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

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 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/

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."

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/

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.

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"