Flint agreed with Trouet's assessment that drought conditions are only going to worsen, but added, "Rising temperatures, regardless of the current drought situation, will continue to exacerbate [the natural water storage system] because more precipitation will fall as rain than as snow."
Hot Oceans Are Killing Coral Reefs Around the World 10/8/15
For the past year, the world’s corals have been getting increasingly pummeled by climate change. Now with El Niño kicking ocean heat into overdrive, much of the world’s oceans have turned deadly for the world’s corals.
On Thursday, the National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) announced a global coral bleaching event. This year joins the ranks of 1997 and 2010 as the only times on record that bleaching has occurred in all three of the world’s oceans that support coral at the same time. All three global bleaching events have occurred in El Niño years, and the climate phenomenon definitely has a role to play. But the ever-rising temperatures underwater and above |
due to climate change are the biggest reason corals are currently dying off across a 4,600-square mile area in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans.“The baseline temperature has heated so much that reefs are no longer able to cope with what's normal in El Niño years,” Richard Vevers, director of the XL Catlin Seaview Survey, said. “These events are going to become more and more common as climate change goes on. Coral bleaching is such a spectacle; the equivalent above water would be a rainforest turning white.”
Once ocean waters warm past a certain threshold, coral begin to die off because they can’t support the algae that sustain them. The result is ghostly forests of white coral.
Without the protection of reefs, small islands lose their first line of defense against storm surge as well as ecosystems that support fisheries and tourism for more than 500 million people. Reefs also support about a quarter of all marine species despite covering less than 0.1 percent of the world’s oceans. In addition to bleaching, ocean acidification and wild sea level swings due to El Niño are also conspiring to cripple reefs.
The current spate of bleaching began in 2014, a year that saw record warmth on both land and sea. Temperatures have since continued to climb in 2015 (and 2016 is already looking pretty hot, too), resulting in coral dying off everywhere from the Caribbean to Hawaii to the Indian Ocean’s Coral Triangle.
The die-off around Hawaii has been particularly worrisome with more than a third of the island chain’s coral experiencing bleaching since 2014, including areas that have never seen bleaching occur before. Mark Eakin, the coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, said that by the year’s end, more than 60 percent of the state’s corals could suffer the same fate. All told, 95 percent of the corals in the U.S. are expected to be exposed to bleaching.
Because of the magnitude of the strong El Niño and the growing climate change signal in the oceans, Eakin said that NOAA is issuing an extended forecast for reefs through May for the first time. It is not a good forecast for reefs.
“The worst part about it is if you look at Indian Ocean, its showing that the thermal stress is going to be worse in 2016 than 2015,” Eakin said.
NOAA scientists have been working with Catlin Seaview Survey to monitor reefs before, during and after bleaching events to see the impacts occurring in real time. Vevers and his team have been using high resolution, panoramic photography that provides valuable scientific information on how different species are affected by heat as well as powerful images that show the impacts of climate change on some of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.
As much as the efforts are helping scientists identify the impacts climate change is having on corals, it’s also helping them identify areas and species that can survive in ever-warming waters.
“One thing that imagery provides us with is information on places where we should be putting more investments and taking more action to protect reefs that may be resilient to climate change,” Eakin said. “The other is by demonstrating the rate at which we’re losing resources. It provides very valuable information on what we stand to lose by not addressing climate change and the importance of addressing climate change and doing it quickly. We stand to lose a lot.”
Once ocean waters warm past a certain threshold, coral begin to die off because they can’t support the algae that sustain them. The result is ghostly forests of white coral.
Without the protection of reefs, small islands lose their first line of defense against storm surge as well as ecosystems that support fisheries and tourism for more than 500 million people. Reefs also support about a quarter of all marine species despite covering less than 0.1 percent of the world’s oceans. In addition to bleaching, ocean acidification and wild sea level swings due to El Niño are also conspiring to cripple reefs.
The current spate of bleaching began in 2014, a year that saw record warmth on both land and sea. Temperatures have since continued to climb in 2015 (and 2016 is already looking pretty hot, too), resulting in coral dying off everywhere from the Caribbean to Hawaii to the Indian Ocean’s Coral Triangle.
The die-off around Hawaii has been particularly worrisome with more than a third of the island chain’s coral experiencing bleaching since 2014, including areas that have never seen bleaching occur before. Mark Eakin, the coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, said that by the year’s end, more than 60 percent of the state’s corals could suffer the same fate. All told, 95 percent of the corals in the U.S. are expected to be exposed to bleaching.
Because of the magnitude of the strong El Niño and the growing climate change signal in the oceans, Eakin said that NOAA is issuing an extended forecast for reefs through May for the first time. It is not a good forecast for reefs.
“The worst part about it is if you look at Indian Ocean, its showing that the thermal stress is going to be worse in 2016 than 2015,” Eakin said.
NOAA scientists have been working with Catlin Seaview Survey to monitor reefs before, during and after bleaching events to see the impacts occurring in real time. Vevers and his team have been using high resolution, panoramic photography that provides valuable scientific information on how different species are affected by heat as well as powerful images that show the impacts of climate change on some of the world’s most delicate ecosystems.
As much as the efforts are helping scientists identify the impacts climate change is having on corals, it’s also helping them identify areas and species that can survive in ever-warming waters.
“One thing that imagery provides us with is information on places where we should be putting more investments and taking more action to protect reefs that may be resilient to climate change,” Eakin said. “The other is by demonstrating the rate at which we’re losing resources. It provides very valuable information on what we stand to lose by not addressing climate change and the importance of addressing climate change and doing it quickly. We stand to lose a lot.”
Carbon X Prize: Can We Make Carbon Emissions Green? 10/12/15
The X Prize Foundation is calling green innovators from around the globe to compete in its latest contest. To win the Carbon X Prize, teams must create usable products out of carbon dioxide gas — the same gas that's spewed from power plants and anywhere fossil fuels are burned.
"The winning team will convert the most CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions into the highest-value products," Paul Bunje, principal and senior scientist of Energy & Environment at X Prize, said in a statement. "To be competitive, teams will have to make the business case for their approach as well as minimize their |
use of energy, water, land and other inputs that have consequences for the environment."
Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that is also the main cause of global warming, scientists agree. The more coal-based energy humans consume, the more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide enter the atmosphere and heat up Earth. The effects of global warming are already showing up, from accelerated melting of ice sheets, to more intense and frequent storms, to wildlife having to move their ranges north as they try to beat the heat. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]
"Some people may believe that any solutions we find will be too late to make a difference, but that attitude runs counter to the spirit of innovation and optimism that has driven human and economic development for centuries," Bunje said. "With the right amount of passion, focus and investment, we can and we will find the portfolio of solutions necessary to address climate change."
Whereas there have been big innovations in carbon-capturetechnology, in which CO2 from fossil-fuel power plants is taken from fossil fuels and stored so it's not released into the atmosphere, there has been little research that focuses on turning carbon dioxide into useful products, such as a fuel or new material, according to the X Prize Foundation.
"There is work, mostly in research, to turn carbon dioxide into fuels, cements and other materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes," Bunje said. "Our goal is to take [this type of innovation], really accelerate it and get it to the scale that's really necessary. To not just research how to do this, but actually employ it."
And X Prize representatives are hoping all innovative minds will step up.
"We have this phrase we use internally [at X Prize]: innovation can come from anywhere. Anywhere on the planet and from any type of background," Bunje told Live Science.
In addition to the usual suspects — scientists and innovators from start-up companies — Bunje and his colleagues also expect that garage innovators — people who've just been tinkering around on their own — will participate in the Carbon X Prize challenge. In the past, high school students have made a showing in X Prize competitions.
If you think you have something to contribute to a team to find a workable technology, even if it's not a fully formed idea, it's worth throwing "your hat into the ring," Bunje said.
Innovators who decide to compete can choose between two tracks: converting emissions from either a natural gas power plant or a coal power plant. The first phases involve getting teams together for the competition, then each team will work on and submit their technology and business plans to the X Prize judges.
Based on the teams' submissions, judges will then conduct the first round of eliminations. Only the top fifteen teams for each track will move on. A 12-month pilot-scale competition will follow, during which the remaining teams will build their technologies. Next, the judges will pick the top five contenders for each track. These top teams will receive a $5,000 prize and continue on to the final round, where they will scale up the original technology to an industrial level, to demonstrate how the technology uses carbon dioxide emissions from a power plant, straight from the source, and turns those emissions into the final product.
The winners for each track will be awarded $10 million.
Called the "$20M NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE," the competition is sponsored by COSIA, Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, and NRG, a company that aims to deliver cleaner and smarter energy for the U.S. energy industry.
X Prize, an organization dedicated to creating incentivized prize competitions to encourage innovators who want to change the world for the better, has organized several such competitions in the past, including the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup XChallenge and the Progressive Automotive X Prize. Registration for the Carbon X Prize has officially opened, and will close in June 2016. Interested parties can sign up on the X Prize website. The competition will run until March 2020, when the grand prize winner will be announced.
Carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas that is also the main cause of global warming, scientists agree. The more coal-based energy humans consume, the more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide enter the atmosphere and heat up Earth. The effects of global warming are already showing up, from accelerated melting of ice sheets, to more intense and frequent storms, to wildlife having to move their ranges north as they try to beat the heat. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]
"Some people may believe that any solutions we find will be too late to make a difference, but that attitude runs counter to the spirit of innovation and optimism that has driven human and economic development for centuries," Bunje said. "With the right amount of passion, focus and investment, we can and we will find the portfolio of solutions necessary to address climate change."
Whereas there have been big innovations in carbon-capturetechnology, in which CO2 from fossil-fuel power plants is taken from fossil fuels and stored so it's not released into the atmosphere, there has been little research that focuses on turning carbon dioxide into useful products, such as a fuel or new material, according to the X Prize Foundation.
"There is work, mostly in research, to turn carbon dioxide into fuels, cements and other materials like graphene and carbon nanotubes," Bunje said. "Our goal is to take [this type of innovation], really accelerate it and get it to the scale that's really necessary. To not just research how to do this, but actually employ it."
And X Prize representatives are hoping all innovative minds will step up.
"We have this phrase we use internally [at X Prize]: innovation can come from anywhere. Anywhere on the planet and from any type of background," Bunje told Live Science.
In addition to the usual suspects — scientists and innovators from start-up companies — Bunje and his colleagues also expect that garage innovators — people who've just been tinkering around on their own — will participate in the Carbon X Prize challenge. In the past, high school students have made a showing in X Prize competitions.
If you think you have something to contribute to a team to find a workable technology, even if it's not a fully formed idea, it's worth throwing "your hat into the ring," Bunje said.
Innovators who decide to compete can choose between two tracks: converting emissions from either a natural gas power plant or a coal power plant. The first phases involve getting teams together for the competition, then each team will work on and submit their technology and business plans to the X Prize judges.
Based on the teams' submissions, judges will then conduct the first round of eliminations. Only the top fifteen teams for each track will move on. A 12-month pilot-scale competition will follow, during which the remaining teams will build their technologies. Next, the judges will pick the top five contenders for each track. These top teams will receive a $5,000 prize and continue on to the final round, where they will scale up the original technology to an industrial level, to demonstrate how the technology uses carbon dioxide emissions from a power plant, straight from the source, and turns those emissions into the final product.
The winners for each track will be awarded $10 million.
Called the "$20M NRG COSIA Carbon XPRIZE," the competition is sponsored by COSIA, Canada's Oil Sands Innovation Alliance, and NRG, a company that aims to deliver cleaner and smarter energy for the U.S. energy industry.
X Prize, an organization dedicated to creating incentivized prize competitions to encourage innovators who want to change the world for the better, has organized several such competitions in the past, including the Wendy Schmidt Oil Cleanup XChallenge and the Progressive Automotive X Prize. Registration for the Carbon X Prize has officially opened, and will close in June 2016. Interested parties can sign up on the X Prize website. The competition will run until March 2020, when the grand prize winner will be announced.
The Flora of the Future
The concept of ecological restoration, as developed over the past 20 years, rests on the mistaken assumption that we can somehow bring back past ecosystems by removing invasive species and replanting native species. This overly simplistic view of the world ignores two basic tenets of modern ecology — that environmental stability is an illusion, and that an unpredictable future belongs to the best adapted. 1
Many landscape architects feel conflicted by the restoration debate, trapped between the profession’s idealistic rhetoric about the innate superiority of native ecosystems and the constraints imposed by the financial and ecological realities of a particular site. Over the past 250 years, people have altered the basic trajectory of modern ecology to such an extent that going back to some earlier native condition is no |
longer possible and is certainly not a realistic solution to the increasingly complex environmental problems that we face.
Landscape architects — and anyone else who works directly with vegetation — need to acknowledge that a wide variety of so-called novel or emergent ecosystems are developing before our eyes. They are the product of the interacting forces of urbanization, globalization and climate change, and are made up of organisms that have been brought together by the elimination or neutralization of barriers that had kept them separated for millions of years. 2 The concept of a novel ecosystem applies not only to our cities and suburbs but also to many landscapes that have been subjected to the disturbance-intensive practices of agriculture, industry and mining. It is unrealistic to assume that turning back the ecological clock will be any easier than reversing the economic forces that created these landscapes. 3
Landscape architecture can be a charged discipline, especially when it has to resolve the competing interests of its human clients with those of the other organisms that seek to inhabit the same space. The dichotomies that separate people from nature, and native from non-native species, present contradictions that landscape architects must resolve if they hope to have a lasting impact on the environments they design. My purpose here is to articulate an ecologically oriented vision for human-dominated landscapes that does not define them as intrinsically negative, valueless or alien.
Landscape architects — and anyone else who works directly with vegetation — need to acknowledge that a wide variety of so-called novel or emergent ecosystems are developing before our eyes. They are the product of the interacting forces of urbanization, globalization and climate change, and are made up of organisms that have been brought together by the elimination or neutralization of barriers that had kept them separated for millions of years. 2 The concept of a novel ecosystem applies not only to our cities and suburbs but also to many landscapes that have been subjected to the disturbance-intensive practices of agriculture, industry and mining. It is unrealistic to assume that turning back the ecological clock will be any easier than reversing the economic forces that created these landscapes. 3
Landscape architecture can be a charged discipline, especially when it has to resolve the competing interests of its human clients with those of the other organisms that seek to inhabit the same space. The dichotomies that separate people from nature, and native from non-native species, present contradictions that landscape architects must resolve if they hope to have a lasting impact on the environments they design. My purpose here is to articulate an ecologically oriented vision for human-dominated landscapes that does not define them as intrinsically negative, valueless or alien.
my comments
American Wind Farms
Stand underneath a wind turbine and it's easy to be awestruck.
Above you is a structure as tall as a 30-story building, with turbines as large as a football field and blades rotating at over 200MPH on the tips. It is an impressive example of energy innovation, and yet one of these mammoth wind towers provides clean, renewable energy by a simple mechanical feat -- the spinning turbines turn a generator that provides power for hundreds of homes. Wind works. Over the past four decades, wind has provided an increasing amount of the energy we use. Today, wind |
farms generate about 50,000 megawatts of clean, renewable energy -- the equivalent of the energy produced by 12 Hoover Dams.
As this report illustrates, clean, renewable energy is just the start of what we get from growing the number of wind farms across the country. The wind industry now employs 75,000 Americans. U.S. companies and their workers produce approximately 65 percent of every wind turbine part. Wind energy is giving American companies the chance to participate in a new and exciting global industries, American workers the chance to apply existing skills and seek new opportunities in a growing sector, and American communities the chance to prosper from truly clean, renewable energy.
And yet all of this growth and increased employment could be stopped in its tracks if Congress allows an important wind energy incentive -– the Production Tax Credit (PTC) –- to expire. If instead Congress acts to continue the PTC, the wind industry can continue its impressive success story. The amount of wind energy generated by U.S. wind farms has nearly tripled in the past four years, and wind power has represented at least one-third of all new power added in America over the last five years. In fact, estimates show America could get 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030 -– about as much as we get from nuclear energy.
This report outlines just how many jobs -- and what kinds -- low from a typical wind project. It is time to dispel the myths about wind and recognize the enormous value it provides to the health of our communities and the strength of our economy. Pulling the rug out from under wind now would cost jobs today and sacrifice future good, domestic jobs for many Americans across multiple economic sectors.
The Job-Creating Potential of Wind EnergyThis report shows that workers contributing to wind energy include everyone from engineers to construction employees; from blade manufacturers to gearbox makers; from electricians to operators. And they're located all across the country.
Our research finds that just one typical wind farm of 250-MW creates 1,079 direct jobs over the lifetime of the project. Already 25 projects of similar or greater size have already been built in the U.S., and another 100 wind projects sized from 150-MW to 250-MW are in operation.
Importantly, these jobs aren't only created on the actual wind farm site during the installation of the wind turbines. These jobs are also created throughout the sizable wind farm economic "ecosystem" -- the chain of activities and businesses that, over time, comprise the many steps of building a wind farm.
Companies and Communities Also Benefit From Wind Power
In addition to jobs, wind projects boost revenues and create new markets for a wide-range of companies across many different industries. Each of the 14 steps in building a wind farm outlined in this report represents new opportunities for dozens of companies across many different cities and states.
Moreover, wind power projects offers significant benefits to entire communities where these projects are built -- from new earnings opportunities for farmers and landowners to additional tax revenues and lease payments that support other community priorities, such as better education, infrastructure, and economic development.
Unfortunately, misconceptions about the viability of wind power downplay the strong economic and employment benefits of wind power, and ignore the continued innovation in this sector. This report is ultimately an exercise in telling the story of one large wind farm -- showing the full economic impact -- to demonstrate the impressive value created by these projects, to highlight the opportunities for American companies, communities and workers, and to caution what is at risk if we don’t continue to invest in these renewable technologies.
Across America, the U.S. wind industry is exceeding expectations. This report offers a snapshot of this emerging trend, and points the way forward for a clean energy future. We must continue this momentum by promoting strong energy policies, beginning with an extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind energy, a crucial step towards building a strong, sustainable, market leading U.S. wind industry.
As this report illustrates, clean, renewable energy is just the start of what we get from growing the number of wind farms across the country. The wind industry now employs 75,000 Americans. U.S. companies and their workers produce approximately 65 percent of every wind turbine part. Wind energy is giving American companies the chance to participate in a new and exciting global industries, American workers the chance to apply existing skills and seek new opportunities in a growing sector, and American communities the chance to prosper from truly clean, renewable energy.
And yet all of this growth and increased employment could be stopped in its tracks if Congress allows an important wind energy incentive -– the Production Tax Credit (PTC) –- to expire. If instead Congress acts to continue the PTC, the wind industry can continue its impressive success story. The amount of wind energy generated by U.S. wind farms has nearly tripled in the past four years, and wind power has represented at least one-third of all new power added in America over the last five years. In fact, estimates show America could get 20 percent of its electricity from wind by 2030 -– about as much as we get from nuclear energy.
This report outlines just how many jobs -- and what kinds -- low from a typical wind project. It is time to dispel the myths about wind and recognize the enormous value it provides to the health of our communities and the strength of our economy. Pulling the rug out from under wind now would cost jobs today and sacrifice future good, domestic jobs for many Americans across multiple economic sectors.
The Job-Creating Potential of Wind EnergyThis report shows that workers contributing to wind energy include everyone from engineers to construction employees; from blade manufacturers to gearbox makers; from electricians to operators. And they're located all across the country.
Our research finds that just one typical wind farm of 250-MW creates 1,079 direct jobs over the lifetime of the project. Already 25 projects of similar or greater size have already been built in the U.S., and another 100 wind projects sized from 150-MW to 250-MW are in operation.
Importantly, these jobs aren't only created on the actual wind farm site during the installation of the wind turbines. These jobs are also created throughout the sizable wind farm economic "ecosystem" -- the chain of activities and businesses that, over time, comprise the many steps of building a wind farm.
Companies and Communities Also Benefit From Wind Power
In addition to jobs, wind projects boost revenues and create new markets for a wide-range of companies across many different industries. Each of the 14 steps in building a wind farm outlined in this report represents new opportunities for dozens of companies across many different cities and states.
Moreover, wind power projects offers significant benefits to entire communities where these projects are built -- from new earnings opportunities for farmers and landowners to additional tax revenues and lease payments that support other community priorities, such as better education, infrastructure, and economic development.
Unfortunately, misconceptions about the viability of wind power downplay the strong economic and employment benefits of wind power, and ignore the continued innovation in this sector. This report is ultimately an exercise in telling the story of one large wind farm -- showing the full economic impact -- to demonstrate the impressive value created by these projects, to highlight the opportunities for American companies, communities and workers, and to caution what is at risk if we don’t continue to invest in these renewable technologies.
Across America, the U.S. wind industry is exceeding expectations. This report offers a snapshot of this emerging trend, and points the way forward for a clean energy future. We must continue this momentum by promoting strong energy policies, beginning with an extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind energy, a crucial step towards building a strong, sustainable, market leading U.S. wind industry.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a Model for the Nation
With no federal limit on how much carbon dioxide companies can put into the air, many states are taking the lead to hold polluters accountable and to help reduce the impacts of global warming. In the absence of a comprehensive national energy policy, ten northeastern and mid-Atlantic states are working together to shift their energy dollars to cleaner, local, job-creating resources.
Through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (also known as RGGI, or "Reggie"), these states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—are already using a market-based system to cap carbon pollution while lowering energy bills for businesses and consumers and creating jobs.
How RGGI WorksRGGI is a "cap-and-invest" program whereby the states set a regional limit on carbon pollution, sell pollution permits, and invest most of the proceeds in energy efficiency and other clean-energy technologies. RGGI's design requires large fossil-fuel power plants to buy those pollution permits, allowing them to emit only a specific amount of carbon dioxide through a quarterly auction. Those profits then generate regional economic benefits through investments in local businesses that provide jobs for residents, weatherize homes, upgrade heating and air-conditioning systems, and provide energy with clean, homegrown American power.
How RGGI Pays OffLess Pollution: Just as designed, RGGI is a leading factor in bringing carbon pollution in the region down 30 percent. By putting a price on carbon dioxide, RGGI pushes utilities to be more careful about how much of it they emit. And by 2018, RGGI will reduce the number of allowances, and, therefore, the amount of carbon dioxide these power plants can release into our air, by 10 percent.
Regional Economic Gains: RGGI's success isn't just a win for our atmosphere. What's most heartening about the initiative is the way it cuts carbon pollution while creating a host of economic gains for the region, largely for the benefit of consumers, unemployed workers, and small businesses. RGGI generated more than $789 million in its first two years and invested the vast majority of that money into projects that promote energy efficiency, support renewable energy, create clean-energy jobs and train workers to fill them. In fact, 80 percent of the RGGI revenue has gone towards strategic energy programs.
Consumer Savings: Thanks to RGGI, energy costs for participating consumers in the region are an average of 15 to 30 percent lower than they would be without the program, especially at peak times. And RGGI has gone one step further to help lower consumer costs, putting more than $110 million into programs that help low- and middle-income households in the region with their energy bills, both through direct assistance and through programs that weatherize low-income homes. Even consumers who don't participate in efficiency programs benefit because those who do participate reduce demand and reduce the market price of electricity for everyone.
A Model that WorksThe product of many years of hard work by a state officials and a wide array of business, consumer and environmental stakeholders, RGGI was launched by former New York Republican Governor Pataki and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from the start. Modeled on the successful policy developed and implemented by the George H.W. Bush administration to address acid rain in the late 80s and early 90s, capping emissions and using the markets for flexibility has a long history of cost effectively achieving the needed emission reductions.
There's always room for improvement, including more stringent pollution limits. But with proven success, RGGI serves as a powerful model for what a comprehensive national energy policy should do: shift the economy away from reliance on dirty old fuels, volatile energy prices and the antiquated power plants that our grandparents built and move towards clean technologies and innovation that bring jobs, lower energy bills, and can help make US businesses more competitive in today's global markets.
Through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (also known as RGGI, or "Reggie"), these states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—are already using a market-based system to cap carbon pollution while lowering energy bills for businesses and consumers and creating jobs.
How RGGI WorksRGGI is a "cap-and-invest" program whereby the states set a regional limit on carbon pollution, sell pollution permits, and invest most of the proceeds in energy efficiency and other clean-energy technologies. RGGI's design requires large fossil-fuel power plants to buy those pollution permits, allowing them to emit only a specific amount of carbon dioxide through a quarterly auction. Those profits then generate regional economic benefits through investments in local businesses that provide jobs for residents, weatherize homes, upgrade heating and air-conditioning systems, and provide energy with clean, homegrown American power.
How RGGI Pays OffLess Pollution: Just as designed, RGGI is a leading factor in bringing carbon pollution in the region down 30 percent. By putting a price on carbon dioxide, RGGI pushes utilities to be more careful about how much of it they emit. And by 2018, RGGI will reduce the number of allowances, and, therefore, the amount of carbon dioxide these power plants can release into our air, by 10 percent.
Regional Economic Gains: RGGI's success isn't just a win for our atmosphere. What's most heartening about the initiative is the way it cuts carbon pollution while creating a host of economic gains for the region, largely for the benefit of consumers, unemployed workers, and small businesses. RGGI generated more than $789 million in its first two years and invested the vast majority of that money into projects that promote energy efficiency, support renewable energy, create clean-energy jobs and train workers to fill them. In fact, 80 percent of the RGGI revenue has gone towards strategic energy programs.
Consumer Savings: Thanks to RGGI, energy costs for participating consumers in the region are an average of 15 to 30 percent lower than they would be without the program, especially at peak times. And RGGI has gone one step further to help lower consumer costs, putting more than $110 million into programs that help low- and middle-income households in the region with their energy bills, both through direct assistance and through programs that weatherize low-income homes. Even consumers who don't participate in efficiency programs benefit because those who do participate reduce demand and reduce the market price of electricity for everyone.
A Model that WorksThe product of many years of hard work by a state officials and a wide array of business, consumer and environmental stakeholders, RGGI was launched by former New York Republican Governor Pataki and has enjoyed broad bipartisan support from the start. Modeled on the successful policy developed and implemented by the George H.W. Bush administration to address acid rain in the late 80s and early 90s, capping emissions and using the markets for flexibility has a long history of cost effectively achieving the needed emission reductions.
There's always room for improvement, including more stringent pollution limits. But with proven success, RGGI serves as a powerful model for what a comprehensive national energy policy should do: shift the economy away from reliance on dirty old fuels, volatile energy prices and the antiquated power plants that our grandparents built and move towards clean technologies and innovation that bring jobs, lower energy bills, and can help make US businesses more competitive in today's global markets.
Ocean Blueprint
Home to a rich variety of fish and wildlife, from blue crabs, oysters and flounder to endangered whales and turtles, the Mid-Atlantic's ocean provides delicious seafood, thousands of jobs, and valuable recreation opportunities along the nation's most populous coastline. Ocean industries contribute more than $47 billion to the region's gross domestic product, with ocean tourism and recreation responsible for more than half of this wealth and more than 75 percent of all ocean jobs in 2011.
Our enjoyment of these places relies on their continued health; however, our ocean faces numerous challenges. Our oceans and coasts are stressed from problems like pollution, depleted fish populations, endangered species, warmer temperatures, and ocean acidification.
Further, our oceans are increasingly busy places. For example, the Mid-Atlantic's offshore waters serve as migratory corridors for much ocean life, including endangered North Atlantic right whales, sea turtles, and many fish species, yet many of these same areas are being examined for offshore wind proposals; may experience increased shipping and larger ships as a result of the Panama Canal expansion; and be impacted by sea level rise and the stronger, bigger storms which are predicted to change the shape of our shoreline and have already created demand for mining the offshore sand deposits valuable for fisheries.
Coordinated Ocean Planning Will Help Protect
Our OceanDozens of different agencies have overlapping and sometimes conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean development, and historically, there has been a lack of coordination. That is now changing: The Mid-Atlantic states of New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia have united with federal agency, tribal, and fisheries management representatives to work together more efficiently and encourage sustainable use and protection of the ocean waters off of the Mid-Atlantic states, from the shoreline out to 200 miles. Proactively planning for ocean uses like renewable energy reduces conflicts between new and existing ocean activities from the start, while easing the pressure on our already-stressed seas.
Those of us who use and love the ocean, such as environmental organizations, fishermen, shipping companies, coastal tourism businesses, and members of the public, need to encourage this coordinated ocean planning and help identify areas of the sea that are appropriate for use and those that need protection. This cooperation will help us ensure a healthy ocean for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.
NRDC is working to ensure that the regional plan protects, maintains, and restores the health of our ocean habitats, fish, and wildlife upon which we depend for jobs, food, recreation, and a way of life.
Our enjoyment of these places relies on their continued health; however, our ocean faces numerous challenges. Our oceans and coasts are stressed from problems like pollution, depleted fish populations, endangered species, warmer temperatures, and ocean acidification.
Further, our oceans are increasingly busy places. For example, the Mid-Atlantic's offshore waters serve as migratory corridors for much ocean life, including endangered North Atlantic right whales, sea turtles, and many fish species, yet many of these same areas are being examined for offshore wind proposals; may experience increased shipping and larger ships as a result of the Panama Canal expansion; and be impacted by sea level rise and the stronger, bigger storms which are predicted to change the shape of our shoreline and have already created demand for mining the offshore sand deposits valuable for fisheries.
Coordinated Ocean Planning Will Help Protect
Our OceanDozens of different agencies have overlapping and sometimes conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean development, and historically, there has been a lack of coordination. That is now changing: The Mid-Atlantic states of New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia have united with federal agency, tribal, and fisheries management representatives to work together more efficiently and encourage sustainable use and protection of the ocean waters off of the Mid-Atlantic states, from the shoreline out to 200 miles. Proactively planning for ocean uses like renewable energy reduces conflicts between new and existing ocean activities from the start, while easing the pressure on our already-stressed seas.
Those of us who use and love the ocean, such as environmental organizations, fishermen, shipping companies, coastal tourism businesses, and members of the public, need to encourage this coordinated ocean planning and help identify areas of the sea that are appropriate for use and those that need protection. This cooperation will help us ensure a healthy ocean for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.
NRDC is working to ensure that the regional plan protects, maintains, and restores the health of our ocean habitats, fish, and wildlife upon which we depend for jobs, food, recreation, and a way of life.
Solutions to Plastic Pollution in our Oceans
We're treating the oceans like a trash bin: around 80 percent of marine litter originates on land, and most of that is plastic. Plastic that pollutes our oceans and waterways has severe impacts on our environment and our economy. Seabirds, whales, sea turtles and other marine life are eating marine plastic pollution and dying from choking, intestinal blockage and starvation. Scientists are investigating the long-term impacts of toxic pollutants absorbed, transported, and consumed by fish and other marine life, including the potential effects on human health.
|
Protecting the Last Wild Forests
America's national forest system was created in the early 20th century to preserve pristine wilderness and the wildlife that lives there for all generations. But since then, more than half of the system's forested land has been developed or crisscrossed by roads that disturb its natural beauty and ecosystems.
In 2001, with a dwindling amount of untouched land left, the U.S. Forest Service issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to save the few remaining expanses of true wildlands from development.
"As the realities of global climate change become ever more apparent, the critical need to preserve these last remaining, intact roadless areas within the national forests could not be more urgent." — Letter from leading scientists in support of the roadless ruleIncluded on the list was Alaska's Tongass National Forest, which lies at the heart of the world's largest remaining temperate rainforest. With its towering groves of ancient trees, the Tongass supports vibrant populations of eagles, grizzlies, wolves and salmon.
The Tongass is a prime example of what the roadless area rule was meant to protect. Yet today, it remains threatened, thanks to an exemption from the administration of President George W. Bush. And despite its many successes, the roadless rule itself remains under assault, as well. Oil and logging companies have opposed the rule since its creation, leaving the wildlands with an uncertain fate.
Benefits of the Roadless RuleThe roadless rule protects 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest in 39 states from destructive logging, mining and road building. These activities have the potential to destroy old-growth ecosystems, pollute water and increase the risk of forest fires.
Since its creation, the has rule has received overwhelming public support, garnering more than four million public comments -- 95 percent of which have been positive.
The roadless rule has been embraced by the public because it:
Protects Wildlife: Roadless forests are safe havens for fish and other wildlife, including more than 1,600 threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species.
Protects Habitat: In many areas across the United States, wildlife habitat has been fragmented or entirely destroyed because of road building and commercial interests.
Protects Drinking Water: Roadless areas preserve vast expanses of land, which include watersheds that supply drinking water -- unpolluted by development -- for 60 million Americans.
Offers Refuge and Recreation: These quiet, pristine places offer refuge to people as well. Roadless areas are a world apart from the bustling, settled landscapes of our daily lives, and they harbor some of the best fishing, hunting, hiking and camping in the nation.
There's also another reason to support healthy, intact forests: The fight against global warming.
On March 31, 2009, dozens of leading scientists, including luminaries such as E.O. Wilson, sent the Obama administration a letter supporting the roadless rule and stating that healthy, intact forests are better able to absorb carbon dioxide and withstand changing climate conditions brought on by global warming.
Roadless Areas ThreatenedBut not everyone supports the benefits of protecting our few remaining wildlands. From its first days in office, George W. Bush's administration worked to weaken protections for roadless areas and give developers access to the places that the public wants to preserve.
President Bush illegally exempted the Tongass National Forest from the roadless rule as far back as 2001. After eight years of litigation and political wrangling, in its final days, his administration was able to push through exemptions for large portions of the forest system. They include the Tongass, as well as forests in the state of Idaho and potentially Colorado.
In 2001, with a dwindling amount of untouched land left, the U.S. Forest Service issued the Roadless Area Conservation Rule to save the few remaining expanses of true wildlands from development.
"As the realities of global climate change become ever more apparent, the critical need to preserve these last remaining, intact roadless areas within the national forests could not be more urgent." — Letter from leading scientists in support of the roadless ruleIncluded on the list was Alaska's Tongass National Forest, which lies at the heart of the world's largest remaining temperate rainforest. With its towering groves of ancient trees, the Tongass supports vibrant populations of eagles, grizzlies, wolves and salmon.
The Tongass is a prime example of what the roadless area rule was meant to protect. Yet today, it remains threatened, thanks to an exemption from the administration of President George W. Bush. And despite its many successes, the roadless rule itself remains under assault, as well. Oil and logging companies have opposed the rule since its creation, leaving the wildlands with an uncertain fate.
Benefits of the Roadless RuleThe roadless rule protects 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest in 39 states from destructive logging, mining and road building. These activities have the potential to destroy old-growth ecosystems, pollute water and increase the risk of forest fires.
Since its creation, the has rule has received overwhelming public support, garnering more than four million public comments -- 95 percent of which have been positive.
The roadless rule has been embraced by the public because it:
Protects Wildlife: Roadless forests are safe havens for fish and other wildlife, including more than 1,600 threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species.
Protects Habitat: In many areas across the United States, wildlife habitat has been fragmented or entirely destroyed because of road building and commercial interests.
Protects Drinking Water: Roadless areas preserve vast expanses of land, which include watersheds that supply drinking water -- unpolluted by development -- for 60 million Americans.
Offers Refuge and Recreation: These quiet, pristine places offer refuge to people as well. Roadless areas are a world apart from the bustling, settled landscapes of our daily lives, and they harbor some of the best fishing, hunting, hiking and camping in the nation.
There's also another reason to support healthy, intact forests: The fight against global warming.
On March 31, 2009, dozens of leading scientists, including luminaries such as E.O. Wilson, sent the Obama administration a letter supporting the roadless rule and stating that healthy, intact forests are better able to absorb carbon dioxide and withstand changing climate conditions brought on by global warming.
Roadless Areas ThreatenedBut not everyone supports the benefits of protecting our few remaining wildlands. From its first days in office, George W. Bush's administration worked to weaken protections for roadless areas and give developers access to the places that the public wants to preserve.
President Bush illegally exempted the Tongass National Forest from the roadless rule as far back as 2001. After eight years of litigation and political wrangling, in its final days, his administration was able to push through exemptions for large portions of the forest system. They include the Tongass, as well as forests in the state of Idaho and potentially Colorado.
20,000 Species Are Near Extinction: Is it Time to Rethink How We Decide Which to Save?
M. Sanjayan remembers debating grad school biology classmates about the fate of the California condor back in the 1990s, when the bird was on the brink of extinction.
Should the condor, which had almost been wiped out by habitat loss, hunting, and eating carcasses that were poisoned by lead bullets, be left to die in the wild?
Or should scientists take the remaining 22 condors into captivity and breed them, which would cost millions of dollars?
Sanjayan's view was that humans had a moral responsibility to save North America's largest flying bird.
That's exactly what happened: Captive-born condors were reintroduced into the western United States in the early 1990s. There are now more than 200 in California, Arizona, and northern Mexico.
On a recent trip to the Grand Canyon, Sanjayan—now the lead scientist at the Nature Conservancy—looked up and spied one of the big black birds soaring above.
"That's pretty incredible if you think about it," he says. "They're really out there in the wild now." (See "Banning Lead Ammunition Could Give Condors a Chance.")
The condor's recovery shows that endangered species can be brought back from the extreme brink. And there are plenty of other examples.
Gray wolves, which by the 1970s were wiped out of most of their North American range due to hunting, have bounced back to more than 3,500, thanks largely to reintroduction efforts. Northernelephant seals, hunted down to fewer than a hundred individuals, now number 150,000 along the West Coast.
But with dozens of new species going extinct every day—scientists say that more than 20,000 plants and animals are on the brink of disappearing forever—deciding which species to save is a tricky question.
This week, National Geographic will spotlight some of the world's most innovative and unusual efforts to save disappearing species, from the mountains of Tanzania to the plains of Missouri, in a series called "Last of the Last."
The series will focus on campaigns to bring back species deemed worth saving. Which raises a basic question: How do we decide which species to save?
In some cases, scientists and economists use algorithms and logistical models to determine a return on investment for trying to save the last of the last: If x dollars are put toward saving the spotted owl, it's possible to determine how many might be saved.
In practice, though, scientists and conservations prioritize based on a mix of public perception and a species' economic value—for instance, whether it's a popular seafood or brings tourism dollars to a state.
And there's a another, more subjective factor: How they feel about a particular piece of flora or fauna.
"What we decide to save really is very arbitrary—it's much more often done for emotional or psychological or national reasons than would ever be made with a model," Sanjayan says.
As in the case of the condor, he says, "people end up saving what they want to save—it's as simple as that."
Some conservationists argue that how we choose which species live or die is deeply flawed, that our bias for preserving cute and fuzzy animals diverts precious resources from creatures that actually keep our planet humming.
Ants, for instance, are essential environmental helpers, distributing seeds, aerating soils, and eating other insects that are often human pests, says Marc Bekoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
"If we're going to save pandas rather than ants, we need a good reason, and being cute is not a good reason," he says. (Also see "Is Breeding Pandas in Captivity Worth It?")
Hugh Possingham, an expert in environmental decision-making at Australia's University of Queensland, says our obsession with "celebrity species" is likely detrimental to as many as thousands of other creatures in need.
Should the condor, which had almost been wiped out by habitat loss, hunting, and eating carcasses that were poisoned by lead bullets, be left to die in the wild?
Or should scientists take the remaining 22 condors into captivity and breed them, which would cost millions of dollars?
Sanjayan's view was that humans had a moral responsibility to save North America's largest flying bird.
That's exactly what happened: Captive-born condors were reintroduced into the western United States in the early 1990s. There are now more than 200 in California, Arizona, and northern Mexico.
On a recent trip to the Grand Canyon, Sanjayan—now the lead scientist at the Nature Conservancy—looked up and spied one of the big black birds soaring above.
"That's pretty incredible if you think about it," he says. "They're really out there in the wild now." (See "Banning Lead Ammunition Could Give Condors a Chance.")
The condor's recovery shows that endangered species can be brought back from the extreme brink. And there are plenty of other examples.
Gray wolves, which by the 1970s were wiped out of most of their North American range due to hunting, have bounced back to more than 3,500, thanks largely to reintroduction efforts. Northernelephant seals, hunted down to fewer than a hundred individuals, now number 150,000 along the West Coast.
But with dozens of new species going extinct every day—scientists say that more than 20,000 plants and animals are on the brink of disappearing forever—deciding which species to save is a tricky question.
This week, National Geographic will spotlight some of the world's most innovative and unusual efforts to save disappearing species, from the mountains of Tanzania to the plains of Missouri, in a series called "Last of the Last."
The series will focus on campaigns to bring back species deemed worth saving. Which raises a basic question: How do we decide which species to save?
In some cases, scientists and economists use algorithms and logistical models to determine a return on investment for trying to save the last of the last: If x dollars are put toward saving the spotted owl, it's possible to determine how many might be saved.
In practice, though, scientists and conservations prioritize based on a mix of public perception and a species' economic value—for instance, whether it's a popular seafood or brings tourism dollars to a state.
And there's a another, more subjective factor: How they feel about a particular piece of flora or fauna.
"What we decide to save really is very arbitrary—it's much more often done for emotional or psychological or national reasons than would ever be made with a model," Sanjayan says.
As in the case of the condor, he says, "people end up saving what they want to save—it's as simple as that."
Some conservationists argue that how we choose which species live or die is deeply flawed, that our bias for preserving cute and fuzzy animals diverts precious resources from creatures that actually keep our planet humming.
Ants, for instance, are essential environmental helpers, distributing seeds, aerating soils, and eating other insects that are often human pests, says Marc Bekoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.
"If we're going to save pandas rather than ants, we need a good reason, and being cute is not a good reason," he says. (Also see "Is Breeding Pandas in Captivity Worth It?")
Hugh Possingham, an expert in environmental decision-making at Australia's University of Queensland, says our obsession with "celebrity species" is likely detrimental to as many as thousands of other creatures in need.
Warming waters a major factor in the collapse of New England cod
For centuries, cod were the backbone of New England's fisheries and a key species in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. Today, cod stocks are on the verge of collapse, hovering at 3-4% of sustainable levels. Even cuts to the fishery have failed to slow this rapid decline, surprising both fishermen and fisheries managers. For the first time, a new report in Science explains why. It shows that the cod collapse is in large part due to rapid warming of the ocean in the Gulf of Maine -- 99 percent faster than anywhere else on the planet.
The rapid warming is linked to changes in the position of the Gulf Stream and to climate oscillations in the Atlantic and the Pacific. These factors add to the steady pace of warming caused by global climate change. In the face of already depleted cod stocks, fisheries managers in 2010 had placed a series of restrictions on harvesting this key Gulf of Maine |
species, but even strict quota limits on fishermen failed to help cod rebound.
"Managers kept reducing quotas, but the cod population kept declining," said Andrew Pershing, Chief Scientific Officer of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) and lead author of the study. "It turns out that warming waters were making the Gulf of Maine less hospitable for cod, and the management response was too slow to keep up with the changes."
Pershing and colleagues from GMRI, the University of Maine, Stony Brook University, the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, and NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, including the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, found that increasing water temperatures reduce the number of new cod produced by spawning females. Their study also suggests that warming waters led to fewer young fish surviving to adulthood.
The models used by managers over the last decade to set the quotas for cod did not account for the impact of rising temperatures, leading to quotas that were too high. Fishermen stayed within their quotas, but still took more fish than the population could sustain.
"This creates a frustrating situation that contributes to mistrust between fishermen, scientists, and managers," says Pershing. "The first step toward adapting fisheries to a changing climate is recognizing that warming impacts fish populations."
According to the report, recovery of Gulf of Maine cod depends on sound fishery management and on future temperatures. Cod are a coldwater species, and the Gulf of Maine is at the edge of their geographic range. As the ocean warms, the capacity of the Gulf of Maine to support cod will decline, leading to a smaller population and a smaller fishery.
The study shows the risk of not including temperature in fisheries models, especially for stocks like Gulf of Maine cod that are at the edge of their range. The warmer our climate gets, the less fisheries managers can rely on historical data.
"Managers kept reducing quotas, but the cod population kept declining," said Andrew Pershing, Chief Scientific Officer of the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) and lead author of the study. "It turns out that warming waters were making the Gulf of Maine less hospitable for cod, and the management response was too slow to keep up with the changes."
Pershing and colleagues from GMRI, the University of Maine, Stony Brook University, the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, and NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory, including the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, found that increasing water temperatures reduce the number of new cod produced by spawning females. Their study also suggests that warming waters led to fewer young fish surviving to adulthood.
The models used by managers over the last decade to set the quotas for cod did not account for the impact of rising temperatures, leading to quotas that were too high. Fishermen stayed within their quotas, but still took more fish than the population could sustain.
"This creates a frustrating situation that contributes to mistrust between fishermen, scientists, and managers," says Pershing. "The first step toward adapting fisheries to a changing climate is recognizing that warming impacts fish populations."
According to the report, recovery of Gulf of Maine cod depends on sound fishery management and on future temperatures. Cod are a coldwater species, and the Gulf of Maine is at the edge of their geographic range. As the ocean warms, the capacity of the Gulf of Maine to support cod will decline, leading to a smaller population and a smaller fishery.
The study shows the risk of not including temperature in fisheries models, especially for stocks like Gulf of Maine cod that are at the edge of their range. The warmer our climate gets, the less fisheries managers can rely on historical data.