Latest Articles

A round-up of top ocean stories

Read an article you'd like to see featured here? Send it to wavemaker@oceana.org.

A Manhattan-sized iceberg that had broken off a Canadian island came to a rest in a dead-end Arctic Ocean channel, much to the relief of cargo ships and oil rigs, which may have been threatened by the two-billion-ton berg.

A family out sailing in Massachusetts spied a mola mola, a bony sunfish shaped like a mix between a shark and a pancake. Usually found in warmer waters, the mola sometimes migrates north of the tropics.

A group of scientists announced a plan to wire the Pacific floor so that land-bound researchers can remotely view and study the sea floor. "This is a NASA-scale mission to enter the Inner Space," said one.

Leaked documents suggested the Canadian government is set to announce fast-tracked economic initiatives in the Arctic later this fall.

On the myth that polar bear populations are flourishing

Human-caused global warming is poised to wipe out polar bears. The normally staid U.S. Geological Survey -- studying whether the bear should be listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act -- concluded grimly last Friday:

Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world's current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.

That's right -- this grim prediction is optimistic, a best-case scenario. In the next post, I'll examine why polar bears are likely to go extinct by 2030 if not 2020. But first I need to dispense with a myth that polar bears are doing well -- a myth propagated by people like Bjorn Lomborg in his new book, Cool It.

Solar-powered plane breaks world record for longest unmanned flight

Ooh, fancy: A lightweight solar-powered plane has smashed the official world record for the longest-duration unmanned flight. The plane flew for 54 hours, through two sunless nights, and was controlled remotely from the ground and by autopilot. And manned (excuse us, personed) flights are on the horizon: A Swiss man has plans to circumnavigate the […]

Dodd doesn’t have the boldest climate goal, but he’s got the boldest policy proposals

Chris Dodd says the right things.

To my mind, he's every bit as good on climate change as John Edwards and Bill Richardson, if not better.

Putting aside political feasibility and the electability of any of these candidates, what's the best way to look at their policy proposals? I think there are two important things to note. The first and most obvious is a policy's particular goals. On that score, Richardson wins. He calls for a 90 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, which is better than Dodd and Edwards who call for 80 percent reductions over the same time span.

The second, though, is the likely effectiveness of the policies themselves, and here Dodd is second to none. Unlike Richardson, he's not biochemically averse to the idea of tax hikes, so he's combined a cap-and-trade program with a carbon tax and increased CAFE standards -- and in doing so, has compiled the boldest menu of emissions-fighting tactics of any of the candidates.

What may be unanswerable is the question of how much invisible impact setting more ambitious goals has. In a strictly academic exercise like this one, it may not matter. (And I'd be stuck in a state of inconsolable joy if any of these plans became national policy.)

This is all just to say that Dodd deserves his share of support from environmentalists.

Postscript: The other question that may not be answerable is how sincere Dodd or any of his peers are about environmental issues. This funny little exchange, though, suggests at the least that Dodd hasn't been thinking about this issue very long or in great depth:

[AGL]: What environmental achievement are you proudest of in your career?

[Dodd]: That's a good question. It's been a lot of support for things rather than anything I've actually initiated. You know, the issue dealing with the Alaskan, you know, the ...

[AGL]: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

[Dodd]: Yeah, I've been a strong supporter of that.

Yeah, that one!

To everything, turn turn turn

One inconclusive set of international meetings yielding weak climate resolutions ends — another begins.

Carbon sequestration is a costly alternative to renewables, not a transition to them

Half the reason I wrote this post was to respond to this article, and then I forgot to mention it. Check this out: Developing commercially viable carbon capture and storage, or CCS, technology should be a major priority for companies and governments all over the world because renewable energy sources will not be able to […]

Dow Chemical evades legal responsibility for chemical spill in India

In 1984, thousands of people in Bhopal, India, were killed by the effects of a cyanide leak from a U.S.-owned pesticide plant. The plant owner, Union Carbide Corp., was bought by Dow Chemical in 2001; since then, Dow has evaded responsibility for cleaning up the more than 9,000 tons of chemicals still affecting soil and […]

Gray whale killed by Makah tribe members in surprise hunt

Photo: bbum A gray whale was harpooned off the coast of Washington state this weekend in a surprise hunt by members of the Makah tribe. The tribe does have hard-won treaty rights to conduct whale hunts, but this weekend’s kill was not sanctioned since the tribe has not yet succeeded in obtaining a necessary waiver […]

U.S. study says two-thirds of polar bears will be gone by 2050

The U.S. Geological Survey released a grim study of polar bears on Friday, concluding that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will be gone by 2050. Polar bears in Alaska and other areas outside the very far north will be most out of luck, according to the study; it forecasts that precisely zero polar bears […]

Coal-to-liquid is a dead end if there’s a price on CO2

One final post on this week's liquid coal hearing. Forbes wrote up the hearing and got my bluntest quote:

"Coal-to-liquid is just a dead end, from a climate perspective," added Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. "Liquid coal will not have a future in this country, no matter how much money Congress squanders on it."

Well, I guess "liberal-leaning" is better than "liberal."

Why is liquid coal a dead end? Because, as I explain in my testimony, even a relatively low price for carbon dioxide is fatal to liquid coal's economics, as made clear in two recent report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration: