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

.

.

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.

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/

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?

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."

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

(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.

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.
.
.
.

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.

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!

(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.

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:

CA Fires
CA Fires (w/ Fire Perimeters)

Midwest Flooding Post_Event Data
Mississippi Valley Flooding Post_Event Data
Kansas Post_Event Data

No events at this time.

2008_Hurricane_Ike

Tornados_Feb_08 data available for download here

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

"Explore critical pre- and post-disaster images and datasets online for immediate viewing and downloading. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Emergency Operations, in support of the Department of Homeland Security, provides these images for use in disaster preparations, rescue and relief operations, damage assessments, and reconstruction efforts. We supply satellite and aerial images for analysis of disaster areas before, during, and after a disaster.

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/