Harper's contempt for Science and Canadian values

One of the fundamental differences between the previous Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and the current Harper Conservatives (Reform-Alliance Party; i.e. CRAP) has been the complete abandonment of progressive environmental policies and investment in the basic sciences.

First, let us consider what Mulroney did in his two-terms that has lead some environmentalists to call him the "greenest Prime Minister" in Canadian history.

• In 1987, the Tories helped establish "The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer".  The global treaty placed a ban on the destructive CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer and jeopardizing life on this planet.  
• Acid rain pollution was dramatically curtailed through cooperative legislation with the Americans.  
• A moratorium on fishing Cod, which twenty years later has yet to recover
• At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the United Nations Environment Programme was championed by Canada, and Canadians served as their leaders.

Whereas, Mulroney could be considered the high-water mark in environmental protection, the Harper government without any doubt is about as low and dirty as a clogged drainage pipe.

Plenty of people have talked of the Conservative's fealty to market based approaches, which is vaguely strange given that the current Prime Minster has never held a real job or career outside politics; his Finance Minister Jim Flahery was a motor vehicle accident and personal injury litigation lawyer (aka Ambulance chaser); and key Minsters Peter MacKay, Tony Clement, John Baird, and Jason Kenney have spent much of their adult lives as professional politicians.  So having established that none of these men has any experience in actually running anything but their mouths off, on the tax payers dime, it is less than obvious why anyone would believe that they understand what they are doing when it comes to making decisions about science funding in the public's interest.

Stephen Harper's desire to constantly control the message and limit the information that reaches the public has become legendary.  Like the Republican Party under George W. Bush, Harper has fought to manipulate the press and machinations within the government to serve his exclusive political goals.  The influence and taint of lobbyists peddling preferred laws, as it is done in Washington DC, is now the norm in his majority government.  Legislation is proudly rammed through parliament without adequate review or discussion from opposition parties or committee members input.  Through this unsightly metamorphosis into a corporate state, impediments such as empirical data, scientific facts, and international treaties to protect the environment have been removed.

Harper has pursued a global embargo on the speech of research scientists affiliated with the Government of Canada for the past few years.  For example, prominent scientists have been barred from granting interviews, providing opinions to the public on their subject of expertise, or discussing  their publications at conferences.  Environment Canada prevented  Dr. David Tarasick from "published findings about one of the largest ozone holes ever discovered above the Arctic."  Similarly, Kristi Miller was prevented from discussing her research into  a virus that might be killing British Columbia's wild sockeye salmon, despite her research being published in the journal Science.  An article in the scientific journal Nature further illustrates the problem:

Carefully researched reports intended for the public — Climate Change and Health, from Health Canada, and Climate Change Impacts, from Natural Resources Canada — were released without publicity, late on Friday afternoons, and appeared on government websites only after long delays.

The government demands that any information provided to the public must be vetted and cleared with a local propaganda officer from the Conservative party.

Science that offends the sensibilities of religious fundamentalists, the same group that makes up Harper's western base, is also edited from public disclosure.

When Scott Dallimore, a geoscientist for Natural Resources Canada in Sidney, British Columbia, reported evidence of the colossal flood that occurred in northern Canada at the end of the last ice age (Nature 464, 740–743; 2010), he was put through the message-moulding machine. As a result, Canada's taxpayers, who funded the research, were left in the dark. While the news broke elsewhere, journalists in Canada who had previously had open access to Dallimore, a gifted communicator, were left spinning their wheels while deadlines passed. The flood happened 13,000 years ago, so how can this work be construed as politically sensitive?

Recently, the Harper government changed the laws so that not-for-profit groups that engage in political criticism are penalized to prevent them for so-called abusing their registered charitable status.

The nearly paranoid and conspiratorial nature of these acts, stems from the Conservative's desire to prevent any information that may run counter to their pro-corporate or religious minded policies from reaching the public and interfering with their program.

---
It is not just the message that Conservatives loath; it is the scientists that accumulate all these facts that make Conservative-backers so angry with the fact-based world.  Over the past year, the Harper government has engaged in a systematic withdrawal of funding for Environment Canada projects and the scientists involved in those research projects.  A student researcher at the University of  Toronto discusses his perspective:

Over the past several months we have seen major cuts to Environment Canada that are leaving it without any real scientific or research power. We have seen many prominent scientific jobs cut, research funding slashed, and our ability to effectively do environmental assessment and management largely neutralized.

Given that public funding is the main source of revenue for environmental sciences at Canadian universities, which has now evaporated, researchers are packing up and leaving Canada en mass.

In 2011-12 Environment Canada had its budget cut by 20% to 854 million dollars.   Eleven percent of the department personnel was cut last year, with a total of 776 employees told that their jobs may be terminated.  Those affected include engineers, meteorologists, scientists, chemists, and biologists. Given the extent of previous cuts imposed by previous budgets, the department is said to be barely functioning.  Treasury Board Minister, Tony Clement (aka Mr. hundred thousand dollar Gazebo),  facetiously told reporters that “Environment Canada is open for business, they’re doing their job, and they want to do it more efficiently.”

Canada was a pioneer in ozone monitoring technologies, which "led to the discovery that the world's ozone layer was dangerously thinning in the 1970s, which in turn led to the successful Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances."  The internationally renowned ozone monitoring network, has about one-third of the ozone monitoring stations in the Arctic region. The data produced by this network is heavily relied on by scientists around the world.  A single person was running the entire archives, until the conservatives closed down the The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, Nunavut.

Not convinced at stopping the flow of information, eliminating the funding of  researchers, and closing down research stations, the conservatives have decided to destroy Arctic ice core bores that provide evidence of the atmospheric gaseous concentrations for thousands of years.  Mark Twickler, director of the U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver, Colo said, “These ice cores are so valuable that the international community, including the U.S., will do whatever we have to to preserve these remarkable archives of past climate.”

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is undergoing a similar budget slashing process. Budget cuts have lead to the closing of the Experimental Lakes Area. The program used a region of 58 freshwater lakes near Kenora, in western Ontario, where scientists conducted experiments on the effects of pollution.

The Environmental Lakes Area program was launched in 1968 and led to important discoveries about the effects of pollutants such as phosphates in household detergents and mercury on bodies of fresh water, prompting tighter regulation in Canada and the U.S.

Researchers from across the world are claiming disbelief at the action.  Harvard University aquatic sciences professor Elsie Sunderland said:

[she] was pretty shocked... This is one of the foremost research projects and places to do research in the world. To have it shut down is just appalling. It's just embarrassing. 

Cynthia Gilmour, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Maryland, said  she "was stunned".  Jim Elser an aquatic ecologist at Arizona State University said in an article in the journal Nature,  titled "Canada's renowned freshwater research site to close," that it was "completely shocking".  Elser said it was equivallent to the "U.S. government shutting down Los Alamos — its most important nuclear-physics site — or taking the world's best telescope and turning it off."

In a separate incident, 625 prominent scientists have written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and warned him not to "gut fish-habitat protections they say would put species at risk and damage Canada’s international standing."  The legislation being implemented as part of the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill, would eliminate components of federal law that bans activity that results in "harmful" alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat.  The new law consists of a  prohibition against activity that results in "serious" harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or aboriginal fishery, or any fish that supports one of those three fisheries.

David Schindler, ecology professor at the University of Alberta said the “pro-development” Conservative government was determined to abrogate long standing environmental protections.  Others are equally pessimistic of Harper's infringement on established environmental protections and resource management:

Nick Dulvy, a Simon Fraser University professor who worked formerly as a fisheries scientist in the British government, said the two moves add to his growing alarm about the Harper government's "misuse" of science.

---
Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network Canada (CAN Canada), an environmental NGO, made the comparison between funding essential scientific research that monitors the health of the nation versus providing 2-billion dollars to build ships for the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard and another 29 billion dollars allocated in a non-competitive and rigged bid for 65 F-35 fighter jets that don't even meet the Department of Defense's own minimal specifications.  The government can find billions of dollars to spend on pet projects, fighting Middle Eastern wars, and providing billions in subsidies to petrochemical companies -some of which are the most profitable in the world- yet it can't find the funds to monitor the environment or maintain reasonable scientific competency.

John Bennett, the executive director of Sierra Club Canada, puts it more bluntly, “It will give the polluters what they want, a toothless Environment Canada with no scientific or enforcement capability."

Feasting on Ecocide!

Over the past decade, countries across the world have been discussing the profound damage that has been occurring through deep-sea fishing. The Pew Environmental Group has been tracking the situation:

Since 2004, the international community, through the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly, has called on fishing countries and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) to urgently act to protect deep-sea life. Beginning in 2006, U.N. resolutions that outlined a plan to safeguard this fragile biodiversity passed. Many governments supported an outright moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling, but countries operating deep-sea vessels instead promised to take action to make fisheries more sustainable and protect vulnerable marine ecosystems. Ultimately, they agreed to conduct a formal assessment after a few years to determine how well the resolutions had been implemented.

Preliminary findings released in June 2011 by the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC), "highlight serious failures by countries and Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) in efforts to protect vulnerable deep-sea biodiversity and high seas fish species."

Research conducted by scientists and published in the journal Marine Policy are recommending a complete halt to all deep sea fishing.  Instead of permitting industrial fleets from disrupting these extremely delicate aquatic ecosystems, scientists are further recommending that fishing be confined to more productive coastal fisheries nearer to consumers.

The following summary from Eurekalert outlines the problem:

Life is mostly sparse in the oceans' cold depths, far from the sunlight that fuels photosynthesis. Food is scarce and life processes happen at a slower pace than near the sea surface. Some deep-sea fishes live more than a century; some deep-sea corals can live more than 4,000 years. When bottom trawlers rip life from the depths, animals adapted to life in deep-sea time can't repopulate on human time scales. Powerful fishing technologies are overwhelming them. 

"The deep sea is the world's worst place to catch fish" says marine ecologist Dr. Elliott Norse, the study's lead author and President of the Marine Conservation Institute in Bellevue, Washington USA. "Deep-sea fishes are especially vulnerable because they can't repopulate quickly after being overfished." 

The deep sea provides less than 1% of the world's seafood. But fishing there, especially bottom trawling, causes profound, lasting damage to fishes and life on the seafloor, such as deep-sea corals, these experts say. 

Since the 1970s, when coastal fisheries were overexploited, commercial fishing fleets have moved further offshore and into deeper waters. Some now fish more than a mile deep. 

"Because these fish grow slowly and live a long time, they can only sustain a very low rate of fishing," says author Dr. Selina Heppell, a marine fisheries ecologist at Oregon State University. "On the high seas, it is impossible to control or even monitor the amount of fishing that is occurring. The effects on local populations can be devastating."

The Washington Post has a good article discussing the topic and revealing the moral cowardice of the Europeans in reigning in their colleagues in Portugal, Spain, France, and Denmark from destroying these ecosystems.

A decade of hell and the fall of America

The above chart (h/t Economist's View, "How long will it take for the economy to recover?") issued by the CBO describes what should be the central discussion amongst Americans.

While the developed world was on summer vacation, the economies of Europe and America have begun to decline in an alarming fashion.  Europe is scrambling to stabilize its weak perpherial economies. The march of the PIIGS has expanded to the point where Spain and Italy are no longer just question marks.  European banks are seeing formidable potential losses arise from sovereign debt issues.  Credit is tightening up and these same European banks are looking to national governments and the EU for assistance. Indecision amongst Europe's prominent leaders and a growing populist revolt across the continent have contributed to growing unease in the markets. The breakup of the entire European economic union and the failure of the Euro currency is now seriously being considered.

In America, zero jobs were added to the economy last month. Growth for the second quarter (Q2-2011) was revised to 1% (annualized).  Financial institutions like Bank of America are in trouble and Warren Buffett has again been brought, as the non-governmental creditor of last resort, to prop up the ailing bank. The Republicans have inflicted serious damage to the American economy, in their traitorous advancement of no-taxes and no-growth governance.   Obama is floundering in his dismal attempt to appease his corporate backers, while carving out a middle path for his own election.

The above chart should make you terrified.  Although the rose-colored glasses of 3.5% annual growth is being portrayed, it is the green line with 2.5% growth that is most alarming.  The difference of 1% means that America effectively will lumber along for the next decade with little to no growth, unemployment will remain obscenely high, structural unemployment and a permanent underclass will arise, the deleveraging process will take longer, and governments will be unable to adequetely deal with further social or economic problems effectively.  This is the best case scenario we are working with at the moment, taking into account the data and Rogoff and Reinhart's post-crisis modelling.

Now consider that the world heads into a protracted recession, with China crashing shortly afterwards -taking those countries like Canada and Australia that have been dependent on commodity exports with it- and you've got a recipe for global armageddon.  The world stops growing and economies across the planet try to dig themselves out of this hole.  Here too the data suggests as in the case of the Asian and Latin American crises, that a ten year window will be required to get back any reasonable trendline.  The implication is an entire generation of workers see reduced income, mounting debt, and insufficient job opportunities.  How are these countries going to pay for the benefits sold to the baby-boomer generation, when the children of the boomers are unable to find long-term jobs and thus fund those liabilities?

We have come to the end of the line.  All the major economies of the world are now posed to fall and in that cataclysmic descent, we shall venture hopelessly through a decade of stagnation, decline, and possible collapse.

Peak Oil: The Germans and British Understand the Outcome

A series of recent reports have been released by both the German and UK governments on the implications of Peak oil.  Jeff Rubin, former chief economist of Canada's CIBC World Markets, discusses both reports in his Globe and Mail blog.  In it he summarizes that the emerging global consensus amongst policy makers and long term government planners is that deficiencies in accessing and utilizing petroleum will lead to severe economic disruptions, social instability, and a collapse of the current global trade arrangements.

Rubin disputes the reassurances made by governments and industry supporters that peak-oil is not a concern.  As I've outlined in previous blog entries (here and here), many persons who have had a close examination of the situation believe that we reached peak-oil in 2005.  The German study states that there is "some probability that peak oil will occur around the year 2010 and that the impact on security is expected to be felt 15 to 30 years later."  Rubin concedes that while we may not have reached "geological peak-oil" from the economic perspective we certainly have.  As global oil prices maxed out at near $150/bbl it became abundantly clear that our current economy and way of life is completely incapable of sustaining these costs.  Furthermore, it is only at these very high levels of crude that many of the untested extraction technologies and difficult to obtain reserves can be made to be profitable.  Hence, in reality, accessible global oil reserves are not growing any further.

Der Spiegel International, outlines a series of potential situations that may arise:

1. Oil will determine power
2. Increasing importance of oil exporters
3. Politics in place of the market
4. Global market failures
5. Relapse into planned economy
6. Global chain reaction
7. Crisis of political legitimacy

Altogether, the implications of this fact are severe.  Rubin summarizes:

The German study paints a bleak picture of the post-peak world: political power quickly shifts from major oil-consuming economies to major oil-producing economies. Less and less oil is traded on the open market, while more and more is traded between nation states, with national oil companies entering into long-term supply agreements that are tied to broader political and military considerations. And military alliances coalesce around the security of energy supply, rather than between countries with shared political or economic principles.

In the UK, the Guardian newspaper also heralds the dangers associated with a post-peak oil world in an article titled "Peak oil alarm revealed by secret official talks."  Previous estimates by the International Energy Agency indicated that there would be "sufficient reserves to meet demand till 2030 as long as investment in new reserves is maintained."  However, major industry players, economic skeptics, and government analysts believe the situation could be considerably less solvent.

But an internal IEA source said: "Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible, but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources."

Coupled with climate change concerns, which includes the possibility of severe drought, famine, resource scarcity based conflict, and socio-economic collapse everywhere, we are not just talking about a realignment in global powers, but the possibility of wholesale disintegration of human civilization.

A Sign of Things to Come: Rare Minerals & Made in China

China's prominence as the world's second largest economy now poses a substantial threat to the continued growth and development of Western economies.  Over the past two years, the Chinese government has been developing policies that "prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons," according to news reports.

Nearly 95% of the world's rare earth minerals are extracted and processed in China.  A year ago, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology called for a complete ban on trade to foreign nations of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium.  A subset of other metals, such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum, would be limited to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year; a value substantially below current global needs.  An article published last week in Chemical and Engineering News elaborates:

China has maneuvered effectively since the mid-1980s to establish a worldwide monopoly on rare-earth resources. Aiding its effort to corner the market is China’s tremendous rare-earth mineral wealth. U.S. Geological Survey reports indicate that China possesses roughly 52% of the world’s known rare-earth reserves. By comparison, the U.S. is believed to have the second-largest share, at about 13%. Russia and Australia each have 5–6% of the known reserves. India, Canada, Greenland, and a few other countries also have appreciable quantities of rare-earth minerals.

A summary of current uses of rare earth metals is listed below:

Each Toyota Prius uses 25 pounds of rare earth elements. Cerium and lanthanum are used in catalytic converters for diesel engines. Europium is used in lasers... Blackberries, iPods, mobile phones, palms TVs, navigation systems, and air defence missiles all use a sprinkling of rare earth metals. They are used to filter viruses and bacteria from water, and cleaning up Sarin gas and VX nerve agents.

A couple of months ago, the Chinese People's Daily reported that the Chinese government had created an internal cartel to prevent the undervaluing of minerals.  Peng Bo, an analyst at Guosen Securities, states, "The pricing mechanism, if put into practice, will effectively buoy rare earths' undervalued prices and give Chinese producers more say on the global market."  The Chinese newspaper bluntly states that prices in rare earth minerals, such as neodymium, have skyrocketed and that Japanese and American markets are completely dependant on China for their needs.

Recently, America's Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepared a report on rare-earth materials as it pertains to America's military preparedness.  The report found:

that rare-earth materials play important roles in numerous defense technologies, including radar, missile-guidance systems, lasers, and night vision equipment. The Department of Defense is now conducting an internal assessment and is expected to devise strategies to protect against rare-earth supply interruptions.

It's not just the minerals per se that China will now limit, but also the development, production, and distribution of the attendant technologies that are dependant on these minerals. The indolent and short-term thinking of America's leaders in government and business, have created a untenable situation, in which a foreign government now has the ability to limit and control the development of not only the West's existing technologies, but future technologies, such as "green-tech," that were supposed to transform America's depressed manufacturing landscape.  If innovation is the source of future prosperity, then that wealth will be exclusively controlled by the communists in Beijing.  Coupled with America's need for the Chinese to continuously purchase Treasury bills and flood their markets with cheap disposable consumables, the future has become substantially more complicated for those in Washington D.C.

Matthew Simmons, Peak-Oil Proponent dead at 67

Matthew R. Simmons, long time oil industry analyst and author of the much discussed book Twilight in the Desert, which proposed of the idea that we have already passed peak-oil, was found dead at his home in Maine from an apparent heart attack.

Bloomberg elaborates on the theme of peak-oil, which Simmons is most associated with:

On a tour of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry in 2003, Simmons was inspired to estimate the world’s largest oil reserves, and from research that included poring through neglected engineering data, determined that the country was close to or nearing peak output, Peter Maass wrote in his book, “Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil.”

"He built his own energy firm and, having done that successfully, used his knowledge of the industry to challenge one of its biggest accepted truths -- that there are nearly unlimited quantities of oil in the world.”

The concept of peak oil, (which I discussed in an earlier blog entry) is a function of the availability of crude reserves in relation to both time and cost.  As easily extractable sources of crude oil are consumed and more nations transition to first-world levels of industrialization and production, demand increases.  Shortly after peak oil, there will be insufficient supplies of petroleum causing global cost inflation, on nearly everything, and diminished availability.   M King Hubbard, first predicted that North American oil production would "peak" between 1965 and 1970; a physical event that did occur and is not disputed.  Simmons estimated that on a global level we reached peak oil in 2005.  While the actual date is of debate, there is little doubt based on quantitative analysis, that peak oil is real and we need to understand the immediate implications of that fact.   The first graph below, outlines global petroleum extraction levels versus time, consistent with Hubbard's (and Simmons') predictions. 

The second graph provides a timeline of America's actual proven petroleum reserves.

Given that virtually all transportation, manufacturing, and major military activities are related to the use of petroleum based products, volatility in its availability and price pose severe concerns to modern society.  The OPEC oil embargoes of the early 1970's, both Persian Gulf wars conducted by the Americans, pre-2008 agricultural commodity bubbles, and numerous revolutions in the 20th C. were a direct result of oil politics.

There are numerous opponents to Simmons' view of peak oil, who refer to his modelling as too simplistic and biased towards Malthusian conceits.   However, even if that was the fact, how long are we as a civilization going to continue to utilize oil as our primary energy source, when it has been proven that its use is causing climate change and destabilizing ecosystems across the globe.  These critics, which are primarily bankrolled by the oil and gas industries, constantly dismiss the scientific consensus on this matter and employ bogus libertarian arguments on the intrusion of "big-government" to persuade the masses that there is no climate change occurring or worries about peak oil.  Unfortunately, because these corporations and their handmaidens in politics have either ignored the facts at hand or dithered, we are well past the point of no return on both these matters. 

Available petroleum will continue to decline, the planet will continue to get hotter, and people will persist in deluding themselves that nothing needs to be done until it is too late.  As Rorschach, from the movie The Watchmen says:

[They will] shout "Save us!"... They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men ...Instead they followed the droppings of lechers... and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell.

The Coming Environmental Collapse

The United Nation's Biodiversity Chief, Dr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, issued a unequivocal do-or-die statement to the governments of the world, regarding the implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.  According to the UN's website, the convention's purpose is to achieve the following:

The Convention on Biological Diversity was inspired by the world community's growing commitment to sustainable development. It represents a dramatic step forward in the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

To date however, not a single signatory has met its target to protect nature.  Planetary biodiversity is not an esoteric subject or a triviality to be dispensed with lightly.  Rather, it is a vital ecological principle that defines biosphere stability and hence the survival of the human species.  The web of life is an extraordinary complex and dynamic set of systems, which cycles nutrients and minerals, stabilizes global climate levels, and controls an enormous number of biological systems necessary for sustaining life from the Antarctic to the rainforests to the grain fields of the Great Plains in North America.  As this blog has been discussing for the past year (here, here, here, & here), the destruction of the biological commons; liquidation of forests; consuming all the ocean's fish; and toxification of the air, land, and sea with human waste and pollution will result in a world which is more fragile and susceptible to ecological collapse; i.e. human extinction.

The Guardian UK newspaper outlines the argument.  In the article, Djoghlaf warns countries, "It would be very short-sighted to cut biodiversity spending. You may well save a few pounds now but you will lose billions later. Biodiversity is your natural asset. The more you lose it, the more you lose your cultural assets too."   His warnings, made to the entire world community, implies that unless substantial policy changes are made and improvements at conserving biodiversity and managing ecosystem stability are achieved, many nations and their citizens will cease to exist in the future.

UCLA scientist Jared Diamond likewise has outlined in his book Collapse how human civilizations over the millenia have failed due to human caused environmental degradation.  Overpopulation, resource scarcity, misuse and abuse of natural resources, water management failures...etc. are all areas that have resulted in the decline and eventual demise of many societies throughout history.  Today, all nations are confronted with some, if not all, of these issues.  Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem instability is therefore a direct result of societies and humankind not addressing the individual and unique issues that ultimately are within their own control and perpetuating what historian Arnold Toynbee described as the collective suicide on the part of societies, when they fail to adapt to challenges of their time.

Screw the Pandas! It's Insects, Fungi, & Phytoplankton we Should Care About

Last week an important article relating to the profound decline in phytoplankton levels across the planet's oceans was released in Nature and briefly discussed on this blog.

The implication that marine ecosystems across the globe may be on the verge of collapse has elicited little public antipathy or official governmental concern.  Instead, the world continues to lumber onwards toward environmental armageddon, with the same willful ignorance that has dominated our species for millennia.  Few people wish to see the great pandas of China to go extinct, yet the Panda's overall necessity to the survival of humanity on the planet is zero.  That however, cannot be said of scores of plants, animals, and microscopic microorganisms that are essential to the maintenance and survivability of ecosystems everywhere. 

For the past two decades, biologists have been sending warnings to the rest of humanity that anthropogenic activities are precipitating a sixth massive extinction of life across the planet.  E.O. Wilson, for example, estimated in 1993 that the Earth is losing approximately thirty thousand species per year.   Human population expansion through the growth of civilization and industrialization, have reduced global biodiversity and species fitness to levels where our own existence has become imperilled.

In addition to marine phytoplankton, there are numerous species that are in decline, which are necessary for our civilization.  Pollinators, such as honeybees, have been in rapid decline over the past decade.  A third of everything humans consume and 90% of commercial crops are dependant upon honeybee pollination.  No single causative agent has been found to explain the dramatic and unsustainable decreases of these essential insects.  Although, pollution, pesticides, invasive foreign parasites and pathogens, and natural habitat decline, have all been cited as potential sources.

In the oceans, coral reefs are also being destroyed by pollution, ocean acidification, and habitat destruction.  Large ocean fish -like tuna, salmon, and swordfish- populations have either collapsed are on the verge of doing so.  Whales, dolphins, ocean faring birds like albatrosses, and other predatory fish are found to be emaciated and dying from starvation across the globe.  Entire swaths of the ocean are no longer capable of sustaining any life and have become dead zones, which are spreading rapidly.

Joining the endangered list are saprophytic organisms, such as beetles, fungi, and bacteria that decompose dead organic matter and facilitate in the cycling of nutrients.  In Europe, for example, research has estimated that 24% saprophilx beetles are under threat.

Thousands of other species, some of which we are not even aware of, are being decimated.  The survival of these species is inexorably linked to our own species.  If we as a collective cannot understand this or demand to advocate selfishness in the face of catastrophe, then there is no need to for further examination or discussion, because we will have succumb to the logic of mass suicide.

Fishing fleet working 17 times harder than in 1880s to make same catch

UK researchers who have analyzed fishing data going back 118 years, have found that current trawl fishing fleets have to work 17 times harder to catch the same amount of fish today as it did when most of its boats were powered by sail. 

As described in EurkeAlert!

They found that trawl fish landings peaked in 1937, 14 times higher than today, and the availability of bottom-living fish to the fleet fell by 94 per cent.

The findings are the result of a study using previously overlooked records and suggest the decline in stocks of popular fish such as cod, haddock and plaice is far more profound than previously thought.

The research is published in Nature Communications, the new online science journal from the publishers of Nature.

Ruth Thurstan, lead author of the study from the University of York's Environment Department, said: "We were astonished to discover that we landed over four times more fish into England and Wales in 1889 than we do today.

"For all its technological sophistication and raw power, today's trawl fishing fleet has far less success than its sail-powered equivalent of the late 19th century because of the sharp declines in fish abundance."

The findings suggest that the damage to fisheries is greater and has taken place over a much longer period than previously acknowledged, pre-dating developments such as the Common Fisheries Policy which are usually blamed for declining stocks.

Simon Brockington, Head of Conservation at the Marine Conservation Society and an author of the study, said: "Over a century of intensive trawl fishing has severely depleted UK seas of bottom living fish like halibut, turbot, haddock and plaice.

"It is vital that governments recognise the changes that have taken place. The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy gives an opportunity to set stock protection and recovery targets that are reflective of the historical productivity of the sea."

The study calculated 'landings of fish per unit of fishing power' (LPUP) from 1889 to 2007 to give an indication of changes in the amount of fish available for capture by the fishing fleet. In that time, LPUP declined 500 times for halibut, more than 100 times for haddock and more than 20 times for plaice, wolffish, hake and ling. Cod has declined by 87 per cent.

Professor Callum Roberts, from the University of York's Environment Department, said: "This research makes clear that the state of UK bottom fisheries – and by implication European fisheries, since the fishing grounds are shared – is far worse than even the most pessimistic of assessments currently in circulation.

"European fish stock assessments, and the management targets based on them, go back only 20 to 40 years. These results should supply an important corrective to the short-termism inherent in fisheries management today."

Paul Krugman on our Current Depression

a significant proportion of the economics profession has spent the last three decades systematically destroying the hard-won knowledge of macroeconomics. It’s truly a new Dark Age, in which famous professors are reinventing errors refuted 70 years ago, and calling them insights.

- Paul Krugman

In the fall of 2007, I read Prof. Paul Krugman's NY Times column with great interest, because in it lay the seeds towards understanding our current calamity.  In it he inveighed against the recklessness of the Bush junta's tax policy and their pro-corporate policies that had boosted big business' bottom-line, but failed to produce any meaningful or sustained growth for ordinary citizens.  The dismal jobs report that emerged earlier that month, in which Krugman referenced, was a precursor to the worst economic turn-down since the Great Depression of 1929.

Likewise in today's NY Times op-ed he re-iterates -what should be obvious to all who never bought the original green-sprouts argument offered by the high-priests of commerce- is that "we’re looking at a lost decade."  He proclaims that given the misaligned interests of governments across the globe, that we are witnessing the solidification of the Third Great Depression of the modern era.

To quote:

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs will nonetheless be immense.

With the cumulative failures of modern finance and crony capitalism witness to all and the well anticipated onset of resource scarcity, climate change, and ecological collapse posed to overwhelm all nations, I'm quite confident that Malthusian arguments will dominate this last century of humanity.

Welcome to the beginning of the end...

The Definition of Human Selfishness

Representatives of the human race have voted and decided to liquidate another species in the name of Mammon and short-term economic gain.

Delegates from 175 countries, representing the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, voted on a series of measures to eliminate international trade on the Bluefin Tuna and a variety of other animals that are posed for extinction.  According to the Washington Post,

The adult population of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna has declined 74 percent over the past half-century, much of it in the past decade, and the population has dropped 82 percent in 40 years in the western Atlantic.

The proposal originally initiated by Monaco and agreed upon by the USA and several EU states, failed to achieve a majority position at the Doha, Qatar conference; with 20 nations in favor, 68 against and 30 cowards abstaining. 

Japan the greatest consumer of worldwide Tuna, imports nearly 80 percent of commercially traded Atlantic bluefin.  Similar to its extensive campaign to dissuade any international body from preventing it from harvesting whales, Japan has used its considerable economic clout to prevent limitations on any trade embargo or harvesting constraints in international waters.  Few deny that the motivations behind their stance are purely commercial.  As Susan Lieberman, director of international policy at the Pew Environment Group said, "This was a case of just plain ignoring the science for short-term economic gain."

Japan is not alone in its posturing; however.  Canada, a country that has made itself into an environmental pariah by its fealty to dirty oil-sands production and the persistent refusal by its conservative government to acknowledge and address climate change, has actively sided with the Japanese on the tuna issue.  Canada's Minster of Fisheries, Gail Shea, applauding the defeat of the trade ban and touting Canada's own policies, which have permitted over the decades the devastation of Atlantic fisheries and the current collapse of Pacific Sockeye Salmon.  So when Canadians say they have a plan to manage fishery stocks, you can be certain that that species will be decimated.

To highlight the absurdity of the entire trade system, consider how Bluefin Tuna is cultured in Spanish waters; as relayed by the BBC.  The fish are initially kept alive in off-shore pens, where they are fed vast amounts of expensively caught fish (around 10-kg of feed fish serve to make the tuna put on 1-kg of body weight).  They are then harvested by hand using divers, packaged at a purpose-built factory, and flown -on the same day- to Asian markets.  All this so some silly twit can eat sushi with his/her choice of dipping sauce.

***

Additional background stories and commentary on this subject can be found here, here, and here.

Quote of the Day: Short-term thinking

People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything.

- James Lovelock

Whether it involves the current economic disaster, which was worst than the combined dot-com bust of the nineties and the S&L crisis of the 80's/90's, or the current projections related to the effects of continued industrial pollution, toxification of the environment, and ultimately climate change, we all seem to realize that we have very serious problems, but of course few are actually willing to engage in the challenges of actually disrupting the status quo.

In the Bible it says, "And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine." Genesis 41:33-36. For a civilization to survive it requires long term thinking and everyday sacrifices by all. There used to be a time, a short while ago, when the thought of being in debt and accumulating unnecessary material wealth was a moral failing. Today it is the norm. Gangs of thieves inhabit the sky-scrappers of New York and London, silently looting from public coffers and awarding themselves for their brilliant immorality. Standing Imperial armies are sent to secure natural resources in the name of freedom, while quenching indigenous opposition. The servant classes fret about credit card payments, stagnant wages, and mounting debt, while plotting how to keep up with the Jones' next door.

The song remains the same.

Update: Tuna & Ocean Conservation

The Christian Science Monitor has a good article updating the continuing crisis that surrounds the demise of large ocean faring fish like Blue Fin Tuna and what is being done about it by individual nation states and multilateral organizations.

I've already written fairly extensively on the decline of the Blue Fin tuna, the state of global fisheries, and even regional situations such as the Pacific Salmon along the coast of British Columbia, Canada.

To review, the bad news is that despite attempts to limit harvesting to preserve tuna and other species through regional fishery management systems, global fisheries on a whole are in severe crisis. The obvious culprits are global fishing fleets that scavenge the world's oceans using modern vessels, satellite tracking, and sophisticated fishing gear to maximize their haul and profits. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that, "Some 80 percent of commercial fish species are either fully exploited, overexploited, or collapsed." No less than nine of the world's 23 tuna species worldwide are “fully fished” and without immediate action all will face collective extinction in the years to come.

Furthermore, rampant exploitation motivated by commercial interests are again threatening the global commons and the viability of life in the open oceans.

Globally, $9 billion is lost to so-called pirate fishing, according to a study last year by the University of British Columbia and Marine Resource Assessment Group. In the Pacific alone, [illegal, unreported, and unregulated] (IUU) fishing takes 36 percent of the total catch, compared with a 19 percent global average.

These pirate fleets who plunder the global commons are a "huge problem in tuna fisheries across the western Pacific, particularly in “doughnut holes,” international waters between [exclusive economic zones] boundaries. In these waters, reflagged ships often use fish aggregating devices (FADs) that attract juvenile yellowfin tuna."

On the other side, there are international and regional compacts that may come to fruition next year that will give some reprieve to the tuna and other threatened species. For example,

The Obama administration... last month unveiled the outline of a comprehensive “ecosystem-based” plan to restore health to US ocean waters, including coastal fisheries. Among several measures, US fisheries would be pushed toward science-based instead of politically based catch limits. If the plan works, the United States could become a global model: It controls more ocean in its 200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ) than any other nation.

To improve the situation the following steps will have to be minimally implemented. They include:

• Restricting gear that is too good at catching fish. Nets with larger holes let younger fish escape, for example.
• Closing hard-hit and breeding areas to fishing to let them recover.
• Drastically reducing the number of fishing vessels chasing the fish.
• Reducing the total allowable catch.

52 Weeks After the Meltdown

By law of periodical repetition, everything which has happened once must happen again and again -- and not capriciously, but at regular periods, and each thing in its own period, not another's and each obeying its own law.

- Mark Twain

We have become our own Greek tragedy, blinded by hubris and unwilling to understand that we are but permutations in time; whether it is in our genes or our empires. As a civilization we should realize, if history is to teach us anything, that this is the moment of our great undoing, for it has happened before, and we know it will happen again. Below is a summation of recent articles issued this past month discussing the fall of Lehman Brothers and the pertinacious crisis of capitalism.

The Economist
"Unnatural Selection: Wall Street and the City of London survived thanks to state support. Now they need to be weaned off it"
"The Promised Bland: One year after Lehman Brothers collapsed"
"What If?" an examination of what could have occurred if Lehman's didn't go bankrupt.

The NY Times
Has an entire section dedicated to the financial crisis. Some of the better reads are:
Alex Berenson "A year later, little change in Wall St."
Robert Frank "Flaw in free markets: Humans"
Paul Krugman "How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?"

The Financial Times
FT also has an extensive coverage section that details the crisis at different levels.
Niall Ferguson does his best imitation of an contrarian in,"Why a Lehman's Deal would not have saved us"
Martin Wolf "Do not learn wrong lessons from Lehman’s fall"

The Globe and Mail
A timeline of the events is described in "Lehman Brothers: one year later"
Sinclair Stewart "The day everything - and nothing - changed." The story remains the same, as it is a story of men empty of decency, moral strength, and even humanity.

Business Week
BW also has a reasonable section discussing the financial crisis one year later. Unfortunately those who need to learn most, will not be interested.

Der Spiegel (International edition) has a solid set of articles on the failures and return of American inspired Casino-Capitalism. Those who know about defeat that arises from hubris should be listened to.

Ralph Nader, who predicted this entire fiasco more than a decade ago has a commentary on the return of casino capitalism in, "Rolling the Dice Again" Ignore at your own peril.

Robert Reich, former Sectatary of Labor in the first Clinton Admin. and constant critic of unregulated laissez-faire capitalism counters in his blog, "The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later."

More Fishy Stories

As a follow up to a previous blog entry on the state of Tuna fish in our oceans, Science magazine has an article outlining new quantitative data on the state of fish populations. The number of species continues to dwindle as human consumption increases and deep water extraction techniques are employed to remove slow-growing and reproducing species.

In 5 of 10 well-studied ecosystems, the average exploitation rate has recently declined and is now at or below the rate predicted to achieve maximum sustainable yield for seven systems. Yet 63% of assessed fish stocks worldwide still require rebuilding, and even lower exploitation rates are needed to reverse the collapse of vulnerable species.

Although, the numbers appear grim and political action remains sluggish as usual, there is more news and discussion of this tragedy of the commons in the leading print papers. The Washington Post has an article titled, "Unpopular, Unfamiliar Fish Species Suffer From Become Seafood." It reveals how the marketing people, seeing coastal populations of cod, red snapper, and other popular species decline (if not collapse) decided to start selling fish that were once considered unpalatable by rebranding the fishes name. Ocean fish once known as slimeheads, goosefish, rock crabs, and Patagonian toothfish have been recast with "tasty" sounding monikers. The slimehead, for example, has been transformed into the "Orange Roughy" and as a result seen its population decimated.

That fishermen have turned to them shows what's left in the ocean. Today's seafood is often yesterday's trash fish and monsters..."People never thought they would be eaten," said Jennifer Jacquet, a biologist at the University of British Columbia. "And as we fish out the world's oceans, we're coming across these species and wondering, 'Can we give them a makeover?' "

It is now obvious that regardless of what is done a large and potentially catastrophic loss of ocean fairing species will be lost. The Science article does give the slight hope that with more reasonable minds and practices, "About half of the depleted species might actually have a chance to recover, the scientists found, if given enough protection."