Hybrid tugboat may give local ports a green push

Email Picture

Benjamin Reed / For The Times

A Foss Maritime employee applies a compound to protect the tugboat's steel from rust.

The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest cargo container ports in the nation, invest in cleaner-air efforts.

By Ronald D. White
November 13, 2008

For all of its 21st-century advancements, the shipping industry drags a lot of old technology around.

Giant vessels are so sophisticated these days that they require only a handful of crew members. But the ships still burn a thick, dirty sludge called bunker fuel while at sea and slurp diesel to keep the lights and air conditioning running while in port.

• 

  Photos: hybrid tugboat

Inefficient yard tractors and cranes guzzle fuel and spew exhaust as they stack containers. And tugboats, pound for pound the most powerful vessels on the water, waste most of that muscle idling or cruising.

Now, as seaports try to raise their environmental standards, some companies are finding business opportunities.

Foss Maritime Co. of Seattle, for instance, has developed the Prius of tugboats, which consumes less diesel and generates less pollution by using batteries for all the vessel's low-power needs. Foss calls it the world's first hybrid tug and expects to deliver it to San Pedro harbor early next year.

The stakes are high, said William Lyte, co-founder of Technoplex Group in Los Angeles, a consulting firm that helps entrepreneurs market new technology.

"The ports have about $5 billion in expansion projects they want to do, and they can't do it without mitigating the impact of pollution. Green systems will have to be in place to get these projects approved," Lyte said. "Companies from all over the world will be trying to sell that kind of technology here, so California businesses have to be prepared to compete."

Those companies will discover what Foss learned. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest cargo container ports in the nation, are willing to serve as testing grounds, business incubators and venture capitalists. About $1.35 million in development costs for the Foss hybrid tug came from the two ports and the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

"We asked for help to offset the increased capital costs of doing this," said Susan Hayman, vice president of environmental and corporate development for Foss. "Partnerships are supposed to help jump-start new ideas, and this one is working exactly the way it was supposed to."

Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, said she hoped other businesses would bring their best ideas to the busy harbor.

"The concept of a hybrid tug really gets to the heart of our technology advancement program, where both ports have set aside a funding pool for the development of clean-technology applications in a maritime environment," she said of the $15-million, five-year program. "So it's very exciting for us to see this concept that Foss brought to us come to fruition."

The Foss tugboat, which is being built in a factory in Rainier, Ore., will be based at Southern California's twin ports for five years in exchange for the funding help.

Outwardly, it looks much like other tugboats. Inside, the tug is so different that it will be able to operate like a regular work boat while using less fuel and expelling less exhaust.

The idea had been kicking around Foss' offices since 2006, based on the knowledge that tugboats tend to run on full power only 7% of the time and waste their 5,000-plus horsepower by idling 50% of the time. Knowing that railroads were moving to electric propulsion, Foss initially looked at switching locomotives, which are used to move trains inside rail yards.

There was one big problem.

"The batteries were too heavy. They would have sunk the boat," Foss Chief Engineer Rick McKenna said.

The solution came from the oil industry.

Aspin Kemp & Associates of Owen Sound, Canada, had expertise with "ultra-deep-water" drilling rigs that are held in position with "dynamic positioning thrusters" instead of anchors. The thrusters have to power up quickly to keep the rig in place.

The engineering firm designed a way to run the diesel engine and the electrical motor generator through the same drive shaft, McKenna said, enabling Foss to switch to smaller batteries and smaller diesel engines.

"It drives like a normal tug," McKenna said. The system's design would enable most existing tugboats to switch to the diesel-battery setup through a retrofit. Foss is hoping that will be a key selling point.

Tests have raised expectations that turning hybrid would cut a tug's particulate and nitrogen-oxide emissions as much as 44%. That's enough to impress environmental groups that have been some of the ports' harshest critics.

"Moving the ports' tugboat fleet toward hybrid technology is a benefit to both local residents and companies who do business at the ports," said Jessica Lass, a spokeswoman for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It shows it's entirely possible to move the ports toward greener, hybrid technology that cuts down on toxic greenhouse emissions and diesel fuel that fouls our local waterways and bodies."

• 

  Photos: hybrid tugboat

Foss has been in the tugboat business since 1889. But Heather Tomley, senior environmental specialist at the Port of Long Beach, said companies don't have to have a maritime background to gain the ports' attention.

One such landlubber is Advanced Cleanup Technologies Inc. The 16-year-old Rancho Dominguez company is branching out from its main work of mopping up hazardous spills to cleaning up the air.

Advanced Cleanup has used components from three other companies to develop a bonnet that can be lowered on top of a ship's smokestack, sending the exhaust through a cleaning system, Tomley said. Such a device would be useful when a vessel is docked and has to keep its diesel engines running to power its systems, she said.

The bonnet, Tomley said, "seemed to work very well," with initial tests showing emission reductions of more than 95%.

Another California company cited by Tomley, Yorba Linda-based Vycon Inc., has developed a flywheel technology that attaches to yard cranes. The flywheel system collects energy as cargo containers are lowered and then releases it, helping lift containers. That reduces the power the diesel engine has to supply, cutting fuel consumption and the release of pollutants.

Tomley said Vycon achieved more than a 25% reduction in particulate emissions in California Air Resources Board testing.

Vycon has been watching sales of the $150,000 devices grow. "This year we have sold 38 machines," said Louis Romo, vice president of sales. "We sold five during all of 2007, so that is a nice jump for us."

White is a Times staff writer.

source: latimes.com


link to the original post: Hybrid tugboat may give local ports a green push



Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net

EXPANDING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS TO RESTORE FISHERIES

After World War II, accelerating population growth and steadily rising incomes drove the demand for seafood upward at a record pace. At the same time, advances in fishing technologies, including huge refrigerated processing ships that enabled trawlers to exploit distant oceans, enabled fishers to respond to the growing world demand. In response, the oceanic fish catch climbed from 19 million tons in 1950 to its historic high of 93 million tons in 1997. This fivefold growth—more than double that of population—raised the wild seafood supply per person worldwide from 7 kilograms (15.4 pounds) in 1950 to a peak of 17 kilograms in 1988. Since then, it has fallen to 14 kilograms.

As population grows and as modern food marketing systems give more people access to these products, seafood consumption is growing. Indeed, the human appetite for seafood is outgrowing the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries. Today 75 percent of fisheries are being fished at or beyond their sustainable capacity. As a result, many are in decline and some have collapsed.

While oceanic fisheries face numerous threats, it is overfishing that directly threatens their survival. Oceanic harvests expanded as new technologies evolved, ranging from sonar for tracking schools of fish to vast driftnets that are collectively long enough to circle the earth many times over. Indeed, a 2003 landmark study published in Nature concluded that 90 percent of the large fish in the oceans had disappeared over the last 50 years, as a result of this expansion.

Fisheries are collapsing throughout the world. The 500-year-old cod fishery of Canada failed in the early 1990s, putting some 40,000 fishers and fish processors out of work. Fisheries off the coast of New England soon followed. And in Europe, cod fisheries are in decline, approaching a free fall. Like the Canadian cod fishery, the European ones may have been depleted to the point of no return. Countries that fail to meet nature’s deadlines for halting overfishing face fishery decline and collapse.

Atlantic stocks of the heavily fished bluefin tuna—a large specimen of which, headed for Tokyo’s sushi restaurants, can bring in $100,000—have been cut by a staggering 94 percent. It will take years for such long-lived species to recover, even if fishing were to stop altogether.

The U.S. Chesapeake Bay, which yielded more than 35 million pounds of oysters per year a half-century ago, now produces scarcely 1 million pounds per year. A deadly combination of overharvesting, pollutants, oyster disease, and siltation from soil erosion is responsible.

Even among countries accustomed to working together, such as those in the European Union (EU), the challenge of negotiating catch limits at sustainable levels can be difficult. In April 1997, after prolonged negotiations, agreement was reached in Brussels to reduce the fishing capacity of EU fleets by up to 30 percent for endangered species and overfished stocks. The EU had finally reached agreement on reducing the catch but these and subsequent cuts have not been sufficient to arrest the decline of the region’s fisheries.

When some fisheries collapse, it puts more pressure on those that remain. Local shortages quickly become global shortages. With restrictions on the catch in overfished EU waters, the heavily subsidized EU fishing fleet has turned to the west coast of Africa, buying licenses to fish off the coasts of Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Morocco, and Senegal. They are competing there with fleets from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan. For impoverished countries like Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau, income from fishing licenses can account for up to half of government revenue. Unfortunately for the Africans, their fisheries too are collapsing.

Overfishing is not the only threat to the world’s seafood supply. Some 90 percent of fish residing in the ocean rely on coastal wetlands, mangrove swamps, or rivers as spawning areas. Well over half of the mangrove forests in tropical and subtropical countries have been lost. The disappearance of coastal wetlands in industrial countries is even greater. In Italy, whose coastal wetlands are the nurseries for many Mediterranean fisheries, the loss is a whopping 95 percent.

Damage to coral reefs from higher ocean temperatures and ocean acidification caused by higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as well as damage from pollution and sedimentation, are threatening these breeding grounds for fish in tropical and subtropical waters. Between 2000 and 2004, the worldwide share of destroyed reefs, those that had lost 90 percent of live corals, expanded from 11 percent to 20 percent. Some 24 percent of the remaining reefs are at risk of imminent collapse, with another 26 percent facing significant loss in the next few decades, due to mounting human pressures. As the reefs deteriorate, so do the fisheries that depend on them.

Pollution is taking a devastating toll, illustrated by the dead zones created by nutrient runoff from fertilizer and from sewage discharge. In the United States, the Mississippi River carries nutrients from the Corn Belt and sewage from cities along its route into the Gulf of Mexico. The nutrient surge creates huge algal blooms that then die and decompose, consuming the free oxygen in the water, leading to the death of fish. This creates a dead zone each summer in the Gulf that can reach the size of New Jersey. Worldwide, there are now more than 200 dead zones in oceans and seas, “deserts” where there are no fishing trawlers because there are no fish.

For decades governments have tried to save specific fisheries by restricting the catch of individual species. Sometimes this worked; sometimes it failed and fisheries collapsed. In recent years, support for another approach—the creation of marine reserves or marine parks—has been gaining momentum. These reserves, where fishing is restricted, serve as natural hatcheries, helping to repopulate the surrounding area.

In 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, coastal nations pledged to create national networks of marine parks, which together could constitute a global network of such parks. At the World Parks Congress in Durban in 2003, delegates recommended protecting 20–30 percent of each marine habitat from fishing. This would be up from 0.6 percent of the oceans that are currently included in marine reserves of widely varying size.

A U.K. team of scientists led by Dr. Andrew Balmford of Cambridge University’s Conservation Science Group analyzed the costs of operating marine reserves on a large scale, and concluded that managing reserves that covered 30 percent of the world’s oceans would cost $12–14 billion a year. At stake in the creation of a global network of marine reserves is the protection and possible increase of an annual oceanic fish catch worth $70–80 billion, as well as the creation of 1 million new jobs.

A 2001 statement signed by 161 leading marine scientists called for urgent action to create the global network of marine reserves. The signatories noted how quickly sea life improves once the reserves are established. Within a year or two of establishing a marine reserve, population densities increased 91 percent, average fish size went up 31 percent, and species diversity rose 20 percent.

While the creation of marine reserves is clearly the overriding priority in the long-standing effort to protect marine ecosystems, other measures are also required. One is to reduce the nutrient flows from fertilizer runoff and untreated sewage that create the world’s 200 or so dead zones.

In the end, governments need to eliminate fishery subsidies. There are now so many fishing trawlers that their catch potential is nearly double any yield the oceans can sustain. Restoring fisheries by spending $12–14 billion on managing a network of marine reserves is far less than the $22 billion in harmful subsidies that governments dole out today to fishers to empty our oceans.


source:
earthpolicy.org

link to the original post:
EXPANDING MARINE PROTECTED AREAS TO RESTORE FISHERIES



Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net

CHANGING WATER COLOR

Why There’s Blue And Brown Water In The Same Place

If you spend any time in the Intracoastal Waterway you’ll notice huge changes in the water. Some days it’s gorgeous crystal clear blue water. Other days it’s murky. Still on others it looks like coffee. What’s happening?

The change in water color is caused by the tides. On an incoming tide, clear ocean water streams through the inlets, flooding parts of the Intracoastal Waterway. On an outgoing tide, brown water from inland canals and the Everglades is sucked out the inlets.

The brown water isn’t appealing, but it’s not dangerous. It’s brown because tanic acid is released from decaying vegetation. The shades of brown vary with rainfall. For several days after a major rain storm, darker canal water is released. This can vary the color of low tide Intracoastal Waterway water from light brown to coffee.

The blue water can vary in clarity depending on the Gulf Stream. If the Gulf Stream is close to our area, the water can even clearer than usual.

The best places to enjoy clear water are near inlets. Clear water will begin pushing out the brown water from about three hours before high tide until high tide. The clear water will begin to recede after high tide. Residual clear water should remain in the area for a couple of hours following high tide.

Many times the meeting point of blue and brown water is quite pronounced. You will see sharp “lines” form where the brown water meets the blue. You can see this in the photo below:









The "blue meets brown water line" is even more pronounced from the air.

See comparison photos of blue and brown water in the same area.

If you are flying out of Palm Beach International Airport, look at the Lake Worth/Palm Beach Inlet as you fly over. You will immediately know if the tide is going out. You will see a huge current of brown water getting sucked out to sea.

NOTE: Sometimes water managers release water from Lake Okeechobee through the Okeechobee Waterway and out the St. Lucie Inlet. Water from the lake can be heavy with pesticides and fertilizers. In the St. Lucie area, it’s best to avoid swimming during a Lake Okeechobee release.

original post: http://www.geocities.com/palmbeachboating/water_color.html


Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

http://www.lasolaslifestyles.com/
http://www.fortlauderdaleliving.net/

Recipe for rescuing our reefs

The colourful world supported by coral reefs is under threat as oceans absorb greater quantities of carbon dioxide, says Rod Salm. In this week's Green Room, he says we must accept that we are going to lose many of these valuable ecosystems, but adds that not all hope is lost.

Imagine all the colour and vibrancy of coral reefs fading away into fuzzy, crumbling greys and browns, and you're left with a coral graveyard that could become the norm

I've been privileged to see many of the world's finest and least disturbed reefs.

Mine were the first human eyes to see many of the remotest reefs at a time when we really could describe them as pristine.

I would never have dreamed that they were at risk from people, far less than from something as remote then as climate change.

Today, despite the doom and gloom one reads so much about, one can still find reefs that are vibrant, thriving ecosystems.

But sadly, too, there are more and more that look like something from the dark side of the Moon.

These degraded reefs have been ravaged by destructive fishing, bad land use practices that smother them with silt, and pollutants that foster disease and overgrowth by seaweeds.

More alarmingly, there are large areas that are killed off and degraded by warming seas linked to climate change.

We've all read that global warming poses a tremendous threat to our planet, and that coral reefs will face an uphill battle to survive in warmer waters.

Yet the greatest threat to our oceans and to all of its wonders is little known, nearly impossible to see, and potentially devastating. This is not climate change, but does stem from the excess carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change.

Changing chemistry

The ocean absorbs about one-third of the CO2 entering the atmosphere - a natural process that for millennia has maintained the carbon balance of our planet.

In recent times we have upset this balance; global CO2 emissions are at an all-time high, and our oceans are absorbing more CO2 and at faster rates than ever before, causing a shift toward greater acidity.

This removes carbonate from the water; and carbonate is an essential building block for calcifying organisms, like corals, molluscs, sea urchins and many other important creatures that live on reefs or help to build them.

Too much carbonic acid lowers the natural pH balance of the oceans, causing acidification, which wreaks havoc on marine habitats and species.

Just imagine all the colour and vibrancy of coral reefs fading away into fuzzy, crumbling greys and browns, and you're left with a coral graveyard that could become the norm if we don't address the threats to our oceans.

The high visibility of coral bleaching makes this relatively easy to see and study, but ocean acidification is difficult to detect by sight alone

We need to find ways to convince people to take action, but that is a major challenge.

Given the difficulties that many coral reef managers around the world have in controlling such pressing direct threats as destructive fishing, overfishing and pollution, they are understandably hesitant about taking on an issue that they feel is beyond their ability and mandate to tackle.

Climate change is often seen as too daunting and too global for them to address, and too abstract for them to communicate.

Fortunately, in some respects, the sudden and startling onset of mass coral bleaching linked to warming seas has changed that a little.

We have developed and are applying some straightforward, practical actions to design marine protected networks and zone the individual sites to protect areas that are naturally resistant to bleaching

These areas are key, as they provide larvae that are transported to more vulnerable reefs where they settle and enhance recovery.

The high visibility of coral bleaching makes this relatively easy to see and study, but ocean acidification is difficult to detect by sight alone.

It is creeping, progressive, and insidious - likened by some scientists to osteoporosis of the reef - a weakening of the reef structure that makes corals more vulnerable to breakage from waves and human use.

We simply do not know yet whether we have reached or surpassed the point of no return for some coral species.

If current emission trends continue, we could see a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in as little as 50 years.

This would lead to an unprecedented acidification of our oceans that coral reefs would be unlikely to survive, a scenario that should spur us into action to try and find solutions.

A significant lowering of ocean pH would mean potentially massive coral loss. That would lead to the death of countless marine species as well as the devastation of economies dependent on ocean health and productivity.

'Meeting of minds'

It would also mean the end of an era for coral reef and scuba diving aficionados around the world.

But, more importantly, it would remove the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people around the globe who depend on reefs for food, income, coastal protection and stability.

Current estimates predict that we could lose all coral reefs by the end of the century - or, in the worst case scenario, possibly decades sooner, if we don't take action now to prevent ocean acidification.

'Alarming' plight of coral reefs Natural lab shows sea's acid path

We have to maintain hope and optimism and keep trying to find solutions.

The Nature Conservancy recently convened leading climate change experts, top marine scientists, and prominent coral reef managers from around the globe for a "meeting of the minds" session to chart a course of action for addressing ocean acidification.

The key findings and recommendations from this gathering were compiled into the Honolulu Declaration on Ocean Acidification and Reef Management.

The most logical, long-term solution to ocean acidification impacts is to stabilise atmospheric CO2 by reducing emissions around the globe.

Yet the Honolulu Declaration also outlines tangible steps that can be taken now to increase the survival of coral reefs in an acidifying ocean, while also working to limit CO2 emissions.

For example, we need to identify and protect reefs that are less vulnerable to ocean acidification, either because of good flushing by oceanic water or biogeochemical processes that alter the water chemistry, making it more alkaline and better able to buffer acidification.

We can achieve this protection by designating additional "marine protected areas" and revising marine zoning plans.

We also need to integrate the management of these areas with reform of land uses that generate organic wastes and effluents that contribute to acidification.

At the local level, we may need to restrict access to more fragile coral communities or limit it to designated trails, much as we do with trails through sensitive environments on land.

We should consider designating "sacrificial" reefs or parts of reefs for diver training and heavy visitor use.

Another intriguing option is the prospect of farming local corals that prove more resistant to acidification, and "planting" them in place of those that weaken and break apart.

The consequences of inaction are too depressing to contemplate.

Global leaders, reef managers, and citizens around the globe should give all the support they can to the Honolulu Declaration to ensure the survival of the beauty and benefits of our marine treasure trove for future generations.

Dr Rod Salm is director of The Nature Conservancy's Tropical Marine Conservation Program in the Asia-Pacific region

The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website

---

Do you agree with Rod Salm? Is too little being done to halt human activities harming fragile marine ecosystems? Are efforts to save coral reefs being overshadowed by problems on land? Or are you optimistic that scientists, conservationists and politicians will find a way to save the colourful underwater worlds?

The oceans sustain all life on earth. There are phytoplankton which regulate the bio chemical balance in the oceans.

If the ph drops too much, then the phytoplankton may die. If they die, evrything dies. Nothing makes it.
MR SPIRIT, GLASTONBURY, UK

I agree that coral reefs faces long term problem of acidification. What about short term problems in the mean time so that reefs will survive to face the acidification issue. Also looking at all issues of global warming effect, by the time that CO2 level reaches the concentration twice as the present or even at 450 ppm, would coral reef fate still be the issue to worry about. After all Homo sapiens disappear, coral reefs can still have time to adapt to the environment.
Hansa Chansang, Phuket, Thailand

It is only logical that if two-thirds of the Earth's surface is oceans, what happens to those oceans will affect the entire world, including the creatures that live on the land.
Donna Metreger, Be'er Sheva, Israel

I wouldn't worry too much about ocean acidification - the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are approximately one tenth of those when the corals first evolved and are near the lowest they have ever been.

Corals will not notice a lowering of pH in the slightest.

Bleaching occurs when the algae that the coral lives in symbiosis with are expelled by the coral. This often occurs as waters warm or cool and is quickly reversed when new algae that are more suited to the new temperatures take the place of the old ones.

So global temperatures warming from the current lows also won't kill off the corals.

I do, however, agree with fact that coral reefs should be protected from over-fishing, boating and pollution as these do have the potential to destroy the marine and reef environments.
James S, Auckland, NZ

If you would like to DO SOMETHING to help coral reef decline, please support organizations that are actively working to save them including ReefCheck.org. Reef Check has volunteer teams in over 90 countries carrying out citizen science, student education and expeditions. You are welcome to participate and help save reefs.
Gregor Hodgson, Pacific Palisades, California, USA

I've recently moved to Kaua'i feeling a desire and need toward working to preserve one of the most beautiful places in the United States. I am agast at the destruction the near shore reefs have endured from excessive developement, bad strom water runoff management, and lack of nutrient reduduction via sound waste management. What will become this place, and others? Time will tell, I have confidence in the ability of the natural world to rebound from the destructive forces of our species. However lets do all we can to correct this problem, be aware and get involved. Now is the time to re- investigate our role on this planet, and a time to give back.
keith l conant, princeville, Kaua'i, Hawaii

A very well written and well structured article. Not only giving us the facts but also ideas to pursue. In business jargon "We need answers, not problems" and the article gives some which added to the quality of the piece.

I live on Bonaire, a divers paradise. I have been diving here for 20 years and the degradation of the island's reef is not in question.

Our Marine Park is very active in trying to prevent further reef damage at local level, but like all Marine Parks, it needs helps from governments to slow down coastal construction, provide infrastructure to deal with run off and to create legislation to prevent damaging fishing techniques.

Congratulations to the writer and all those people that are doing whatever they can to protect the reefs whatever the cause of their decay.
Ron Sewell, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles.

Mark, Coventry / UK and all other people who speak of Global Warming saying it's all utter rubbish... (this includes my parents)

I believe we could be in real trouble, one way or another. However I always say one thing to those who are in total doubt or denial; It might be a natural cycle that is warming the planet, or nature might find a way to regulate any damage we may cause to the earths eco system. But for the sake of our children's children are you prepaired to take that risk??
Paul M, Wellington, NZ.

Acidifcation may be a threat but we should not rule out more hefty pollutants. Corals especially appear vulnerable to urine and sun protection oils produced and spread in the sea by visitors such as tourists. The very divers and snorklers that 'inspect' the coral bleaching may very well be causing it. We should compare for once the pristine coral reefs that are never visited by tourist to the man-trodden beaches of the big tourist resorts. You want to preserve coral? Then start diving clean. Or stay out of the water.
Peter Ambagtsheer, Apeldoorn The Netherlands

Mark from Coventry, UK wants a break.. I feel like breaking something but I'm not sure he would like it. The facts are we are losing these ancient creatures and habitat by slow death and there is nothing 'cloudy' or 'funny' about that. For some 400 million or so years they have contributed to life's diversity and to quibble over weather it is CO2 emissions, over fishing or agricultural run off, seems petty to the extreme and just for good measure, you, Mark from Coventry seem to be the one 'clouding the issue' with your arrogance.
Keith Cook, Auckland, New Zealand

We continue to look for the 'technological fix' to take care of our biosphere inbalances. The root of all this is that we are a species in overshoot, consuming far too many resources and creating too much waste (including the favourite villain, CO2).

The only solution is, and will be, a natural one. All species that go into overshoot, inevitably crash in numbers. When this happens, the die-off of the human species will reduce to population to a level that is in balance with the biosphere life processes. It is very simple ecology. Everything else is fantasy.

Thank you for taking time to read this.
Mr Rpnald Brown, Phuket, Thailand

Definitely too little is being done. Why isn't Coral an Endangered Species? Surely that would make the legislation easier to pass. What about Artificial Reefs? It would be good to see some more purpose-sunk wrecks. The Coral farming is an interesting idea too.
Jane, Playa del Carmen, Mexico

Sounds simple and foolish, but could over harvesting of the Ocean's sea shells be making the Ocean more acidic? In a fish tank, just one shell added can have profound effects on the acidity.
Elizabeth Parrish, Seattle

I agree that much of a damage is man made through a thorough fish pouching for aquarium use. In order to capture a life fish from the reef a poison is spread through out the area to numb the targeted biome of fish, unfortunately the side effect is catastrophic for the coral. Just a note.
Tomasz Stanek, San Bernardino, California USA

I think its awesome wat they are doing because its leting the world knw that all though this is an issue no one really knws about it is an issue that is real and its now.! If these great people and scientist did not pick up on this problem who knows wat devestating consequence could have cme out of the distruction of this beautiful live'n coaral.
Tamara, Auckland New Zealand

This gentleman talks of "hope", but when you end the article you discover that the only thing he can muster to support the hope is a "Mind meeting", that is to say, another gathering of talking people. I lost my hope on those meetings many many years ago...
Fernando Villegas, Santiago de Chile

Ocean acidification is the forgotten problem. It is so overlooked that the climate change denialists don't have any of their usual pre-prepared responses (it's entirely natural event etc.. ). It is also worrying that some of the proposed geo-engineering solutions to climate change (for example the rather fanciful mirrors in space solution) will do nothing to curb the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that is responsible for the acidification of oceans. We have to raise the profile of this issue. Firstly, so that the public is aware that our CO2 emissions are causing more than one problem. Secondly, to emphasize that we can only get ourselves out of this mess by curbing our emissions.
Paul A, London, UK

Certainly not enough care has been taken of the marine environment for decades. Although the marine environment is arguably the most important in terms of global weather and also atmospheric composition it has largely treated as an open sewer. The sad fact is for most people it is 'out of sight, out of mind'. For example Broward, and Miami Dade councils of South Florida... have denied the mounting scientific evidence that effluent being pumped over coral reefs causes damage and favour the "It does no harm" opinion. Such dangerous opinions in the legislature of so called 'developed nations' will ultimately end in the ruin of some of the more accessiable reefs in Southern Florida. And sadly by the time that people believe it to be true - it's often far too late. As a marine biologist I am constantly saddened by the attitudes of people that could make a difference in terms of environmental protection legislation and frustrated that there is little funding or help for early career marine biologists who desparately want to "make a difference" and show the importance of protecting fragile habitats such as coarl reefs and mangroves in a global context. Once it's gone it's gone. That's the sad thing about it - but it doesn't have to be this way.
Claire Phillips, Oxford

I feel very strong empathy for Dr Salm. I walked away from this 14 years ago. He is still watching it face to face. There is only one answer; we had to stop - and we had to stop about 40 years ago, when Kennedy was committing us to flying to the moon, he should have been committing us to living on the planet we had. We have to stop, and make a balance with the levels of human activity that the planet will tolerate. Until that message sinks in to the minds of 6 billion people; there is nothing that can be done for now. At present course; that understanding will not register till the World's ecosystem has collapsed; taking our human society and economics crashing down with it. The governments of the world cannot pump enough money to keep this "more more more" expectation ramping up an ever steepening curve for much longer. At least 4 billion people, of the 6 billion people presently on the planet, go into free fall, and that will be that. In a couple of million years, the oceans will cool, the ph values will settle, the coral will flourish again . . and it will be as if we were never here, even in the blink of an evolutionary eye. The only question left is . . if any of us survive the die back - will the humans that remain evolve to be smart enough to learn our lessson, make peace with our home, and not mess it up all over again ? How long will it take you to explain it to 6 billion people Dr Salm ? Will the reefs last that long ? No ? - then I'm afraid the learning process will be one of cold hard practical experience. I am deeply sorry.
steven walker, Penzance

Fishing practices are devastating "links in the chain" that enable the life cycle of the marine ecosystem to support itself. If all "net fishing" were banned there would be little damage to and destruction of the species not being fished and their habitats. Commercial net fishing is very destructive. Just watch "blue planet" until the message gets through.
Shaun M White, Edmonton, Canada

Although I am not in any way an expert that could agree or disagree with Mr. Salm, I strongly believe we are doing far too little to stop damaging our environment and start to repair what has been damaged. I am optimistic that ways can be found to begin those repairs, and I find the idea of "farming" coral reefs very interesting, but I fear we have become too self-absorbed to recognize our responsibility to the planet we live on. I sincerely hope I am wrong - and I applaud Rod Salm and his colleagues for all of their efforts.
Yolanda, Greenfield USA

Much is said about save the planet and its many ecospheres ,but is anybody really going to make the sacrifices needed to make a difference? 90+ percent of the population want to be what they see on the TV,shameless ,ignorant consumers that adhere to the motto "more is better"..Even the education we recieve in schools directs us to become a well oiled part in the mechanism of consumer domination. Wise and educated men such as leaders of state know of all these problems,yet chose not to adress them because they fear the solutions would alienate them from the voter.Green seems to be good only as far as ti suits the consumer and his supplier.Shame on us all.Rod Salm has it right in his article.How right do you have it in your life?? Lets see if we can spend and save the coral reefs.Real education is what is needed to see consumerism exposed as the terrifying monster that it is. Consume less= sustained life forms.We all make a difference,even you. Best wishes.
Martin Jackson, Tavira ,Portugal.

good article but ideas for solutions exist mainly in the realm of pie-in-the-sky, particularly for the developing countries within whose waters the majority of the coral reefs lie. as such, without specific programming and funding (akin to those that might equally be dreamt up for tropical forests) from donor or developed countries, little will be achieved. the consequences of inaction are indeed too depressing to contemplate, but a small, sand wall will not hold back the tsunami.
sdw, maputo. mozambique

Lets not forget that ours is the Water Planet, if the Oceans are in peril the entire planet faces extinction, everything humanly possible should be done at all levels to stop polluting our Oceans and bring back eco systems where ever possible, set up ocean preserves and stop over fishing.
gert glende, Vancouver, BC , Canada

There are those that may argue that the effects are not as bad as predicted, but the reefs here in Pohnpei definitely seem to follow the trend. I have yet to find a part of the reef here that does not show the effects of an acidifying ocean. I'm sure that foreign fishing boats, harbored inside the reef boundaries, who recklessly dispose of their used oil directly into the water don't help the situation any!
Lemuel Recinos, Kolonia, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia

This is an excellent summary of a major issue that even most marine scientists have been unaware of up until recently. ...and if you're one of those who doubt the predictions of future climate models, then you can suspend doubt now: the acidification of the oceans isn't a matter of debate, or models, or future projections, it's already happening and it will continue to happen so long as atmospheric CO2 keeps going up. That much is well understood chemistry. Yes, it's true that atmospheric CO2 level have been much higher in the past, and yes the oceans can buffer these changes, but we'll have to wait about 1000 years for that to happen. The problem is that the CO2 levels are rising SO RAPIDLY. If ever there was a good reason for reducing CO2 emissions as fast as possible, this is it.
Prof. Jon Havenhand, Strömstad, Sweden

Simple speechless. What utter rubbish. They've given up on 'Global warming' and called it 'Climate Change' as the world has stopped warming. Now we need a new 'you're all doomed Captain' scenario to keep the waning interest up. Coral reefs are suffering because of over fishing for aquarium fish, physical damage and agricultural run off, you are merely clouding the issue with CO2. You can find coral fossils dating back hundreds of millions of year, from times when CO2 levels were much might (x17 or more) than they are now. Funny how they seem to have thrived. Give us a break.
Mark , Coventry / UK

We should use bicycle power more, and the bus!
Marion Johansson, Denmark

source: bbc

Fort Lauderdale Blog and Real Estate News
Rory Vanucchi
RoryVanucchi@gmail.com

www.LasOlasLifestyles.com
www.FortLauderdaleLiving.net