Coastal Policy and Politics

2011-04-08T17:17:00.004-05:00

The earthquake/tsunami crisis in Japan is a wake up call for all coastal communities.

I have made the case in a video blog http://vimeo.com/21824508

For American the lesson is that these phenomena are real. The second is that the United States is just as vulnerable as Japan especially the Pacific Northwest - Oregon and Washington State in particular. The third lesson is that American states, governments, and people are less well prepared than the Japanese were and we saw what a terrible catastrophe happened there even WITH all the preparation.

You can post your comments on the video site. at VIMEO. Thanks.

Steffen Schmidt and Paul Schmidt, Instructors

2011-02-21T05:53:00.006-06:00

RISING OCEANS AND COASTAL POLICY

(Photo - Manhattan, New York., courtesy of Smart Planet)

The Earth Policy Institute reported that "The leaders of Tuvalu—a tiny island country in the Pacific Ocean midway between Hawaii and Australia—have conceded defeat in their battle with the rising sea, announcing that they will abandon their homeland. After being rebuffed by Australia, the Tuvaluans asked New Zealand to accept its 11,000 citizens, but it has not agreed to do so. "

This is a dramatic example of policy in response to rising sea levels and their future impact on the worlds coastal zones. In other places the discussion is much more subtle yet still important.

For example, there is a new report by the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.

The report, " ... details an expected range of relative sea level rise of 15 to 55 inches above the current sea level by the end of the century. ... the panel recommended that the state adopt a 1-meter (3.28 feet) rise of sea level by 2100 as a benchmark for planning purposes. Sea level rise is expected to accelerate over the next century, and the 1-meter benchmark is roughly three times the current rate of sea level rise."

This report represents just one of many examples of concern by coastal policymakers of how to address the issue of sea level rises. Interestingly, around the world the most successful planning has come when the issue of the CAUSES of sea level rises is largely ignored (i.e. natural cycle vs. caused by human activity.)

We find that very interesting. By ignoring the causes policymakers can circumvent the explosive debate that would immediately ensue between those who believe that human activity is largely to blame vs those who may accept sea level rises. These can be measured by any monkey who observes the wrack zone of a beach can observe higher sea levels - Wrack line is part of the shore just above the mean high tide line where kelp and other marine debris is deposited on the sand.

North Carolina would be the first US state to develop an explicit coastal planning policy based on sea level rises. This has caused a lively debate and concern by many coastal interests.

The Division Coastal Management has begun meeting with counties about the draft policy. Tancred Miller, a coastal policy analyst with the N.C. Division of Coastal Management.

"Miller said they are very early in the process and revisions are likely as input is received. The draft will be reviewed during the Coastal Resources Commission meeting to be held Wednesday and Thursday in Beaufort.

The first draft was enough to elicit the concern of Carteret County leaders, who were the first to meet with Coastal Management about the draft. Following that meeting, Board of Commissioners Chairman Doug Harris sent a letter to all the other coastal counties in the state to make them aware of concerns they have. Such a policy, the letter said, would be used as a “springboard” for future regulations and would have implications on both private development and public infrastructure.

“The implications of this proposal in terms of its geographic scope and potentially detrimental economic impact are enormous,” Harris states in the letter. “This is perhaps the most important and pervasive piece of policy the CRC has considered in a very long time, and I’m respectfully requesting your attention to this matter, and ultimately your support in repudiating the proposal altogether.”

In a phone interview, Harris said there are concerns about the 1-meter benchmark and some of the date being used to develop the policy. Predicting sea level rise is uncertain, and the letter questions the validity of the 1-meter prediction for sea level rise.

“A 1-meter sea level rise is almost three times the existing rate and will cover square miles upon square miles of tax base, infrastructure and natural resources in just about every CAMA county,” the letter states. “Again, we believe codifying this prediction is cavalier with very little thought to how it will impact the livelihoods of citizens and the economic fortunes of the coast — development, tourism, tax bases, infrastructure, military operations and more.”

So, as you can see discovering and predicting a rise in sea levels is one thing. Acting upon it by forcing coastal communities to design their development and construction policies around a series of regulations that anticipate these rises in sea level is quite another.

This issue is a pressing problem for coastal zones around the world because, as the Earth Policy Institute reports, "low-lying coastal countries are ... threatened by rising sea level. In 2000 the World Bank published a map showing that a 1-meter rise in sea level would inundate half of Bangladesh's riceland. With a rise in sea level of up to 1 meter forecast for this century, Bangladeshis would be forced to migrate not by the thousands but by the millions. In a country with 134 million people—already one of the most densely populated on the earth—this would be a traumatic experience. Where will these climate refugees go? "

The challenge for international and US coastal zone policy makers is to devise a successful, sound, sustainable, nonthreatening, and economically realistic strategy for incorporating scientific findings about seal level rises into coastal policies that can be sold to the coastal stakeholders. Without the items in bold it will be very difficult to implement such policies.

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update2

* North Carolina quotes are from http://www.enctoday.com/news/rising-88071-jdn-changing-sands.html

2011-01-25T14:38:00.004-06:00

Well here is the news on some major changes in the prospects for coastal insurance reform.

"The prospects for action in Congress to address the troubled coastal insurance market may have dimmed, after the 2010 elections swept out two leading advocates for the issue and ushered in lawmakers focused on shrinking government and lessening regulations. Gene Taylor, the Bay St. Louis Democrat who had pushed insurance overhauls for years, but who lost his U.S. House seat in November, expressed little hope.

“I think the chances of that happening is right up there with a snowball’s chance in hell,” Taylor said in a phone interview" Source http://blog.al.com/live/2011/01/federal_coastal_insurance_refo.html

So let me share with you the importance of this for coastal policy in general.

Coastal insurance has become more high risk and scarce since the surge in hurricanes and especially Katrina (2005) and RITA (2005), WILMA (2005) and IKE (2008.) (For a great history of named hurricanes since 1919 see http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/history.shtml)

Coastal insurance has been a complex and crucial issue for coastal states (and coastal nations as well) which depend on business and residential property for a sizable chunk of their tax revenue and economic activity.

Now with the advocates of insurance reform out some argue that it could take another monster hurricane before the issue comes up again.

“That’s certainly what a number of people I have talked to ... have said over the last six months,” said Lloyd Dixon, an economist with the RAND Corporation think tank. “There just won’t be the energy or the impetus to do something unless you have a large event.”

Still, supporters of federal insurance overhauls vowed to press ahead for changes that would bring lower premiums, wider availability of coverage and a more stable distribution of risk.

“I see an opportunity for bipartisan solutions, if we can show that what we’re bringing forward will actually save money,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Tupelo.

Since Katrina struck in 2005, insurance policies near the coast have grown harder to find, and increasingly expensive. Lawmakers such as Taylor and Rep. Ronald Klein, D-Fla., pursued various bills to address the problems, but made little progress.

Klein also lost his bid for re-election last year.

Republicans won control of the House and made gains in the Senate largely by promising to rein in government.

In a newly austere climate, a critical question for any insurance restructuring will be its cost to the government, said Georgia State University insurance professor Robert Klein.

“A congressman who does not have significant coastal constituency would have a difficult time explaining to his constituents why he thinks this legislation should be passed,” Klein said.

Insurance overhaul supporters said that it would eventually prove more expensive for the government to take a pass.

When storm damages overwhelm insurers and property owners, the government gets called in, often at tremendous cost, Wicker said.

“Any new program should be viewed against the alternative,” he said.

Joan Woodward, executive vice president of public policy for Travelers Insurance, said she thinks the new Congress would be more receptive to private-sector solutions than those that depend largely on the government.

Travelers is working to build grass-roots support for its insurance reform ideas, she said. “We don’t want to be one of the bills that sit around for years and years,” Woodward said. “People react to a crisis.”

Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Mobile, echoed that sentiment.

Asked how much progress he expected to see on the issue in the new Congress, Bonner replied with his own question: “How many Category 5 storms are we going to have this season?”

Bonner said he thinks solutions to the insurance problem should come from the state level. “I really don’t want to envision a day where we build another building and add another bureaucracy of federal workers, all with the assigned task of regulating the insurance industry,” he said.

Rep. Steven Palazzo, the Biloxi Republican who beat Taylor, said the coastal insurance issue is a priority for him, but it could be wise to try a different path than before.

“We’re going to begin looking at the alternatives that are out there,” Palazzo said. “The other options failed miserably.”

Here is are two comments from readers to this news. -

Reader 1 - as an independent. it looks to me their could be no greater hindrance to economic growth on the gulf coast than the current insurance structure...when our insurance premium is larger than our house note... we are in trouble...

yet the corporate giants have purchased the politicians at the state and national levels.. and these bought off politicians will put the corporate bottom line above what is right for the citizens of the gulf coast...

bottom line .. it looks like the REPUBLICANS ARE AS BAD IF NOT WORSE THAN THE DEMOCRATS..
Reader 2 - "The insurance industry owns Congress and rents the White House."

http://blog.al.com/live/2011/01/federal_coastal_insurance_refo.html

2011-01-17T05:54:00.005-06:00

Coastal Building Ordered Demolished! Wow they really mean it when they enforce CZM in India!

"The Environment ministry on Sunday directed the scam-hit Adarsh Housing Society in Mumbai to demolish within three months the “unauthorised” 31-storey building in upmarket Colaba for violating coastal regulations and restore the area in its original condition.

If the society failed to comply with it on its own, “the ministry will be constrained to enforce this direction”, the order said.

The society meant to house families of Kargil martyrs came under the scanner following reports that flats were doled out to politicians, top defence personnel including two former Army Chiefs and bureaucrats as well as their kin.

“The unauthorised structure built at Block-6, Backbay Reclamation Area, near Backbay Bus Depot, Capt.Prakash Pathe Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400005, A-Ward should be removed in its entirety and the area should be restored to its original condition,” the three-page order said.

In Mumbai, the Maharashtra government said it would soon take a decision on the Environment Ministry’s direction. -Agencies" http://www.bharatchronicle.com/environment-ministry-issues-order-for-demolition-of-adarsh-building-11724

2011-01-17T05:46:00.002-06:00

Alaska CZM Issues 2011 - Remember that many CZM laws "sunset." That means that even if there are laws they go away after a designated period of time!

Steffen Schmidt

Prof of CZM

"Coastal zone management changes emerged as a major issue late in the 2010 session and will appear again in January. The proposal the North Slope Borough and some other coastal communities is pushing is to restore the program to something like it was before former Gov. Frank Murkowski brought the program under the control of the state Department of Natural Resources.

Previously communities along the coast had more ability to influence state decisions on development permits, which they argue has been lost now that the coastal management program is operated under the state DNR.

"I can't tell you where we'll be on it," Chenault told the RDC. "I know that my stance is the state can't give up its sovereignty anywhere."

Bills making those changes offered last year by Sen. Donny Olson, D-Nome, and Rep. Reggie Joule, D-Kotzebue, were strongly opposed by Parnell, who argued the legislation would have essentially given coastal communities the right to control state permitting decisions that affect development of state lands.

One area where state officials have dug in their heels is giving coastal municipalities or communities any authority to veto or change air or water quality permits issued by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Since the state issues these permits under guidelines of the federal Clean Air and Clean Water laws and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, any involvement of other entities in the approvals would complicate the permitting process, state Commissioner of Environmental Conservation Larry Hartig told legislators last year.

On the other hand, the clean air and water permit approvals are the kind of decisions coastal communities like the North Slope Borough want to be involved with.

The issue is almost certain to be joined again in the 2011 session. This is also the year in which the coastal management program sunsets, unless the Legislature extends it. Given that, some form of legislation is likely to pass. The question is whether it will be a simple extension of the current program or whether a substantial change will be made."

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/011611/new_770957860.shtml

2010-12-08T06:36:00.005-06:00

The "Fishing for Energy Partnership." Removing Marine and Coastal Debris!

Now here is a great idea for reducing marine debris caused by the fishing industry!

Basically here is what's going down ...

"Moss Landing Harbor will be the first harbor in California to join the Fishing for Energy initiative on December 9th. A day-long collection will be held, providing commercial fishermen a cost-free way to recycle old and unusable fishing gear. Gear collected at the harbor will be stripped of metals for recycling at Schnitzer Steel and processed into clean, renewable energy at the Covanta Stanislaus Energy-from-Waste facility in Crows Landing, CA."

We have talked about this issue in the past and several of my students in the "Coastal and Ocean Debris Science" seminar have suggested that we need to initiate major land-based recycling and disposal facilities and programs fora variety of products that now contribute to marine flotsam and coastal debris. Well, this project is a great example of how you can build coalitions for win-win projects to accomplish this!

"Fishing for Energy is a partnership between Covanta Energy (Covanta), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Marine Debris Program, and Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. It was established in 2008 to reduce the financial burden imposed on commercial fishermen when disposing of old, derelict (gear that is lost in the marine environment), or unusable fishing gear and thereby reduce the amount of gear that may inadvertently end up in U.S. coastal waters."

You can find out more from a solid article in PR Newswire.

The other good web site to visit for much more information is at the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Marine and coastal debris and flotsam is rising as perhaps the number one issue (after climate change) of concern to Coastal Zone Managers and students of coastal and marine issues. It is an alarming problem and yet one that lends itself for public support because garbage (which this is to a large extent) is something everyone understands! Also, as this program proves, private business is interested and willing to participate more and more in these types of initiatives because it is great PR, good "green" behavior, and gives excellent community and media good-will to corporations. Once they are on board it also becomes easier to pressure governments and leaders to support debris and flotsam projects because now the pressure is no longer coming from "tree kissers" but also from solid corporate supporters! (No disrespect to my fellow tree kissers, we started making the public and politicians aware of the dangers of pollution and marine/coastal debris!)

I have made this point several times and this news is just proof of the fact that I was right.

So going forward lets keep working on debris projects, learning from smart campaigns and coalitions such as this one.

Steffen Schmidt, PhD.
Professor of Coastal Zone Management and Policy

2010-12-04T06:55:00.005-06:00

The US government has reaffirmed the oil and gas offshore drilling ban imposed after the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. This move is a classic example of the "damned if you do; damned if you don't" trade-offs that face politicians and policymakers on difficult coastal and environmental issues such as this. (Oil rig image courtesy US Coast Guard)

"President Barack Obama's administration is to maintain a ban on off-shore oil and gas drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Atlantic coast. The decision reverses a plan to open up new areas announced by Mr Obama in the spring, just before the BP oil spill. Wednesday's move sparked protests from oil firms and their allies in Congress.

Announcing the ban, which will last until 2017, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar cited the need for "caution and focus" and stricter regulation. "Our revised strategy lays out a careful, responsible path for meeting our nation's energy needs while protecting our oceans and coastal communities," he said in a statement." source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11892873

Here are some comments supporting the ban from http://www.tradeonlytoday.com

"Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who has consistently pushed to restrict drilling in the eastern gulf, also welcomed the news.

"Drilling off Florida's Gulf Coast is banned at least until 2022 under a 2006 law passed by Sen. Nelson," Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin told The Washington Post this week. "The senator is pleased the White House has decided rightly to keep the area off-limits. He hopes Florida's next governor and the legislature similarly will commit to protecting the state's tourism economy and unique environment."

Activists such as Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, also praised the administration's plan, saying, "Today anyone who loves our beaches, who fishes in the ocean or who depends on a healthy coastal economy can thank the Obama administration for protecting the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the west coast of Florida from oil drilling. The BP disaster earlier this year was a tragic reminder that drilling is a dirty and dangerous business. The only way to truly keep our coasts and ocean ecosystems safe is to keep them rig-free."

The St Petersburg Times out it this way, " Obama's embrace of a drilling ban won't kill Florida jobs; it will save them. As the painful events of last summer illustrated, even a spill far from Florida shores kills jobs. Far more Floridians have been harmed financially by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill than the 1,000 to 2,500 new jobs the U.S. Minerals Management Service anticipated in Florida from expanded drilling in the eastern gulf." @ TampaBay.com

Opponents, of course, were equally vociferous about the decision. "This is an unfortunate decision that will eliminate badly needed government revenues, inhibit employment growth and increase reliance on imported energy," said Kenneth Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs at ExxonMobil Corp."

"The administration is sending a message to America's oil and gas industry: Take your capital, technology and jobs somewhere else," said Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century Energy. USAToday.com

The debate is classic - let private enterprise flourish so we can have jobs in the oil industry and get more oil and gas for the US economy vs. preserve the environment and protect the jobs in fishing, coral reefs, tourism, marine life (as a value in itself) and other areas that depend on safe, clean beaches and oceans.

As student of coastal policy the offshore oil and gas case study is an invaluable example of the myriad of interest groups that play off against each other, push, and pull on pubic opinion, policy makes (regulators), the federal executive branch, Congress, as well as state politics - the governors, the various state industries - those who do business with oil drilling and refining, those that are built on tourism and fishing - state legislatures, and state news media.

In Congress there are several "Iron Triangles" on this issue where congressional committees, lobbying groups, and government regulatory agencies interact with each other in support of policies on which all three "corners" of the triangle agree.

So fore example there is an "oil and gas" triangle consisting of the oil industry lobbyists, the department of Interior and Mineral Management Agency, and House and Senate committees that legislate oil and gas. These will often coordinate and agree on policies (say to expand offshore oila nd gas drilling) There is another triangle made up of environmental groups and non-oil industries affected by oil/gas exploration (and their lobbyists), the EPA, NOAA, and other parts of the Department of Interior and Congressional committees that legislate on the environment and have an interest on sustainable environmentally friendly policies/regulations.

These two "Iron Triangles" are often in conflict with each other. I am sure they are today over the new ban on oil and gas drilling.

2010-11-07T05:08:00.006-06:00

The Consequences of Election 2010 on Coastal Environmental Policy
Steffen Schmidt

If you don’t think that elections mater consider this. The probable new Speaker of the House John Boehner recently said that "The idea that carbon dioxide ... is harmful to our environment is almost comical." Grist.org

Also, some states and some parts within states are more environmentally friendly and others less so. Therefore members of Congress will vary greatly in their position on environmental policy. Also, be aware that generally speaking Democrats have been more supportive of climate legislation and Republicans opposed. So the outcome of the elections in 2010 will have a major impact on the environment and on coastal zone policy (the coastal areas are especially threatened should the oceans actually rise significantly as predicted).

In his Grist.org column journalist (now promoted to Editor of Grist) Christopher Mims, formerly a writer for Scientific American and other prominent publications, wrote a disjointed piece called, "The Climate Post: Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from the midterms’ effects on climate.” (PS Grist is a wonderful environmental Internet magazine with very smart articles and commentary)

The column is a collection of factoids that are interesting but randomly thrown against the Internet wall to see if any one them stick. I’ve picked a few that are worth noting for those of us interested in Coastal Policy issues.

He notes that, “ … geologists published a paper this week suggesting the Earth will take 100,000 years to recover from the effects of the global warming resulting from our current emissions trajectory.” This article in the British Telegraph.com

The take-away quote in the Telegraph piece is this “Prof Jim Zachos [University of California] said that if the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at the current rate, around 5,000 gigatons of greenhouse gases will be released into the atmosphere over a few hundred years. He said this will cause a more rapid temperature rise that at any other time in history and could cause “mass extinction of species. The impacts will be pretty severe compared to 55 million years ago in terms of evolution of this planet,” he said.”

Mims continues, “In an election season characterized by countless acts of questionable taste, the lack of climate as an issue in most campaigns could be considered a blessing. Notable exceptions include Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), whose defeat was largely due to his collaboration with the Obama administration on the climate bill, says his former chief of staff. Rookie Democratic Rep. Tom Perriello, a vocal proponent of the climate bill, was also defeated.”

This and other electoral results from election 2010 will need to be more carefully scrutinized because many of the pro environmental votes were also coupled with pro-healthcare reform and bailout and we will need to sort out what variables really drove the voters. Still many politicians were badly burned in this election where the environment hardy caused an electoral ripple and where jobs was the most powerful theme. Numerous politicians and news media personalities call in to question if climate change even exists. Furthermore, they see any climate-related gov't regulations as being a hindrance to creating new jobs and getting out of the recession. If more jobs = NOT imposing environmental restrictions on US businesses as many politicians and much of the news media have argued, then environmental regulation, carbon and green house emission controls, and other practices are in big trouble going forward.

“An analysis by Dow Jones Newswires argued a "yes" vote on the climate bill hurt at least 12 Democrats who lost their seats on Tuesday, but paradoxically, Democrats who voted against the bill "actually fared worse proportionally -- 27 of the 43 who opposed it lost."

Well that’s contradictory! What are we to make of this fact? Americans are ok with a climate bill? Maybe this needs to be shouted from some political rooftops!

It is also noteworthy that two powerful proponents of the climate bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, were reelected in tight, squeaker races.

Mims continues, “Whatever the causes of the shift of power from Democrats to Republicans, the general result is an Obama administration doubtful it will get anywhere close to passing clean-energy legislation until the composition of Congress changes once again.” Noted and I believe that it will be hard for Obama in the next two years to bring up climate change, global warming, rising sea levels and other factors that have a profound impact on earth and on coastal areas especially.

Mims also focused on state elections saying that, “In all the excitement over elections at the national level, a second, even more powerful political riptide went largely unnoticed: The GOP gained 680 state legislature seats, "giving the party unilateral control to remake the boundaries of 190 congressional districts." This level of state legislative control was last seen in 1952, and if the tendency for GOP candidates to view action on climate change unfavorably continues, it will shape climate and energy legislation for the next decade.”

Actually, the GOP hasn't controlled as many state legislatures since 1928.

This is important because in 2011 House seats will be reapportioned with some states losing members and others gaining seats after the 2010 census shows where Americans move to and from. Then at the state level the party in power will redraw the districts and in most places they draw weird shapes (Gerrymander) to favor their party in the Congressional elections for the next ten years.

These projections are the best I can do from browsing all the literature on redistricting but they are not THE final score. States that will gain seats are primarily in the South and Southwest, the regions that have been growing fastest for much of the past two decades. Among the eight states – Arizona (+2), Florida (+2), Georgia (+1), Nevada (+1), South Carolina, Texas, Utah (+1), Oregon (+1), and Washington (+1). Texas could gain an astonishing four seats.

States losing seats are in the Northeast and the industrial Midwest (Rust Belt), Ohio (-2), Louisiana, Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Missouri (-1), Pennsylvania (-1), Illinois (-1), Massachusetts (-1), New York (-2), Iowa (-1) and New Jersey (-1).

Now America’s schools are starting to teach a curriculum that is at beast weak at worst skeptical about climate change. In an interesting article by Chris Mooney “Is It Time to Start Countering Climate Denial at the Local Level?, Discover Magazine, we find out that,

“The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is teaming up with Scholastic (which makes bajillions off textbooks and Harry Potter) to produce an “energy” curriculum–one that neglects environmental consequences and climate change, at least in the materials presented so far (PDF). Scholastic also offers the “United States of Energy,” another lesson plan/educational program “brought to you” in part by the American Coal Foundation. Meanwhile, in state after state, anti-evolutionists are arguing not only that we should “teach the controversy” around evolution, but that the same goes for other controversial topics as well–and then global warming inevitably gets roped in. And the strategy has been working. In the most infamous case, legislators in South Dakota called for “balanced teaching” about global warming in their state.”

So for those of you who are interested in or concerned about the environment election 2010 and the general trends in the United States are very important markers for the next ten years. As I’ve said elsewhere in several articles and video blogs these trends require agile initiatives and a much more aggressive and political engagement by scientists and policymakers who believe that climate trends are affected by human activity. At this moment the other side on this issue (those who do Not see human activity as a major cause) is winning and their case will be louder and MUCH more influential in Congress.

Steffen Schmidt, University Professor of Political Science and Public Policy and Chief Political and International Correspondent of Insideriowa.com. (Not: A different version of this will appear in my blog http://coastalzonemanagement.blogspot.com/

2010-11-05T09:35:00.014-05:00

Are there partisan differences between democrats and republicans on the environment (and by proxy) on coastal policy?

The article "A Widening Gap: Republican and Democratic Views on Climate Change" by Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright offers and excellent and very comprehensive study of this divergence. Environment, Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, September/October 2008.

They point out that, "historically, support for environmental protection in the United States has been relatively nonpartisan. Republicans have pointed with pride to Theodore Roosevelt’s crucial role in promoting the conservation of natural resources by establishing national parks and forests, and Democrats have applauded Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to include conservation as part of the New Deal via the Soil Conservation Service and related programs."

This bipartisan support for the environment however, has undergone a major change.

"The situation began to change in the early 1980s, as the Reagan administration labeled environmental regulations a burden on the economy and tried to weaken them and reduce their enforcement. While this stimulated a temporary backlash from environmentalists and much of the public during Reagan’s first term, the “Reagan Revolution,” based on the theme that “government is the problem, not the solution,” provided electoral success for the Republican Party for a quarter century. The antienvironmental orientation of the Republican Party became salient again following the Newt Gingrich–led Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, sparking a modest negative reaction from the public, and has been greatly amplified during the George W. Bush administration but with little discernible political cost—probably because the war on terror and the Iraq war have until recently dominated the policy agenda. A consequence of these trends has been a growing divide along party lines over environmental protection, among other government programs."

What are the consequences of the Republican victory in the 2010 elections in the House of Representatives and state races as well as the accompanying weakening of the Obama administration?

The New York Times put it this way, "The Obama administration and the new Congress appear headed for early confrontations over the reach of environmental regulation and federal subsidies for fossil fuel development." New York Times, Nov 3, 2010.

While climate change is not the only coastal policy issue it is a proxy for understanding the tense dance that will occur between the GOP and the Democrats on all issues such as this.

The probable new Republican speaker of the House, John A. Boehner of Ohio, has " ... dismissed the idea that carbon dioxide is affecting the climate and has characterized cap and trade and other proposed solutions to global warming as job-killing energy taxes."

The Tea Party and conservative Republicans (are there any that are still moderate or liberal?!) are uniformly against such regulations. They may also move to reduce the regulation of the oil industry, revisit fishing quotas, building on the coast, and many other measures that are of interest to us as CZM experts and students.

For those of us who "do" coastal policy the p;roper perspective going forward is top now look at the policy environment in a much more segmented way. We nee to examine issues state by state, by "meta issues," and sector by sector.

State by Sate. In the sweep of Republicans into office California stands out as a maverick. Californians defeated Proposition 23, which the oil-industry-sponsored. It was an effort " ... to gut the state’s landmark global warming law that will set strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions and create a trading system for pollution permits. California voters also re-elected the Democrat Barbara Boxer to the Senate and returned a Democrat, Jerry Brown, to the governor’s office — both strong supporters of state and federal action on climate change." New York Times

Clearly there is a big opportunity for voters and leaders at the state and local level to take advantage of federalism and design policies that are popular, necessary and doable at those levels even while the federal government may be retrenching.

Meta Issues

In addition to the geocentric decentralization of policy we also will see many coastal policy opportunities revolving around specific strategies which can bring together stakeholders and create new useful alliances.

There are several models advocated by clusters of scientists, politicians and policymakers including:

1. Allowing market forces to resolve some of these problems

2. Regulating and reducing pollution and emissions as well as highly regulating construction on the coasts

3. Using geoengineering such as, "Pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, as volcanoes do, is the most well established way to block the sun. Other proposals call for brightening clouds over the oceans by lofting sea salt into the atmosphere and building a sunscreen in space." Scientific American, November, 2008

Sector by Sector.

Finally sector interests can be brought together to address coastal sectors such as fishing, recreation, tourism and hospitality, alternative energy, conservation, shipping and port facilities, recreational boating and marinas, reef conservation and the diving industry, etc.

So the 2010 election brought significant changes to the American political landscape. The Republicans and the Tea Party conservatives are significantly less "environmental" than the Democrats.offer new opportunities for creative science and policy making focused on the coastal zones of the United States.

The new political environment at the local, state, and federal level in the United States may require new and different strategies for addressing coastal zone management and coastal policy. It's likely that the federal government will be much less activist that many had expected when Al Gore argued the case and when Barak Obama was elected president.

Steffen Schmidt

Professor of Coastal Policy

Video below. Is this REALLY a coastal zone?! Yes it is. Drive south from Hollywood Beach, Florida on route A1A and you will see the extremes to which we go in developing our beaches and barrier islands. The beach is on the other side of these buildings. There is almost no public access. the coast has been privatized.

What coastal policy is appropriate here?

2010-10-04T05:42:00.006-05:00

TACKLING MARINE DEBRIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Committee on the Effectiveness of International and National Measures to Prevent and Reduce Marine Debris and Its Impacts

Ocean Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Washington, D.C.

This is an important book related to my Flotsam: Ocean Debris Science and Policy Seminar. (Click on the link below to go directly to the book) Garbage and debris are one of the most alarming threats to safe beaches and sound oceans. Fishing nets that are loose in the ocean, on coasts and on the bottom are one of the biggest killers of fish seals, dolphin, whales, crabs, lobster and other marine life. Soon we will see scuba divers drowning when they get trapped in these deadly nets. reefs will be covered and smothered with the wiping out sunlight and marine life around the reef.

Have I gotten your attention yet!

In the 21st century around the world there will need to be dramatic initiatives to clean up this mess. There are few experts on this and YOU could become one of them! (see summary of the issue at the end of this post)

Steffen Schmidt
Professor of Political Science and Coastal Policy
Iowa State University
Nova Southeastern university Oceanographic center, Dania Beach, Florida

Summary of the Issue -
"The debris of modern living frequently finds its way into our waterways and down to the ocean. Some enters as intentional or accidental discharges from ships and platforms; the rest is transported to the sea by rivers, wind, sewers, and beachgoers. Given the diversity and abundance of sources, the persistent nature of most plastics, and the ability of tides and currents to carry debris long distances, marine debris is a global concern that is likely to increase in the 21st century.

The impacts of debris are varied. In 1988, it was estimated that New Jersey lost between $379 million and $3.6 billion in tourism and other revenue as a result of debris washing ashore. Impacts to marine organisms are often difficult to quantify but are well known. Ingested marine debris, particularly plastics, has been reported in necropsies of birds, turtles, marine mammals, fish, and squid. There is concern that plastics are able to adsorb, concentrate, and deliver toxic compounds to animals that ingest them. Derelict fishing gear (DFG) and other debris are known to entangle and injure or kill marine organisms. Studies on population-scale impacts of entanglement and ingestion are few and largely inconclusive. Nevertheless, these effects are troubling and may represent unacceptable threats to some species. For example, entanglement of Hawaiian monk seals, the most endangered seal in the United States, is arguably the most significant impediment to that species’ recovery.

Marine debris regulation falls largely under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) Annex V, which entered into force in 1988."

2010-08-23T08:19:00.002-05:00

Treading Slick Political Waters in the Gulf of Mexico

My AOL News article Link to original

Opinion: Treading Slick Political Waters
(May 19) — The oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico has focused a white-hot light on the
problems faced along the country’s coastal
zones. Even as experts are struggling to
staunch the spill, Americans are struggling
to find the best path to secure our nation’s
energy future.
The political ramifications from the spill
came to a head this week with the announcement
that the U.S. Department of
the Interior plans to split the federal Minerals
Management Service, which is supposed
to supervise the country’s renewable
resources in eco-friendly ways. This new
plan will divide the MMS section that ensures
that energy companies comply with
federal safety and environmental regulations
from the section that gets billions of
dollars in drilling royalties for the federal
government each year — second only to
federal taxes among our nation’s most important
revenue streams.
The move, according to Interior Secretary
Ken Salazar, was designed to guarantee
“there is no conflict, real or perceived,
with respect to those functions.” But there’s
already a real political conflict on how best
to proceed with energy policy in the wake of
this environmental disaster. The “Drill,
baby, drill” cheerleading of Sarah Palin and
John McCain during his 2008 presidential
bid, as well as by Newt Gingrich, the de-facto
intellectual guru of the GOP, has lost
nearly all of its cachet.
In a new CBS News poll, more than a
third of all Americans say the spill is “an indication
of a broader problem with offshore
drilling.” Yet a recent Pew survey also
shows just 38 percent approval for the
president’s handling of the oil leak.
So both political sides are covered in
sludge over this spill, leaving even more uncertainty
over how best to proceed. That
makes it one of the most complex and pervasive
coastal policy challenges ever seen.
It will leave a much more lasting impact
than Katrina.
And it’s only going to get worse according
to Joanna Gyory, Arthur J. Mariano and
Edward H. Ryan, some of my colleagues at
Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic
Center. They are now tracking the
Gulf of Mexico currents that swirl east.
Those currents take material from the Gulf
to the Florida Keys, along the southern tip
of Florida, and then into the Gulf Stream,
which runs north along the entire U.S.
coast and then past Ireland and England.
This flow is indicated on the map below.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
According to the scientists, The Loop
Current (1) feeds the Florida Current that
transports significant amounts of heat toward
the North Pole; (2) transports surface
waters of tropical origin into the Gulf of
Mexico; and (3) is fed by the Caribbean current
and the Yucatan Current.
This could add to the enormous political
firestorm that has already exploded over oil
drilling offshore and in the environment.
For the Republicans, this is bad news up
and down the oil-threatened East Coast,
with repercussions also felt across the
country.
Should we stop offshore drilling?
We can’t. Our dependence on carbonbased
fuels is so huge that we will be struggling
with how to make coal, oil and natural
gas environmentally friendly for many,
many decades. But just where do we drill?
After this disaster, many coastal states may
take a not-in-my-backyard (or-not-along-my-
beaches) position.
One thing’s for sure. After this spill,
“Drill, baby, drill” will not be the bumper
sticker of any political party anytime soon.
Steffen Schmidt teaches coastal policy
and is an affiliate at the Nova Southeastern
University Oceanographic Center in
Dania Beach, Fla. He is a professor of political
science at Iowa State University.

To submit an op-ed or letter to the editor,
write to opinion@aolnews.com.
Follow AOL News on Facebook
and Twitter.
2010 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved

2010-07-14T18:21:00.003-05:00

(c)Steffen Schmidt 2010. Grounded. (Shot at Sucia Island). Why we need an efficient and responsive bureaucracy to help prevent environmental disasters.

This is an earlier and expanded draft of the Op Ed piece published in July by the Des Moines Register.

The BP Oil Spill is Just the Tip of a Negligence Iceberg
Steffen Schmidt

Mines explode and people die. We discover that federal and state regulators have repeatedly issued warnings and fines but even with people dying, nothing further is done. Hurricanes hit and people die. FEMA the Federal Emergency Management Agency has become a national joke.

Oil wells explode, people die, and the Federal Government is helpless as a child in responding. Eleven people die, business in the Gulf States is severely damaged, wildlife and the ecosystem are probably irreparably damaged.

We discover that the Minerals Management Service, the federal regulatory agency, exercised no oversight of the oil industry and accepted emergency response plans from BP without questioning a single part of the 580 page plan even though it referred to BP's oil spill response plan referred to walruses in the Gulf of Mexico (there are none there). The agency made news before the BP disaster for its “ ... sex, drugs, free Sugar Bowl tickets, and massive royalty give-aways.” Sounds just like its role model the US Congress!

My research and the work of others who are only now starting to pay attention will show that the Gulf of Mexico has been a wild-east frontier with no law, no sheriff and no jail. Companies operating in this remote environment are not supervised, are not held accountable, have accidents as well as serious spills constantly with no consequences and no reporting. Many of them operate with foreign crews on foreign registry vessels. The workers are intimidated and threatened not to document or report anything. Many come from countries where the words “law,” “legal rights,” and “the environment” are unknown.

This is basically a no-man’s land that has been abandoned to profiteers large and small, giant oil companies and small firms that service the industry by both states and the federal government. “Don’t get in the way of business” may be a nice slogan but all of you fishermen, beach and resort owners, governors and local government officials who will see your tax and tourism revenue collapse, and the families of injured and dead workers are paying a huge price for that indifference.

When I studied for my PhD in Public Law and government at Columbia University in New York there was something called “Criminal Negligence.”

This defined as “The failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome of acting in a particular manner. Criminal negligence is a statutory offense that arises primarily in situations involving the death of an innocent party as a result of the operation of a motor vehicle by a person who is under the influence of drugs and narcotics or alcohol. Most statutes define such conduct as criminally negligent homicide. Unlike the tort of negligence, in which the party who acted wrongfully is liable for damages to the injured party, a person who is convicted of criminal negligence is subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both, because of the status of the conduct as a crime.” Answers.com and WestLaw.

Much of what’s been going on qualifies as criminal negligence. If there are no consequences and not just fines, which are the price of doing business but serious jail time, nothing will change. If there were no serious consequences for murder just a token fine, murder would be out of control.

Recently NOAA, another agency that we have trusted, has come under serious fire for a huge scandal.

An editorial in the Gloucester Times (July 3, 2010), “Enforcement audit demands urgent action to clean up NOAA” is very interesting.

"Why aren't these people in jail?"

That question, raised by Gloucester-based attorney Steve Ouellette in reaction to the new audit spotlighting wrongdoing by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's law enforcement wing, may sound like an over-the-top response.

But Ouellette, who's documented and challenged wrongdoing on the part of NOAA enforcement for years, is asking a very legitimate question. And it's just the latest that deserves an answer from NOAA chief administrator Jane Lubchenco in the wake of the audit report made public Thursday by the Department of Commerce's Inspector General's Office.

The audit was limited to trying to untangle NOAA's Asset Forfeiture Fund, the account built upon the fines and other forfeitures turned over by fishermen charged with violating federal fishing law.

The report — carried out by the independent firm KPMG — found the fund didn't just hold some $8.5 million, as noted in the preliminary report the IG's office issued in January. The forensic audit concluded that NOAA law enforcement may have brought as much as $96 million into the account over a 4 1/2-year period from 2005 through June
2009 — while agents had spent some $49 million via more than 82,000 transactions, with absolutely no oversight.

On what? Well, among other things, KPMG's findings have uncovered that the agency owns significantly more vehicles (200) than it has officers (172). The fund was routinely tapped for overseas travel. Plus, the agency bought a $300,000 "undercover" vessel described by its manufacturer as "luxurious" — complete with a "beautifully appointed cabin."

So even when there are agencies charged with regulation and enforcing laws they become unsupervised rogue entities that undermine their mission and damage the public trust in government.

We stand at a fork in the road. One leads down the well-worn path of indifference, neglect, corruption and mismanagement by government oversight and regulatory agencies. The second leads to a renewal of civic minded, responsible, honest, and transparent conduct. It also leads to serious and consequential supervision of activities by business and industry.

Self-regulation of anything whether children’s behavior, the media, education, medical practice, government agencies, Wall Street banking and securities trading, credit card companies, or the oil industry is an oxymoron.

Research of the chemical industry by Andrew King and Michael Lenox “… suggest that effective industry self-regulation is difficult to maintain without explicit sanctions.” (“INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION WITHOUT SANCTIONS”)

Now that’s an understatement. We are all responsible for demanding honest and robust supervision for the sake of our environment, our kid’s future, and ourselves.

Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University, researches coastal zone management issues at Nova Southeastern University Oceanographic Center, and is Chief International and Foreign Correspondent for InsiderIowa.com.

2010-05-24T09:35:00.004-05:00

The BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill: Are You getting Mad yet?

Read the full article and access the video at Insider Iowa.com Reprinted here courtesy of InsiderIowa.com.

I have been teaching and lecturing about coastal zones for over ten years. I am an affiliate of the Nova University Oceanographic Center and am currently working on a national project to help students understand climate science better. I am also an avid scuba diver and sailor.

So when the BP oil platform exploded and the disaster of a month ago began to unfold in front of us I was very distressed.

But I was not surprised.

We have been putting the world’s coastal areas, beaches and oceans through the wringer for at least a century and a half.

In my coastal policy class http://www.coastalpolicy.org I use “Ocean’s End” by Colin Woodard. Although a few years old, it is a terrific but very depressing book about the disasters we have wrought in the Black Sea (almost dead and infested with deadly jellyfish), the coral reefs of Belize (stressed by runoff, overuse, fertilizer from golf courses), the mouth of the Gulf of Mexico (a “dead Zone” from fertilizer and pesticide runoff from farms and fields in almost every state upstream, and the banks of Newfoundland overfished to the point of virtual extinction. In Newfoundland the lobsters were the size of pigs and sailors could almost walk to shore on the water there were so many giant cod in the ocean.

It’s not as if we have not been aware for years that the “… stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetland destruction, the introduction of alien species,” as Woodard writes about the Black Sea.

I wanted to share this with you because if the Gulf of Mexico BP explosion “accident” as Rand Paul, Tea Part candidate for the Senate from Kentucky, recently called it, were an unexpected and shocking event we could chalk it off to experience.

It was not unexpected. It is just one more in an unending and growing series of abuses we have been heaping on the beaches, coastal marshes, wetland and oceans of the Earth for about two centuries.

I remember as a kid when they filled in most of the huge marsh the “Cienega de Santa Marta,” Colombia. They left a small outlet like a culvert so seawater could enter and leave. However the magnificent marsh and all its sea life and birds soon died and turned into a fetid, sewer and trash infested dump. I saw the exact same in Cuba on the way back to Havana. Of course we landfill almost anything we can lay our hands on here in the U.S. Have you ever been to the Ashley riverfront in Charleston, SC? It’s all landfill.

So I wanted to share a great talk with you in this column. It is by Jeremy Jackson. He is “the Ritter Professor of Oceanography and Director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Painting pictures of changing marine environments, particularly coral reefs and the Isthmus of Panama, Jackson's research captures the extreme environmental decline of the oceans that has accelerated in the past 200 years.” From TED

The following short talk is used with permission from TED Conferences, LLC (they provided the embedding code of Dr Jackson’s talk.) I hope you enjoy it and realize that we are moving in a precarious direction with our valuable natural assets. We all need to become stewards of what nature or if you are a believer, what God has given us. We need a serious and robust push back against Sara Palin who said again this week that she’s a big fan of offshore drilling and Rush Limbaugh who is a real threat to the future of wildlife, clean water, and all things natural in this nation.

I always find it incomprehensible how hunters and fishing aficionados can continue to also be “dittoheads” (Limbaugh acolytes) apparently serenely unaware that the places they love all around them are being defiled and ravaged by unsound, destructive practices. You will see some comments by viewers of the Jackson talk on the TED site that startlingly reflect this “ostrich syndrome.” (We see it in Iowa with declining pheasant populations and the disappearance of barn owls and other wildlife and yet no public awareness or action to reverse that trend the reason for which any monkey knows).

I am tired of the argument that business is business and we should leave them alone to do their business. I don’t want them doing their business in MY oceans, MY beaches, MY fisheries, MY flyways/migration routes, and MY wetlands anymore!

And I’m starting to get really, really mad! I hope you are too.
.
.
.

2010-04-23T07:07:00.002-05:00

Will Climate Change Cause More Violence in the World's Coastal Zones?

My colleagues have just completed a study of climate change and violence. Those of us interested in CZM need to now add the changes in human behavior and especially eco-migration to the list of complex policy discussions.

Here is the report courtesy of the ISU News Service.

Iowa State researchers present study on how global climate change affects violence

AMES, Iowa -- If global warming is a scientific fact, then you better be prepared for the earth to become a more violent place. That's because new Iowa State University research shows that as the earth's average temperature rises, so too does human "heat" in the form of violent tendencies.

Co-authored by Craig Anderson, a Distinguished Professor of psychology and director of Iowa State's Center for the Study of Violence; and Matt DeLisi, an associate professor of sociology and director of ISU's criminal justice program, the paper was presented by Anderson last week at the Sydney (Australia) Symposium of Social Psychology. Using U.S. government data on average yearly temperatures and the number of violent crimes between 1950 and 2008, the researchers estimate that if the annual average temperature in the U.S. increases by 8°F (4.4°C), the yearly murder and assault rate will increase by 34 per 100,000 people -- or 100,000 more per year in a population of 305 million.

And while the global warming science has recently come under fire, the main premise behind the Iowa State researchers' paper is based on study after study.

"It is very well researched and what I call the 'heat hypothesis,'" Anderson said. "When people get hot, they behave more aggressively. There's nothing new there and we're all finding the same thing. But of the three ways that global warming is going to increase aggression and violence, that's probably the one that's going to have the most direct impact -- even on developed, wealthy countries, because they have warm regions too."

Updating Anderson's 1997 study

The ISU researchers analyze existing research -- including an update on a study Anderson authored in 1997 -- on the effects of rising temperature on aggression and risk factors for delinquency and criminal behavior.

In addition to the "heat hypothesis," they report that rising global temperatures also increases known risk factors for the development of aggression in violence-prone individuals -- such as increasing poverty, growing up amid scarce resources, malnutrition and food insecurity. They contend that one of the most catastrophic effects of climate change will be food availability, producing more violence-prone individuals in the process.

An author and editor of two new books on delinquency and the development of serious criminality -- "Criminological Theory: A Life-Course Approach" and "Delinquency in Society: The Essentials" (see story) -- DeLisi's found that it's a layering of risk factors that ultimately lead to a person becoming a serious offender. In fact, one of his new books promotes a life-course understanding of antisocial conduct -- from prenatal through adulthood -- and how various risk factors contribute to persistent offenders.

And food scarcity is one of the risk factors.

"While there is some link between temperature and aggression, really the effects [of climate change] are going to be more indirect if those temperature changes affect the amount of food we can produce, coupled with population growth," DeLisi said. "Then where the real damage will be done is malnutrition, because that sets in motion these other developments [risk factors] that then lead to crime."

Forced migration moves criminal activity

DeLisi also cites the forced migration from the damage of Hurricane Katrina as an example of how criminal activity may be exported by an increase in extreme weather caused by global warming.

"It's not just normal folks who left New Orleans. It's also criminals," he said. "And so as a lot of the people from New Orleans relocated to Houston, what you also had was displacement of gangs from New Orleans and confronting Houston gangs -- resulting in an increasing number of homicides from their conflicts."

The authors cite ecomigration, civil unrest, genocide and war as the third way global warming is going to increase violence. They report research finding that rapid climate change can lead to changes in the availability of food, water, shelter and other necessities of life. And such shortages can also lead to civil war and unrest, migration to adjacent regions and conflict with people who already live in that region, and even to genocide and war.

"There have been some recent reports [cited in the paper], and one was a U.N. report on climate change and women and children," Anderson said. "It pointed out that whenever there was an ecological disaster, women and children tend to be the most victimized in terms of violence. The reasoning is that women, in most of the subsistence cultures, are often more responsible for food and the children, and so they can't pack up and leave as easily. And so they're left vulnerable to violent activities."

Anderson plans to continue studying the effects of climate change on resulting violence.

2010-02-22T07:20:00.005-06:00

Louisiana is Sinking into the Gulf - Why Build Levees?

(image "submitted" courtesy of houmatoday)

From the desk of Steffen Schmidt, Professor of Coastal Policy.

The article tells us that the new levees being built will be tested by the sinking land and the slow absorption of this area by the Gulf of Mexico. It also points out that some of these (the so-called Morganza levees) are being built in "areas devastated by coastal erosion." Read the whole article here -

The incredible story is that these "Morganza-to-the-Gulf hurricane-protection system" will actually be built in nearly open water (see photograph).

As a policy and coastal scientist i can vouch for the fact that this does not bother any of the funding agencies or the contractors building these levees. Remember they can mark it down as "hurricane protection" others can chalk it up to "shovel (barge?) ready economic stimulus activity." After all people are working and money is flowing!

Who cares that it is totally ridiculous to build such structures in an area that is already under water and is not going anywhere except down. There is nothing long term to protect because this is holding back the sea but not like Holland does. It's building a bunch of breachable dikes basically into the Gulf!

This is a perfect example of where we need to direct any funding to voluntary relocation and structural "retreat" of whatever facilities might be protected by this ridiculous construction pork.

Why voluntary?

Because in the United States "taking" people's property is no longer acceptable politically.

So, let them make the decision - stay or move and we will co-pay part of your relocation to real solid, higher, and dry land.

BUT, we will NOT spend billions of dollars in the long run to try and hold back the Caribbean Sea/Gulf of Mexico to protect your private property. If YOU want to try and dike your property feel free to do so.

The problem is the same as with the Wall Street's failed banks and high risk real estate companies.

You take a risk but it's not a BIG risk because if things go wrong the taxpayers of the Bayou, of the State of Louisiana, and of the United States will come and bail you out.

That produces an environment in which there are no incentives for people to make rational coastal decision. The system is structured for maximum risky behavior.

The new coastal paradigm which would lead to sustainable coastal behavior is this - "You take the Risk."

That also means that taxpayers can no longer assume the insurance risk for people building in high danger coastal zones. If private insurance does not want to take the risk then sure the taxpayers of the United States or of afflicted states cannot be expected take that risk anymore.

I say anymore because when we were Rock N' Rolling along with a surplus economy and money to burn we could renourish, insure, and otherwise take away most of the risk from coastal activities.

In 2010 the US government and most states are broke (see the National Governors Association Meeting of Feb 2010 for more information). That is also true of most other countries around the world who are implementing similar unsustainable coastal policies and not adopting a "holistic" and coexistential approach (humans coexisting not fighting the natural forces).

The future does not look promising in the short term for spending oodles of more public money in the US or in most countries to do a lot of expensive armoring and hugely expensive property and structure protection.

However we will be targeting resources, science and planning to:

1. Protect vital "national security" critical infrastructure. For example Port Everglades, Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) which would be totally exposed to storm surge without the barrier island and beaches of John Lloyd State Park. Also, the Defense Department has a report about the national security risks of rising sea levels which suggests some very substantial need for relocating rail, refineries, ports, power plants and other facilities vital for the future of the United States.

2. To restore and protect valuable ecosystems which are a national treasure and an economic treasure. For example reefs and sea life need to make more robust as tourist attractions, sources of food, and as natural barriers to storms.

In regard to these two is where most of us come into the picture as coastal policy makers, educators, lobbyists, planners and scientists.

This case in Louisiana is a good example of where NOT to target money.

We might as well throw it off the stern of a shrimp boat as it sails out into the Gulf!

2010-02-04T13:11:00.004-06:00

(Schmidt - me - diving in Florida)

The year 2010 has been disruptive with a very cold and brutal winter reaching farther south than normal.

It's been so bad that Florida's coral reefs appear to have suffered severe damage.
In a piece titled ‘Thermal Wimps’: Florida Cold Snap Freezes Corals to Death" Meaghan Johnson writes in the Nature Conservancy web site that in 50 ft all seemed normal,

"But as we moved inshore, the percent of recent mortality increased, just as our partners had said. When we reached our in-shore site in 12 feet of water, my heart sunk as I dove down on the lifeless skeletons of what was once a beautiful patch reef teaming with life. The water was cold, the corals were stark white, and parrotfish laid lifeless on the bottom of the reef. I knew instantly that we had to do something to quickly document this rare and unfortunate event."

While we have all been concerned with global warming and its impact of the reefs these reef are on the borderline where cooler temperatures were good for the reefs in the past. Now it appears that severe cold can in just a matter of days kill shallow coral which has taken 200 or more years to establish itself.

I have dived these reefs off Key Largo and Key West and they were small but teeming with life, colorful and healthy. What a shame to see them go down like this.

2010-01-22T06:22:00.005-06:00

Coastal Zone USGS- GIS Satellite Imagery

To do coastal research you may want to use the U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey - GIS tool sets. Emergency Operation (EO) is one I find very interesting -
Here is an image of the Haiti coast.
At EO you can check on:

Earthquakes, Fires, Floods, Human-induced, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Volcanoes

http://eoportal.cr.usgs.gov/EO/

And, I might add to do studies on the natural and human impact on coastal zones.

Read all my politics columns at http://insideriowa.com/

2009-12-12T06:02:00.004-06:00

Climate Change Conference Debacle

The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference of 2010 has turned into a circus of the unhappy, frightened, clueless, well meaning, and just plain goofy.

ClimateGate - the hacking and posting of climate scientists e-mails - led the parade of the dubious. Clearly climate experts did not want data that contradicts their climate models to be given credibility and publicity. All of science has been tainted with this revelation of the arrogance and pettiness (and lack of trustworthiness) of scientists.

Ten there were the angry Third Worlder's - ""All week we have heard a string of excuses from northern countries [read: rich countries] to make adequate reparations for the ecological crisis that they have caused," said Lidy Nacpil, of the Jubilee South Coalition. "We are taking to the streets to demand that the ecological debt is repaid to the people of the South [read: poor Third World]," she said in a statement."(http://www.cumberlink.com)

The developing countries "... rejected as "insignificant" an EU pledge of 7.2 billion euros (10.6 billion dollars) to help them tackle global warming."

"The Group of 77 developing nations -- actually a caucus of 130 states that includes China -- said the proposal fails to address the issue of setting up long-term financing mechanisms. "I believe they are not only insignificant, they actually breed even more distrust on the intentions of European leaders on climate change," said Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-Ping of Sudan." (AFP news report)

Anti-capitalist demonstrators, the usual so-called "anarchists" were swarming to Copenhagen. Danish police used helicopters, dogs, and all manner of law-enforcement tools to prevent these folks (who attend, disrupt, and use violent protests ant every major international meeting) from coming into the country.

So, the only economies that have the capital to help with climate change ARE the capitalist economies! Wassup with that?

Here is the other mess - According to Agence France Press - "The draft text also leaves open three possible targets for an overall reduction of global carbon emissions by 2020, compared with 1990 levels -- by 50 percent, by 80 percent and by 95 percent. Industrialised countries favour the 50 percent goal, but major emerging economies led by China balk at any such target unless it is made clear that rich countries will assume the near totality of the burden. The US Congress has yet to pass a comprehensive plan on climate change but it is taking action on one front -- ordering an in-depth "carbon audit" of the tax code which some fear offers Americans incentives to be polluters."

2009-07-16T12:15:00.005-05:00

Coastal Insurance Issues

One of the biggest concerns for coastal policy, planners, developers, and researchers is the issue of coastal property insurance. We have developed extensive material in the Coastal Policy and CZM course.

There was an interesting development in North Carolina that I wanted to share with you.
Here is the headline:

The North Carolina House blew through legislation fixing an underfunded coastal insurance program with steps that include tacking an extra charge on every property insurance policy in the state if there is a disastrous storm season.
As always I'd like you to read the story for yourself at NC House passes fix to coastal insurance plan

As you know there is a lot of hand wringing on insurance because coverage leads people to take big risks with their coastal building. Stay tuned!

2009-02-22T05:22:00.004-06:00

Navy Ship Hits Reef.

We saw this headline when a navy submarine hit the reef off Ft. Lauderdale, Florida several years ago. Now we have a new ship and a different reef. A Navy warship, the AEGIS cruiser USS Port Royal (see official Navy picture above) was grounded a half-mile off Honolulu for four days. It had been stuck in coral reef, not rock and sand as military officials previously reported.

"The Pacific Fleet and the state of Hawaii said in a joint statement Thursday that they were assessing the extent of damage to the reef. State land department chairwoman Laura Thielen says surveys show the ship had grounded in coral reef. She says divers from the state and Navy are working to ensure no further damage occurs. The finding is the second embarrassing revelation for the Navy. It had failed to notify the state that the ship had discharged 7,000 gallons of wastewater when it was grounded."

It's fascinating that no one has asked the question how a ship such as this with paper and electronic charts, a trained crew, and every piece of electronic gear available to any sailor can hit a well charted reef.

In any case, divers are now trying to remove all the broken pieces of the reef which, when tossed around by waves pose a constant threat to the living reef.

Again it sounds like Ft. Lauderdale, Florida where an "artificial reef" of rubber tires was lain out years ago. the cables rusted and broke and the tires became "reef smashers", one of the most efficient machines to destroy what's left of that old reef! The Navy and enviro groups finally have started to "round up" all the rouge tires and get them off the bottom.

Ah human beings. Ya gotta hate em if you are a reef!

2009-01-18T14:52:00.002-06:00

Bush Establishes Massive Pacific Island Protected Zone 2009

The story reads like this:

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush plans to designate three remote Pacific island chains as national monuments in what will be the largest marine conservation effort in history equal to an area roughly the size of Spain. The three areas -- totaling some 195,280 square miles -- are expected to include the Mariana Trench along the Northern Mariana Islands, Rose Atoll in American Samoa and seven islands in the central Pacific Ocean. These areas are made up islands, reefs, atolls and underwater mountain ranges that are home to countless species. Large migratory, resting and feeding sea birds, and endangered animals such as sea turtles will also benefit from this new protection.

Picture courtesy of NOAA

These areas will be designated as marine national monuments under provisions of the 1906 Antiquities Act, which is used to protect scientific and historical sites.

"The monuments will prohibit resource destruction or extraction, waste dumping and commercial fishing," President Bush said.

The designations prohibit commercial fishing inside the monument boundaries. Sport fishing, scientific research, and other types of activities require case-by-case permits. The goal is preservation and the ability to sustain marine life and the quality of these ecosystems.

Potential problems according to the CSM include " ... interagency squabbles and the money needed to monitor activities in the remote monuments and enforce regulations." CSM.com

The opponents of this action include the sports fishing industry as well as those who want to drill for oil and gas. Here is a typical comment:

"Clearly, the purpose of nationalizing 335 thousand square miles of the South Pacific seabeds was to place thousands of miles of unowned seabeds off limit by preventing entrepreneurial oil speculators from tapping into some of the richest oil and natural gas properties in the world."

The author goes on to further discuss this:

"In the seabeds around the Mariana Trench and Rose Atoll National Monuments, geologists have identified hard minerals like phosphorite, abyssal manganese, ferromanganese, cobalt, sulfide, olivine, feldspar, clinopyroxene, opaline, silica, and pyrite as well as hydrathermal deposits of gold and silver and the world's richest deposits of baryte (barite). In addition, under the seabeds in the Pacific Remote Islands is the world's largest oil and natural gas reserves. Preliminary estimates suggest the oil and natural gas reserves under the Pacific Remote Islands Monument will dwarf the combined reserves under the North Slope or Alaska and the Arabian Peninsula.. In 2005 Standard Oil entered into an IPO with China National Oil [CNOOC] to further explore and develop the oil and natural gas deposits in the seabeds under the Pacific Remote Islands Monument and the Rose Atoll Monument." http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon269.htm

This case is an excellent example of the continuing fight between environmentalists and those who believe that these types of natural resources are there to be put to economic use in mining, fishing, and oil and gas.

2008-12-26T08:28:00.003-06:00

New Administrator of NOAA

Dr. Jane Lubchenco was nominated by President Elect Barak Obama as the Administrator of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is devoted to conserving marine and coastal resources and monitoring weather. Obama said "as an internationally known environmental scientist, ecologist and former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Jane has advised the President and Congress on scientific matters, and I am confident she will provide passionate and dedicated leadership at NOAA."

Thus begins a new phase in marine and coastal policy.

For me as a professor of coastal policy and for my students around the world this appointment is interesting for several reasons.

First, this appointment once again emphasizes the importance of politics in the design and conduct of marine and coastal policy. As we know from foreign policy, a president can profoundly influence the shape and nature of policymaking with the choices of leaders.

Second, both President Obama and Dr. Lubchenco understand the significance of many of the issues my students and I deal with on a day-to-day basis:

reducing overfishing, eliminate destructive methods for fishing, slowing down and reversing the overall polluting of the coastal areas and oceans, halting the acidification of oceans, smart-planning in future coastal construction, working with agriculture and other sectors in greatly cutting back on nitrate pollution and the resulting "Dead Zones", addressing the impact of climate change (especially warming of ocean temperatures) on reefs and other marine life.

This greater knowledge and empathy for the marine environment makes it much more likely that we will be investing in more aggressive science and policy implementation to reverse the destructive impact of human activity on fragile coastal and ocean ecosystems.

Third, I strongly believe that this national emphasis will have consequences at the state, country and local levels in terms of more emphasis on protection, preservation, conservation, and remediation of the coastal zone in all of AMERICA'S COASTAL STATES.

Fourth, this renewed vigor will produce new and exciting job and career opportunities for my students at all levels of government but also with private consulting and engineering firms that work with coastal infrastructure and coastal environments.

Fifth and finally, this renewed US energy and emphasis on oceans and coasts will inevitably trigger more interest and more action across the globe. International coastal zone science and management should gradually see a sharp increase in emphasis as well as funding and career opportunities. This is a very crucial moment for American scientists and institutions to increase their contacts and partnerships with colleagues, students, and institutions in other countries in the areas of marine and coastal research and education.

I have prepared and sent President elect Obama whom I met during the Iowa Caucus activities in the hectic primary season of 2007, a short briefing paper on coastal policy. I hope and assume that some of my specific suggestions will work their way into the Obama administration and NOAA agenda for the next eight years.

This is without a doubt a critically important and also more optimistic time for all of us concerned about and working on improving life by the sea, on the sea, and under the sea.

2008-11-09T15:33:00.003-06:00

Well now what? Is there global warming? Is it just a cycle? Is this global cooling a blip or a trend? If so how big a trend? Do people in Florida need to worrry or will they NOT BE under water?

Steffen Schmidt, Professor of Coastal Policy

Alaska's glaciers thickening Click for link to New Zealand source
Sunday November 9, 2008

Photo Courtesy US Forest Service
http://www.skynews.co.nz/eco/article.aspx?id=277026

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

“In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound, “ said US Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet (6 metres) of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. “At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet (457 metres) elevation, did not become snow-free until early August. In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years.

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

“It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance,” Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.

Mass balance is the difference between how much snow falls every winter and how much snow fades away each summer. For most Alaska glaciers, the summer snow loss has for decades exceeded the winter snowfall.
The result has put the state's glaciers on a long-term diet. Every year they lose the snow of the previous winter plus some of the snow from years before. And so they steadily shrink.

Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, I figure that we've lost about 15 per cent of the total area.

What might be the most notable long-term shrinkage has occurred at Glacier Bay, now the site of a national park in Southeast Alaska. When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.
That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 91.7 km from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.

That's farther than the distance from glacier-free Anchorage to Girdwood, where seven glaciers overhang the valley surrounding the state's largest ski area. The glaciers there, like the Muir and hundreds of other Alaska glaciers, have been part of the long retreat.

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometres of ice in the past two centuries, enough to cover an area nearly the size of Connecticut.

Molnia has just completed a major study of Alaska glaciers using satellite images and aerial photographs to catalogue shrinkage. The 550-page Glaciers of Alaska will provide a benchmark for tracking what happens to the state's glaciers in the future.

Climate change has led to speculation they might all disappear. Molnia isn't sure what to expect. As far as glaciers go, he said, Alaska's glaciers are volatile. They live life on the edge.

What we're talking about to (change) most of Alaska's glaciers is a small temperature change; just a small fraction-of-a-degree change makes a big difference. It's the mean annual temperature that's the big thing.

All it takes is a warm summer to have a really dramatic effect on the melting.

Or a cool summer to shift that mass balance the other way.

One cool summer that leaves 6 metres of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said.

Ten summers like that?

Well, that might mark the start of something like the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age - roughly the 16th century to the 19th - Muir Glacier filled Glacier Bay and the people of Europe struggled to survive because of difficult conditions for agriculture. Some of them fled for America in the first wave of white immigration.

The Pilgrims established the Plymouth Colony in December 1620. By spring, a bitterly cold winter had played a key role in helping kill half of them. Hindered by a chilly climate, the white colonisation of North America through the 1600s and 1700s was slow.

As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the United States tripled in size. The windy and cold city of Chicago grew from an outpost of fewer than 4,000 in 1800 to a thriving city of more than 1.5 million at the end of that century.

The difference in temperature between the Little Ice Age and these heady days of American expansion?

About three or four degrees Fahrenheit, Molnia said.

2008-11-01T08:39:00.002-05:00

The article is titled "Raising cities from the sea: trouble-shooting the world's mega-projects"
(Sat, Nov 01, 2008).

This article deals with a meeting of industry leaders to discuss how to remodel the Gulf coastline at the Middle East Coastal Projects Conference 2008. YES you read it correctly! In some parts of the world the mission is to "remodel" the coastline and make it as different as is humanly possible from the original and natural coast.

Dubai, UAE, 1 November 2008: A lack of imagination - or funds - has never hampered development in the UAE. There are now US$536 billion of marine works and projects planned or underway in the region as the GCC remodels its coastline in its bid to become one of the world's most popular destinations for tourism and commerce. The Middle East Coastal Projects Conference 2008 is being launched by MEED, the business intelligence experts, to explore this exciting and ever-expanding area of construction and development.

While money is not a barrier, the technical and engineering challenges faced by developers dredging and then building on reclaimed land on such a huge scale are equally massive. The list of issues to be overcome by planners, developers and specialist marine contractors includes: environmental concerns around dredging and ever-tightening regulation; engineering at the cutting-edge; proper ground improvement works and pre-construction testing; social, economic and infrastructure planning; understanding what buyers and investors want in a competitive market; and, not least, how to deliver such mega-projects as the Waterfront in Dubai on time and on budget.

Middle East Coastal Projects 2008 conference will explore the key challenges and highlight the enormous potential for those involved in coastal development. Supported by Platinum sponsors Burooj Properties, the two-day conference and master classes will be held on November 16 to 18 2008 at the Westin Hotel, Dubai.

Edmund O'Sullivan, Chairman, Meed Events comments: "The Middle East Coastal Projects 2008 conference comes at an exceptionally exciting time for specialists involved in the residential and commercial development sector. Thanks to imaginative and high-profile projects such as Nakheel's Palm Islands in Dubai and the ambitious Saadiyat Island development in Abu Dhabi, the eyes of the world are on the Middle East. The pressure of this expectation in turn creates huge challenges for those involved in the complex and costly task of reclaiming land and building upon it in a sustainable way. (Read - "digging up the desert and land filling the coastline!" There is no "reclaiming" going on here).

"Anyone who has an interest in residential and commercial development here in the Middle East will make exceptional contacts at the conference - including residential and industrial developers, port operators, planners, dredgers and, of course, marine contractors. Delegates are expected from all the GCC countries and further afield including the USA and Canada, Europe and Asia."

Key speakers and industry insiders contributing to the conference include:
Majid Yavary, Vice President (Infrastructure Development), Abu Dhabi Ports Company
Ghassan Ziadet, Regional Head of Bridges (Middle East & India), Atkins
Ian Raine, Project Director (Arabian Canal), Limitless
Ali Mansour, Director, Nakheel
Reji John, Senior Director, NSCC
Gerald Mille, Chief Executive Officer, QDVC
John Martin, Managing Director (Middle East), WSP

Delegates for MEED's Middle East Coastal Projects 2008 conference are also able to take advantage of two pre-event master classes on best practice for marine and coastal construction: firstly, how to ensure that projects meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations and secondly, on how to manage risk across partnering agreements. (Note: I assume that these regulations do not include filling in the Gulf and buolding artificial islands, dislocating and disrupting marine life, having massive human activity including demand for water and sewage disposal, boats and all kinds of discharge threats. But then again, I may be wrong).

MEED is the acknowledged market-leader in key regional industry-focused events and conferences; delivering expert, up-to-date business intelligence, industry data and research findings. More information about Middle East Coastal Projects 2008 - including the latest news, pre-event masterclasses and full conference details, can be found at www.meed.com/events/coastal

This is all very interesting by comparison to American and Canadian concepts of coastal zone management and stewardship.What do you think? Is this the wave of the future as other countries start developing their coastal zones?

2008-10-20T16:00:00.002-05:00

VOL 17 ,NO 11 Monday, October 20, 2008

Here is an interesting article on beach erosion from India. We believe that there is a great deal of merit in using comparative information to solve these types of problems. After all, why reinvent the wheel? On this blog we will try to share some of the discussions that are going on around the world on coastal zone issues. Please share your comments with our readers.

Value lost in sea

Intro:

Coastal erosion turns Puri’s prime beachfront property to nothing

Until now hoteliers and house-owners by the coast were the envy of Puri, Orissa’s most popular tourist destination. Today they fear losing it all to the sea that is fast advancing inland; it has already touched part of the 1.5 km road running along the shore in Sipasarubali area. If hotel owners fear loss of business, property owners are nervous because banks are no longer as willing to give loans against Puri’s beachfront assets. Erosion has destroyed their credit-worthiness.

“If someone from the area comes to us for a loan, I think we will have to tell him we can’t help,” said Devi Dutta Mohanty, appraiser of hdfc home loans, Bhubaneswar. Banks normally fall over one another to get to the customer with a house loan. But now that the property in the area is threatened by erosion, “it puts a big question mark on the collateral against which we will give the loan,” said Kailash Chandra Sahu, manager, Vijaya Bank, Puri.

In a city that thrives on tourism the fear among hotel owners runs deeper. Erosion of the 35 kilometre of beach between Puri and Konark, another very popular tourist spot, could mean loss of business. The twin towns are popular with both domestic and international tourists. Business is brisk along the coast. Hotels of all categories—from the high end to the low—run a full house all the eight dry months of the year. Restaurants, cafes and eateries that dot the beach can barely cope with the demand for fresh lobsters and crabs from their tourist patrons.

All this may come under sea water if erosion continues. “We are so worried. This will affect the entire tourism trade here,” said Vikas Das, an executive with Hotel Hans Coco Palm. “We have asked the government to intervene,” said another hotelier, Ramkrushna Das Mohapatra of Puri Beach Resort.

The administration in Puri responded by laying stone boulders and sand bags on the road embankment sloping down to the beach. But this is a temporary measure for which the government has sanctioned Rs 7 crore. Naturally, it has not generated hope. “The sea had never advanced this far ever. Now that it has come up to touch the road people are afraid to build houses here,” said Harish Mohanty, a resident of Sipasarubali area.

While the government looks for a solution in geotextile tubes (wave breakers made of high grade rexin) and in building a sea wall, the final decision will come as a comprehensive state government project, said Orissa’s director, environment, Bhagirathi Behera (see Bureaucracy on the beach, Sept 16-30). The project, he added, is expected to get a Rs 100 crore assistance from the World Bank under the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan.

“We will be submitting the detailed project report soon. This will be for the Gopalpur-Chilika and Dhamra-Paradip stretches,” said Behera. Officials said the government has also decided to set up a coastal erosion project directorate.

Sea and its waves
N K Mahalik, retired geology professor of Utkal University, Bhubaneswar, attributes coastal erosion to global warming: “Rising temperatures have led to rise in the sea’s water mass. The sea is expanding everywhere with this rise in its water mass. During monsoon storms this excess water gets an added thrust and starts eroding the coast. ”

At the present rate of increase in global temperatures, explained Geological Survey of India’s Subhranshu Bhushan Ray, the temperature of the ocean surface is estimated increase by about 2°C from today’s levels by the middle of this century. “In that case the ocean surface will rise by 15 to 30 cm. This will mean higher waves and much greater wave energy, leading to much deeper ingress of the sea into the landmass,” he said.

Ray recommends the Orissa government does what Australia and the us have done to protect their beaches from erosion. One is to make a series of low walls stretching into the sea from land which would act as water barriers. The waves would dissipate their energy on them, thus reducing the chances of beach erosion.

The other method is known as beach nourishment wherein sand from the areas of excess is pumped and deposited in areas of deficiency caused by erosion. “We can use both these methods to good effect,” said Ray.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20081031&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=18

2008-09-07T07:22:00.000-05:00

(Photo U of Oregon)

The headlines are frightening.

"Venomous lionfish prowls fragile Caribbean waters"

In this Associated press article (Aug 13, 2008), David McFadden writes that

"A maroon-striped marauder with venomous spikes is rapidly multiplying in the Caribbean's warm waters, swallowing native species, stinging divers and generally wreaking havoc on an ecologically delicate region. The red lionfish, a tropical native of the Indian and Pacific oceans that probably escaped from a Florida fish tank, is showing up everywhere — from the coasts of Cuba and Hispaniola to Little Cayman's pristine Bloody Bay Wall, one of the region's prime destinations for divers."

As a frequent diver in this area as well as Tonga, Belize, Bonaire, Florida and other places this is a very distressing development. We divers are the original diversity supporters. We know that all of the vibrancy in the oceans are the result of species health and diversity. The lionfish seriously threatens this.

"Wherever it appears, the adaptable predator corners fish and crustaceans up to half its size with its billowy fins and sucks them down in one violent gulp. Research teams observed one lionfish eating 20 small fish in less than 30 minutes.

"This may very well become the most devastating marine invasion in history," said Mark Hixon, an Oregon State University marine ecology expert who compared lionfish to a plague of locusts. "There is probably no way to stop the invasion completely."

Most devastating in history! This is a very surprising escalation of the attack of invasive species. It is closer to the devastating Black Sea invasion by jellyfish caused by the collapse of that ecosystem's environmental quality.

"A white creature with maroon stripes, the red lionfish has the face of an alien and the ribbony look of something that survived a paper shredder — with poisonous spikes along its spine to ward off enemies. The invasion is similar to that of other aquarium escapees such as walking catfish and caulerpa, a fast-growing form of algae known as "killer seaweed" for its ability to crowd out native plants. The catfish are now common in South Florida, where they threaten smaller fish in wetlands and fish farms."

We are all aware of the cases of invasives that from time to time attract the attention of the news media. The Zebra Mussel is one example of a well covered invasive. Here is another:

"In Africa, the Nile Perch rendered more than 200 fish species extinct when it was introduced into Lake Victoria. The World Conservation Union calls it one of the 100 worst alien species invasions"

This is the big threat to the homeostasis of ecosystems - the extinction of species which are vital to the balance of any ecosystem and are necessary for the economic activity of human communites as well as potentially holding important genetic information for future use.

"Those kinds of things happen repeatedly in fresh water," Hixon said. "But we've not seen such a large predatory invasion in the ocean before."

For us as students of CZM and coastal policy this threat of invasives is a very important POLICY challenge.

How do we nail down the origins and causes of invasivs?
How do we force policymakers to quickly develop new laws and regulations to slow or halt the further spread of invasives?
How do we attack the invasives, bring them under control and reestablish the origina ecosystem?

2008-09-07T06:55:00.001-05:00

(Image courtesy City of New Orleans, 2008)

New Orleans is a vulnerable city that is in the bulls eye of severe coastal weather. It is also a city that has suffered from foolish coastal management which has exposed the Big Easy to even more risks that just its location. Below is a link to a great discussion of these coastal problems. There are some universal lessons to be learned for all US coastal zones. We will examine all of these in my Coastal Policy and Politics class. Steffen Schmidt, Professor

"The levees of New Orleans held fast against Hurricane Gustav but several more storms — including Hanna, Ike and Josephine — are now forming. Hurricane expert Ivor van Heerden discusses the levee reconstruction project and how New Orleans will fare during what is expected to be an active hurricane season."

Can NOLA withstand another storm? National Public Radio.

also read the short review New Orleans, Gulf Coast Assess Gustav Damage by Dina Temple-Raston.

2007-08-03T04:48:00.000-05:00

Breach of Faith?

The story from AP is sympromatic of what is happening in the coastal zones of the the United States>

Cape Cod town says no to filling barrier

August 1, 2007

"CHATHAM, Mass. --Opting to let nature take its course, residents overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to borrow $4.1 million to plug a widening breach on Nauset Beach that could threaten oceanfront homes.

The breach has grown to nearly 1,000 feet wide since it was blasted open by a fierce April [2007] storm. The beach forms a natural barrier that prevents the ocean from encroaching on the Chatham mainland."

The story goes on to explain that "About 600 residents attended a special Town Meeting Tuesday on the issue, which was seen as pitting wealthier owners of seaside homes -- many of them seasonal residents -- against permanent residents who faced higher property taxes to fill the breach. Voters rejected a plan that called for pouring hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand into the inlet created by the breach."

This is one of the first concrete cases where a voter's rebellion against beach renourishment and other artificial and costly human "interventions" on the beach/Coastal zone has ben reported.

Surprisingly the voters also rejected a proposal to spend $150,000 on a study of the long-term impact the breach will have on the coastline.

Ted Keon, the town's coastal resources director, the AP reported, " ... was surprised voters rejected the study, which he said would create a "road map" for local officials in the future.

Officials and scientists will continue to monitor the breach and do the best they can to protect public and private interests, Keon said."

The news story was accompanied by paid advertisements on Boston.com in a typical Internet/Google disconnect that read: "Cape Cod Waterfront, View 700+ Waterfront Properties From $24,900 to $15.5 million www.PropertyCapeCod.com"

2007-05-01T14:50:00.000-05:00

Well Now We Are in a Pickle!

The latest finding on the melting of ice caps is not encouraging.

Today as I write this here is the gist of the matter

"Climate scientists may have significantly underestimated the power of global warming from human-generated heat-trapping gases to shrink the cap of sea ice floating on the Arctic Ocean, according to a new study of polar trends." New York Times , May 1, 2007.

The article continues by going beyond the last (and scary enough!) report on the effects of climate change on the planet.

"The study, published online today in Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that an open-water Arctic in summers could be more likely in this century than had been estimated in the latest international review of climate research released in February by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Well if we screw it all up there is some interesting news about a new planet. The San Fran chronicle reports it thus:

"A rocky planet not much larger than Earth has been detected orbiting a star close to our own neighborhood in the Milky Way, and the European astronomers who found it say it lies within the star's "habitable zone," where life could exist - possibly in oceans of water.
The object is the smallest of all the 200 or more so-called "exoplanets" whose discovery around far-off stars in the past dozen years has sparked a burst of excitement worldwide among astronomers and astrobiologists." San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2007.

So maybe there is a polace for us to ship some of our species and some of ourselves to start over again.

2007-03-10T03:12:00.000-06:00

Stabilize or Nationalize Senator?

In an article written 08 March 2007 titled “S.C. senator will file bill to stabilize insurance: Policies of 3 years would be protected from cancellation” the author, Zane Wilson writes, “A key senator said Wednesday he will file legislation based on Louisiana law that forbids insurers from canceling policyholders who have been customers for at least three years.”

The “key” senator in the article refers to Senator Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston who states that such legislation is in “a response to the continuing outcry concerning policy cancellations in the coastal areas.”

Senator McConnell, are you trying to tell us that if there is a hurricane that hits South Carolina you and or the Senate will pay for loses incurred by the insurance companies paying out millions of dollars in claims? Is there not any responsibility that lies squarely on the shoulders of the person building in an area KNOWN to be prone to such weather patterns?

Companies are not stupid, they have done their research and understand their level of risk tolerance, and like in many cases these tolerance level’s may change over time. It is not and should never be the government’s job to force a corporation to endure more risk then it feels comfortable with.

Common sense must return to the people of the United States, there are places in the country that one is not suppose to farm, live or build. It is ok to try but by attempting to one must take the responsibility for the possible outcomes: drought, erosion, hurricanes, wild fires, etc. Of course another entity may wish to take this risk on (i.e. insurance companies) partially or fully and that is their decision, but it must be by choice not by force.

If Senator McConnell would like to spend more tax payers dollars on rebuilding the structures being built in a hurricane, erosion, etc prone area then the state can insure the policy holders of these canceled policies through a state funded insurance program. Unless of course you are completely set on nationalizing the insurance industry and in that case maybe you should first gather some advice from Hugo Chavez on nationalizing industries.

This blog entry is in response to the following article.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/news/local/16858118.htm

2007-01-19T06:18:00.000-06:00

Dubai is a coastal small state in the Persian Gulf. As we look at coastal development, conservation, and sustainability we need to realize that in most places around the world the opposite is happening!

Dubai is home to the three largest man-made islands in the world, visible from outer space. (Picture of "Palm Island").

Dubailand, the world's largest theme park, will house 45 megaprojects such as the Snowdome, an indoor ski resort boasting a five-star hotel shaped like an icicle.

"Tiny Dubai has big plans. Armed with riches seemingly as endless as its ambition, Dubai aims to exploit its Persian Gulf perch to become an aviation superpower. Leaders of this booming Middle Eastern financial center have budgeted $82 billion to construct the world's largest airport on barren desert 30 miles from its downtown and make its home-town carrier, Emirates Airline, one of the biggest on the planet. Dubai wants to make the most of its setting, a crossroads between Europe, Asia, and Africa and a natural link between new economic powers like China and India. Blessed with year-round sunshine, stunning beaches and azure gulf waters, Dubai also is pumping billions of dollars into turning itself into a layover playland."

So what does this mean for the waters and coastal ecosystems in the Gulf?

Development!

2007-01-06T07:34:00.000-06:00

Raw Sewage Threatens the Coasts and Oceans.

Fill in the correct answers in the blanks below. (See end of blog for answers).

1. Destruction and changes to marine habitats are the direct result of increasing coastal population - some ___ percent of the world's population lives on the costal zone, which is just over ___ percent of the Earth's land mass.

2. The average population density in the coastal zone rose is set to rise from ____ people per square kilometer in 1990 to ____ in 2025.

-------------------------

The latest United Nations report on the condition of the coastal areas and oceans of the world is discouraging at best. It reports that:

"Untreated sewage pouring into the world's seas and oceans is polluting their water and coastlines and endangering the health and welfare of the people and animals that inhabit them, according to a bleak new U.N. report released Wednesday on the threats to the world's marine environments."

"As well as the growing problem of sewage, oceans also are suffering from rising levels of nutrients such as run-off from agricultural land triggering toxic algal blooms that deprive the water of oxygen, destruction of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and a rising tide of ocean litter, says the State of the Marine Environment report drawn up by the U.N. Environment Program." AP story, Oct 2006

The Environmental News Service summarized some of the key pieces of information from this report:

"The study reports that sewage may be "the most serious problem" facing the marine environment, in part because it is the area where the least progress has been made. Over half of the wastewater entering the Mediterranean Sea is untreated. In many developing countries more than 80 percent of sewage entering the coastal zones is estimated to be raw and untreated, the report said."
"Increasing coastal populations, inadequate treatment infrastructure and waste handling facilities are all contributing to the sewage problem, the report said. Fixing the global sewage problem could cost at least $56 billion..."

Of course, this is a problem that directly affects the coastal areas as well as the wider and larger ocean environment. People swim, recreate, fish, and otherwise have intimate contact with the coastal zone where the sewage is being dumped. Moreover, the sewage affects the marshlands and wetlands along the shore where much of the marine life begins sicen these are the nurseries for marine critters.

One of the problems is that there are som many other high priorities (HIV Aids, war and genocide, hunder, very, VERY poor fresh drinking water, underdevelopment and poverty, depleation of energy resources, lack offood and huger, human rights, etc.) that sewage treatment marely makes the list of international priorities. Thus, if there were an extra $56 billion laying around to spend where do you think it would be allocated? Moreover, even more developed countries around the Mediterranean for example, are still dumping most of their sewage raw into the sea.

This issue poses the typical set of policy challenges that make efefctive coastal policy so very difficult to achieve. First, it is not one of the hot priority issues on which politicians run for office. Secon, it is an "invisible" problem so there is less urgency. Third, sewage treatment is a very expensive process (unless traditional method of disposal and processing are used such as putting sewage on fields as fertilizer and using natural mangrove and grass filters to allow nature to cleanse the sewage).

U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner is quoted by AP as saying

"In many countries we are losing nature's capacity to actually deal with some of the sewage and effluents because we are destroying the wetlands that could provide us — particularly coastal wetlands — with filtration capacity to avoid the kind of runoff into the sea," he said. "We also need to rediscover or demonstrate how maintaining wetlands ... can avoid heavy infrastructure investments because nature can cope with a certain degree of pollution, particularly if you use its natural mechanisms."

This issue has been pushed to the coastal backburner for many decades and may now be building into a major crisis especailly if epidemics of disease such as e. coli erupt in coastal areas around the world.

Answers:

1. 40 percent of the world's population lives on the costal fringe, which is just over 7 percent of the land.

2. from 77 people per square kilometer in 1990 to 115 in 2025.

2006-12-05T06:40:00.000-06:00

To Armor or Not to Armor, That is the Question.

Not quite shakespear but it is a crucial question that coastal communities ask themselves every year. The problem, as I see it, is that we have built on the coast and now we realize that all our structures are vulnerable if intense storms become more frequent.

City and county governments are faced with the unpalatable choice of spending millions on seawalls and other armoring, leaving property (and people) at risk, or "deconstructing" human structures.

None of these are easy. In the final analysis, armoring is probably the most palatable from a political perspective.

What we need is a focused and realistic planning model for communities that face this discussion so that they can make a sensible combination of decisions - some armoring, some dedevelopment, and some temporary and cyclicla protection 9such as renourishing beaches).

2006-09-26T12:35:00.000-05:00

I have had a blog on coastal policy since the discovery of sea grass! We have had lots of great academic discussions about saving Manatees - they are cute and prehistoric, shark finning and Asian culture (they like exotic foods like shark fin soup), whether renourishing beaches is a good idea (the sand is so hard & packed that critters cannot dig into and live in that hard surface.

All of these have been rewarding, fun, and academically sound.

All that changed after the killer hurricanes slam banged the Gulf coast of the US, Fllorida, and after the Indian Ocean Tsunami killed and wreaked such havoc.

We now understand that the coastal zone is a fragile and highly exposed feature of the earth. In fact, think of the coasts along any continent as the place where everything is rising, sinking, crunching and grinding. Yes, the coast is, of course, the shifting edge of the ever floating continents.

Oops, now I've done it!

Many of my students don't like to think about the coast as an unstanble, dangerous, and shifty place. (It has always been that). Many prefer to think of those marshet and wetlands, the wind and waves gently shifting dunes, the reefs and off-shore structures as permenent and conservational. To think of them as very unstable and subject to both natural and human reshaping is disturbing.

Now after seeing what humand and nature together can do to a coastal zone (the replumbing and dredging of the Mississippi River, the oild and gas drilling, the building of levies, the entire mess) we all need to reassess.

On the other hand, coastal policy and coastal zone management as critically important national policy issue no longer has to be explained or justified!