Resources for Scientists and Educators : OCB-OA

Resources for Scientists and Educators : OCB-OA

Posted using ShareThis

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.

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/02/ocean-acidification.html

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

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.

----- Original Message -----

From: David Suzuki Foundation

To: Trajano Paiva

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.

Goliath Groupers | Ocean Futures Society

Goliath Groupers | Ocean Futures Society

Posted using ShareThis