sábado, 29 de maio de 2010

The Aral Sea

Bringing life back to Asia's 'dead' sea
By Alysen Miller, CNN
May 26, 2010 -- Updated 0639 GMT (1439 HKT)

Aralsk, Kazakhstan (CNN) -- Serik Duisenbayv was 17 when he first saw the Aral Sea.

"When I was born the sea wasn't in Aralsk, I had only heard about it from my parents and from history books," he told CNN.

"When I saw it for the first time I was very sad that people had had to live without the sea for almost 40 years. But now we have hope. Now the sea is only 50km from Aralsk and maybe one day the water will be in the old harbor once again."

The shrinking of the Aral Sea has been described as one of the world's most shocking man-made environmental disasters. The sea lost over 90 percent of its area after the rivers that fed it were diverted to irrigate cotton crops elsewhere in the arid region in the 1960s.

As the water retreated, the sea became too saline for fish to survive, killing off the people's livelihoods and, with it, their hope.

The retreat of the Aral Sea has left the once-thriving port town of Aralsk, the town that bears its name, resembling nothing so much as a salty dustbowl. In its heyday it supported a population of 25,000 people with, on average, at least one person from each household employed in the fish processing plants.

Now the fish processing plants and ship building factories stand derelict; the train lines that once transported Aralsk's precious cargo all over the former Soviet Union are abandoned, a ghostly reminder of the town's former prosperity.

Unemployment forced many of the locals to migrate to the big cities in search of jobs. Those who remained still remember when this ghost town was a bustling harbor, complete with a floating restaurant. They still tell the story of how, during the Bolshevik Revolution, the fishermen of Aralsk worked through the night to provide fish for a hungry nation on the orders of Vladimir Lenin.

One hour's drive across the steppe from Aralsk, on what was once the sea bed, we get a poignant reminder of the scale of the disaster. Camels roam among the rusting husks of fishing vessels that jut from the cracked earth, abandoned where they once swayed at anchor before the sea disappeared.

The receding waters have left vast plains covered with salt, which is picked up and carried away by the wind as toxic dust. As well as blighting the local population with health and respiratory problems, the change in geography has also caused the summers to become hotter and drier and the winters colder and longer as the sea no longer acts as a temperature moderator.

But there is now an ongoing effort in Kazakhstan, supported by the World Bank, to save the north part of the Aral Sea.

In 2005 work on the $86 million Kok-Aral Dyke was completed, separating the North Aral from the rest of the sea. It has helped to raise the sea level by about 12 meters from its lowest level in 2003.

It means that for the first time in decades, fishermen are returning. Fishermen like Sahif Talgat, who has been fishing in the north Aral Sea for one year.

To go out fishing with Sahif and his colleagues is almost to step back into another time. As he lowers his net into the water, Sahif utters a prayer of thanks for the fish he hopes to catch.

There are now thought to be some 15 types of freshwater fish in the north Aral Sea, including carp, catfish and bream. The pike perch is the most expensive fish: one kilo can fetch up to 500 tenge (around $2.50), helping to explain why the fisherman have dubbed it the "golden fish".

The outlook for the remnants of the Aral Sea remains uncertain. But Serik is hopeful that the second phase of the project -- that aims to improve water management in the Syr Darya basin, which feeds the Aral Sea --- will help restore Aralsk to its former glory as a famous fishing port.

"People all over the world talk about the shrinking of the Aral Sea, that's it's totally dead, there there's no fishing anymore. But I say that it's not dead, it was just resting, waiting for better days. And now I think those better days have come.

domingo, 16 de maio de 2010

BBC E-mail: Acid oceans 'need urgent action'

Trajano Paiva saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you should see it.

** Acid oceans 'need urgent action' **
Marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 levels, warn scientists.

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm >


about Ocean Acidification processes

photo: Trajano Paiva


a very important topic that everyone has to become well informed of it.
About Ocean Acidification
The ocean absorbs approximately one-fourth of the CO2 added to the atmosphere from human activities each year, greatly reducing the impact of this greenhouse gas on climate. When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is formed. This phenomenon, called ocean acidification, is decreasing the ability of many marine organisms to build their shells and skeletal structure. Field studies suggest that impacts of acidification on some major marine calcifiers may already be detectable, and naturally high-CO2 marine environments exhibit major shifts in marine ecosystems following trends expected from laboratory experiments. Yet the full impact of ocean acidification and how these impacts may propogate through marine ecosystems and affect fisheries remains largely unknown.

from ocean acidification network

sábado, 15 de maio de 2010


About Hammerhead Sharks !

I found this fascinating quote today:

by Marine Biologist, Daniele ZanoniID:Size range :Weight range :Life span :Status :1.5 to 4.3 m70 to 150 kg20 to 30 years in the wildendangeredemperordivers.com, The Scalloped Hammerhead Shark, May 2010

You should read the whole article.

sexta-feira, 14 de maio de 2010

What the Gulf oil disaster tells us

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 10:02 AM
Subject: Science Matters | What the Gulf oil disaster tells us

What the Gulf oil disaster tells us

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola

It could never happen here. That was Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assurance in the wake of the massive oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, which he referred to as "an environmental catastrophe unlike anything we've seen in quite a long time".

The company behind the spill off the U.S. Gulf coast, British Petroleum, has three licences to drill for oil in the Beaufort Sea in Canada's Arctic. BP and other companies have
asked our federal government to relax environmental regulations around Arctic drilling. And B.C. is still pushing to get the federal government to lift a moratorium on drilling off the West Coast. There's also a plan in the works by Enbridge to build a pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands to the B.C. coast, where it will be put on oil tankers for ocean shipping. Questions have also been raised about the safety of an offshore well that Chevron has started drilling off the coast of Newfoundland. It will be deeper than the one in the Gulf of Mexico.

We've been assured many times that the technology is safe, but the Gulf disaster shows that no technology is foolproof. Can we really afford the risk?

President Barack Obama has halted plans for further oil drilling in the Gulf until an investigation is completed (although, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, the U.S. has
approved 27 other offshore drilling projects since the spill), and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has implemented a similar moratorium on drilling off that state's coast. Canada, however, has no plans to halt East Coast or Arctic drilling, and the B.C. government continues to push for drilling off the West Coast. When a disaster of this magnitude occurs, we should stop to re-examine the state of our own programs that might have similar risks so that we can find ways to avoid harming our oceans and coastal communities.

B.C.'s coast, which is known worldwide for its rich biodiversity and vibrant tourism industry, is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of an oil spill. A spill would be carried quickly by the nutrient-rich currents, possibly washing up on the mainland, Vancouver Island, and Haida Gwaii coasts. A spill or leak could threaten orcas, salmon, birds, and many other plant and animal species as well as devastating our fishing and tourism industries.

Is this the price we're willing to pay for a polluting and diminishing source of energy? Oil may seem inexpensive compared to some forms of energy, but if you factor in the costs of these real and potential disasters, not to mention the everyday pollution, it's not such a bargain.

One surprising response to the spill comes from proponents of the Alberta tar sands who see the Gulf disaster as boon. A cartoon in the Edmonton Journal pictured U.S. President Obama standing in the Gulf with oil on his hands, saying, "On second thought, the Alberta oilsands ain't so bad…" The tar sands have been linked to ecological, social, and medical problems, including toxic water pollution and excessive greenhouse gas emissions – and none of that is altered by the Gulf spill. The disastrous consequences of ocean oil spills may be more immediately apparent, but
land-based drilling can also cause environmental damage. Leaks, spills, blow-outs, fires, and explosions are more common than many people realize.

A more thoughtful response to the spill would be to recognize the huge risks associated with the kind of energy we use and the way we get it. Clearly, the negative costs of tar sands and deep ocean resources should point to the need to work toward a carbon-free energy future.

The problems are only going to get worse as we reach peak oil, when the most accessible sources of oil are all but gone and we must rely even more on the dirtier and harder-to-reach supplies in the deep ocean or tar sands.

We can't stop using fossil fuels immediately, but we should see this latest disaster as an opportunity to look at the costs of our energy use and where we should go from here. Clearly we must wean ourselves from oil and gas as we make the transition to cleaner sources of energy. If we were wise, we would go more slowly with the resources we do have – in the tar sands, for example – and use the revenues to fund research and development of clean energy.

The David Suzuki Foundation values your privacy and does not sell or trade email addresses. Please see our privacy policy for more information.


You are receiving this email because you signed up for the weekly column Science Matters by David Suzuki with Dr. Faisal Moola.

Remove yourself from this mailing.

Remove yourself from all mailings from David Suzuki Foundation.