Taking Acid Test, Our New Documentary, To Capitol Hill
Our oceans feed the world, provide jobs, and generate most of the planet's oxygen. Oceans cover 71 percent of the earth and contain more than 97 percent of the world's water. Our survival literally depends on their health. And yet few people realize that the oceans are suffering from a grave affliction caused by increased carbon pollution.
More than one quarter of the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels enters our oceans, where it makes the water more acidic. Scientists have just recently discovered that this rising acidity is threatening ocean life as we know it.
This week, we are joining with Senator Frank Lautenberg on Capitol Hill to host a screening of the groundbreaking documentary, Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification. This will give our lawmakers -- those with the power to limit carbon dioxide pollution -- the opportunity to better understand what is happening to our seas due to our dependence on fossil fuels.
Acid Test, which premiered on Discovery Channel Planet Green, was produced by our colleagues at NRDC and narrated by Sigourney. We've been friends since high school and we even shared an apartment as young professionals in New York, heading down our very different career pathways. Now we have come together for one of our most important- and most urgent- collaborations. Acid Test (which you can watch online here) vividly illustrates what is happening to our oceans, and offers solutions to revitalize them.
Excess carbon dioxide is making marine waters more acidic, which causes a drop in carbonate -- the key component in shells. When carbonate levels fall, it is more difficult for organisms to make their shells, which become thinner and more brittle.
Ocean acidity has increased an average of 30 percent since the industrial revolution. If we continue to dump carbon dioxide into our seas, ocean acidification could result in a "global osteoporosis," harming not only commercially important shellfish, such as lobster, crabs, and mussels, but also key species in marine food webs such as corals and plankton. That could send shock-waves up the food chain, threatening fish, birds, and mammals.
Rising ocean acidity will also hit our economy hard. In the United States alone, ocean-related tourism, recreation and fishing are responsible for over 2 million jobs. Indeed, the U.S. ocean economy creates two and a half times the economic output as the agricultural sector, contributing more than $230 billion to the nation's GDP annually.
We don't have to watch these economic opportunities evaporate in the face of acidification. We can take steps to turn back the tide.
The first step is for Congress to pass clean energy and climate legislation. This week, Senators Kerry and Boxer will be introducing a comprehensive clean energy bill that we hope will jump-start the Senate to move forward with this vital legislation. Along with policies to drive investment in clean energy and reduce carbon pollution, we hope this bill will include additional adaptation provisions to help make our seas more resilient and better able to withstand the stresses of acidification.
The next step in defending our oceans is to deepen our understanding of this phenomenon. The main reason ocean acidification was 'under the radar' for so long is that we have never routinely monitored the impact of rising carbon dioxide pollution on our oceans. The Senate can change that by fully-funding the ocean acidification research bill introduced by Senator Lautenberg.
Already, we have seen a dramatic spike in attention around this issue. Now we need our lawmakers to take the necessary steps to restore our oceans. These measures can lead us to a future of more clean energy and less pollution -- a future that is safer and healthier for our people, our planet and our oceans.
Save our Oceans from Acidification: Tell your senators to help save our oceans by passing strong climate legislation.
This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.
Favorite
Reply
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Baking soda will neutralize acid, what ever the level it is just add baking soda to get it where it belongs, we don't need to create an emergency where there is none, this could also be done with catalitic converters as sea water passes through sea strainers and cooling systems on ships. Controling acid levels should be a fairly simple thing to do. Carbon dioxide is not the enemy, Plants and trees breath in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, people breath in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide, a far greater problem is massive methane leaks that boil out of the ocean floor, some of these bubbles are so large they could potentially crash a oil rig to the bottom of the sea along with ships, if we could tap and contain this natural gas rather than letting it boil off to the atmosphere, it could potentially be used as energy.
Just how much baking soda do you prepose would be needed ? After a successful day at the catalytic plant, what were you planning on doing with the 22 tons of carbon dioxide you filtered ? Image it might pile up and get in the way, don't you think ? Plants and trees are already past their capacities (I think that was in the documentary), if you have been paying attention. We are at war with mother nature, but were too intelligent to notice it. What most people fail to accept is, it is a war we cannot win. Mother nature will eliminate us, as she has done with all things that have not followed the rules.
I'm sure your baking soda is really going to impress her.
"We are at war with mother nature..."
It's not exactly war, it's more like negligent homicide.
"Baking soda will neutralize acid..."
Shirley, you can't be serious.
"Carbon dioxide is not the enemy,"
Of course it's not the "enemy." It's a gas with no militaristic intentions. Nevertheless, too much of it in our atmosphere is a major problem.
"...a far greater problem is massive methane leaks..."
What's your source for that assertion?
I am in the power industry and can tell you that a lot has happened over the last ten years to clean up the air, allot.
It may be true that CO has risen the last thirty years, but I would like to know what our progress in limiting this has been in the last ten years. I beleive most people would be surprised and happy to hear we are doing a better job, and maintaining jobs, along with company's profit lines and customers budgets.
Enviromental wacko's have no consideration for jobs, company profit lines or customer's (you and me) budget. There is a fine line that glues all these elements together. That is one fact I feel strong about.
Business zealots have no concern for the health of the ecosystems that make their business possible. Nor do they care about the health of the workers who make and consume their products. They don't care if the world their grandchildren inherit is toxic and overheated, just as long as they can make a buck today.
There, see? I can make stupid, unfounded generalizations too. See how insufferable, annoying, arrogant, and ultimately counterproductive it is?
The captains of industry, particularly those industries that would suffer if strict controls on CO2 were put in place, would LOVE for everybody to believe that environmental activists care more about owls than humans. And there are many activists who probably do feel this way, but there are also even more activists whose concern about the environment is grounded in a serious concern about people, their opportunities, and the health of our economy. MANY environmental activists want people to have good jobs, and companies to be able to make profits, and the economy to be healthy. These are important priorities. But these activists also recognize that without a healthy ecosystem, there is no possibility for healthy profits and good jobs. We'll all be too busy putting out fires (literally in some cases).
I would like to know which type of power industry you're in, and whether or not you've ever actually met a living breathing "environmental wacko" in person, long enough to hold a thoughtful conversation with him or her.
"Enviromental wacko's have no consideration for jobs, company profit lines or customer's (you and me) budget."
What wackos are you talking about? It can't be the people trying to put a stop to the way we're changing the composition of the atmosphere. There's nothing "wacko" about recognizing a threat and taking steps to deal with it.
I am finding the whole climate change and global warming debate to be very interesting. The EU is very pushy about telling us to reduce CO2 emissions but in a recent trip through southern Germany from the stacks of firewood everywhere, I don’t mean little stacks here and there, big stacks all over small towns, it appears that wood is the primary heat source. I have also heard(from Italians in Italy) that Italy offers tax incentives to people buying and using wood burning heaters.
This confuses me, I may be wrong but I was under the impression that burning wood released more CO2 into the atmosphere than any other form of energy.
It does release plenty of CO2, but the release of CO2 from burning wood does not represent a net gain in atmospheric CO2, because the carbon in the trees being burned has NOT, unlike that in fossil fuels, been sequestered under the ground for hundreds of millions of years.
That's why biomass technologies are considered carbon neutral.
Once again: CARBON CYCLE, people! It's not that complicated. I mean, it is that complicated, but the basic idea of it should be accessible to any reasonably intelligent person.
no. carbon cycle tells us that atmospheric co2 levels were much higher than it is today
and life flourished very well. The fossil records demonstrated that.
If you would like to clear up the confusion, look for comparisons to coal, soft coal, oil fired power plants and heating systems, fossil fuel vehicles. Compared to these it not hard to see why bonuses are offered, to those who are willing to change. The goal is to drop below what the environment can absorb, which is constantly changing since we still think it is better to clear cut vegetation to make room for more cattle for our hamburger chains. Actually a double misconception since it not only eliminates plants that consume CO2, but also makes room for animals that produce more evironmental contaminants through their defecation. Want to help decrease CO2, then don't buy that trendy pick up truck or even a 4 wheel drive vehicle. You spend 21% average more for these vehicles that use an average 27% more fuel, dragging around the extra weight and drive train to have it used, how often ? When your on vacation with the boat or the trailer ? While you're going skiing in the mountains, hey people for those two weeks you can rent an AWD vehicle and leave the hybrid at home and save loads of bucks and a hell of a lot of CO2, but don't tell the oil companies, they might think we have something against them, when all we want is the human race to stay alive. Isn't it worth a few less hamburgers, less metal status symbol, and fewer visits to the gas station
Thank you, Ms. Weaver. I have noted that you provided a link to notify my Senator and will do so.
But first, I must address some of the noise here.
If there's one thing I know, it's that if you ignore a warning from Sigourney Weaver, you die. Now here, she has given you a clear warning about oceanic acidification. Read between the lines.
Oceans are full of unicellular phytoplanktons called "diatoms," a type of eukaryotic algae. Diatoms are extremophilic, and will flourish (bloom) in a highly acidic saline environment. They are unique among pelagic flora in that their cell walls are made of silica! Thus far, they are the only extant "silicon-based" life form on earth.
A bloom of silicon-based life in highly acidic brine and a few errant protein polysaccharides is the perfect primordial recipe for... Well, we can't really come out and say it on the Company network, can we? Think of something with an exoskeleton of polarized silicon and acid for blood. Something very, very bad.
We have been warned. Please contact your representatives.
fumes:
in the beginning..
long before they say god created heaven and earth..
the earth's atmosphere was 95% CO2 and still not acidic..
for cyanobacteria aka blue-green algae bloomed everywhere..
thereby oxygenating the air for us to breathe!
Posted 10:16 PM on 09/29/2009
missouriwatcher:
And in the meantime, we can all see how we do on 95% CO2. But CO2+H2O=carbolic acid, no?
Posted 11:55 AM on 09/30/2009
no silly.. that's the whole point: the oceans were NEVER acidic.. even at 95% CO2 in the atmosphere!
once again the proof being the algae blooms that gave us O2. hello? you're not getting this.. r u lol?
Ignore the dining room table.
A note about fish: they're an important source of food for the healthiest people on Earth.
I'm less sure about the following, but I believe the basic reason that global warming estimates have gotten so much more dire the past two years is that models were depending on the oceans to continue absorbing CO2 at previous (constant) rates, and of course chemistry doesn't really work that way. Every chemical solution has a saturation point, and it seems we now have clear evidence we're at least approaching it.
well that's wonderful then reedy.. thanks..
the oceans now not being able take up any more CO2..
just made moot sigourney's fine post!
No Fumes, actually it doesn't make Ms Weaver's post moot. In fact that's the point.
Try making sense for a change will you? Or would you lose your job then?
There is absolutely no way that conservation is going to do a damn thing. We need to rapidly develop technology that can control the algae and bacteria in the oceans, and also develop ways to reflect excess solar radiation away from the earth. Sorry tree huggers just are not going to cut it, we need some serious technology.
We are actually in much more danger than 99% of us realize, and we may be looking at an extinction event on the order of 95% of all species, both marine and terrestrial. This is may be what happened to end the Permian period 250 million years ago.
"Kump, Pavlov and Arthur (2005) have proposed that during the Permian-Triassic extinction event the warming also upset the oceanic balance between photosynthesising plankton and deep-water sulfate-reducing bacteria, causing massive emissions of hydrogen sulfide which poisoned life on both land and sea"
Geo-engineering is always a terrible idea which encourages continuing to exacerbate the root problem.
It sometimes seems like Senators care more about the coal deposits in their states getting developed than they do about some ocean that their state doesn't even touch. Good luck with them.
Thank you, Sigourney and Frances.
Important topic and research! Thanks to Beinecke and Weaver for bringing it to the public. I am just a reader and a layperson, but one very enlightening book that changed my understanding is called "Sea Change" by Sylvia Earle. She makes a knowledgeable and impassioned plea for preservation of the worlds fragile and rapidly deteriorating ocean ecosystems. The ocean's food chains are also deteriorating because of over fishing and dumping by man. Sylvia Earle, a true explorer of our times, is a marine botanist who served on the President's Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1980-1984). In 1990 she was appointed as Chief Scientist of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) where she served until 1992. In 1992 she founded Deep Ocean Exploration and Research (D O E R), to design, operate, support and consult on manned and robotic sub sea systems. Since then she has discovered many new species diving deeper than anyone in the oceans. She has also written many books about her explorations, discoveries, beauty, and health of the many oceans on our planet. She writes for people like me who are not scientists.
Is there any reason that humans must not follow in the path of the Dinasaurs? Admittedly the dinasaurs did not bring about their own demise. The extinction of humanity is unlikely to be lamented by our successors since the evidence will point to our having committed suicide.
All species must become extinct eventually, that is as inevitable as death itself. We can only hope that we can pass some wisdom on to whatever life form emerges from the carcass of humanity, and that it is a long ways off.
Important topic and research! Thanks to Beinecke and Weaver for bringing it to the public. I am just a reader and a layperson, but one very enlightening book that changed my understanding is called "Sea Change" by Sylvia Earle. She also makes a knowledgeable and impassioned plea for preservation of the worlds fragile and rapidly deteriorating ocean ecosystems. She says the ocean's food chains are also deteriorating because of over fishing and dumping by man.
Sylvia Earle, a true explorer of our times, She began as a marine botanist who served on the President's Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere (1980-1984). In 1990 she was appointed as Chief Scientist of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) where she served until 1992. In 1992 she founded Deep Ocean Exploration and Research (D O E R), to design, operate, support and consult on manned and robotic sub sea systems. Since then she has discovered many new species diving deeper than anyone in the oceans. She has also written many books about her experiences, explorations, discoveries, beauty, and weakening health of the many oceans on our planet.
Earle writes for people like me who are not scientists. After reading her books I want to learn more. She has helped me to understand and appreciate more about the vast complexities of our oceans. Much of which is as unknown as planets in outer space. It will take a real effort to help restore our ecosystems, the health of our planet, and consequentially humanity.
"Ocean acidity has increased an average of 30 percent since the industrial revolution."
Incorrect.
From the March 7, 2002 issue of Nature, David M. Anderson et al. compared the chemistry of today's oceans with that of ice age oceans 20,000 years ago have concluded that pH levels were about the same, proving that the ocean's composition remains relatively stable over long periods of time. Shells at ocean bottom acts like a pH buffer. Although the paper is dated (2002) plenty of human co2 emissions have already been done since the beginning of the Industrial revolution (1800's).
To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. This is because there is a far greater supply of calcium ions (441ppm) in seawater than dissolved inorganic carbon (90ppm),
Vogt et al (2008), experimenting with atmospheric concentrations up to three times current levels:
" …the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects."
Your comment illogical technobabble and refutes nothing.
Further, you are attempting use Dr. Anderson's work out of chronological context.
Bad troll.
Vogt et al (2008), experimenting with atmospheric concentrations up to three times current levels:
" …the ecosystem composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects."
---------------------------------------
Were these bench studies? And in which journal was this study published?
I do not know how Vogt, et.al. can come to this conclusion about ALL of the world's oceans.
There has been dramatic die off of coral all over the world because of lowering pH values occurring in the last few years. Coral reefs are the rainforests of the oceans. Without coral reefs, the oceans will decline devastatingly.
Pamela, above, is correct in her thinking. She is listening to Dr. Sylvia Earle, one of the most respected scientists in the world.
Why you are choosing to support inaction and flawed science is i//ogical. If we are going to err, let's be smart about it and err on the side of caution. We will be better for it.
If you think we can predict the response of a system as complex as global ecology you are seriously deluded. I hope your irrational belief that the system is robust with built in buffering mechanisms is right, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Thank you to the authors of this article, I especially appreciate the connection you are making that this can and will affect the pocketbook
Economics is often used to muddy up the facts about our planet, and there is great opportunities for us to make money and limit our losses of money by addressing these very important concerns
So glad to hear you are head to Wash DC with this
I like to watch Sigourney's movies, and commend her on this passionate engagement.
Unfortunately, most of the climate science goes way beyond an average person's education and understanding of this subject. Whether you agree or not with the proposed models, there's so much more to read and comprehend. General public would be more receptive to the mainstream scientific views if there was not too much politics and financial bias involved. For a good example of hypocrisy in environmental politics, and why many people are doubtful about the true motives of those in power, see Who Killed the Electric Car. That is why "Tell your senators" is what worries me most in Sigourney's text.
As far as an open discussion, I see little. All I hear is a derogatory tone directed at dissenting views, which certainly doesn't make one's cause more compelling, on the contrary. Some interesting stuff:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080214094138AA4BQFA
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
http://icecap.us/
One doesn't have to understand every scientific detail. it's enough to know that carbon emissions are adversely affecting the already over-fished and increasingly polluted oceans.
It's not rocket science. Increasing acidity hurts fish and fish reproduction. Many people on earth rely on catching and eating fish. Therefore acidity hurts people.
You are right. This concept is not what I have a problem with, though. It is how it is being exploited and how a prevailing lack of understanding of the broader science behind this leads to easy manipulations. It is what "Tell your senators" might do to you and me, while not really saving the fish. Ya know, big fish, little fish kinda deal. :)
It is "rocket science". Our science is far too primitive to predict what kind of responses a system as complex as the earth my undergo to our stimulus. It could be catastrophic response and kill 99% of all life on earth, or it may simply be a minor problem and a boon to Canada and Alaska. We better figure out how to control this system before the inevitable extinction even comes. More rocket scientists is always a solution to a problem.
Ms. Weaver's projects, of which there have been many, including "Planet Earth", are always layperson friendly. The scientific concepts are put in simple, easy to understand language, that all of us can relate to and understand.
Not only will enjoy this documentary but you also will be educated.
I think any diligent high school graduate can comprehend the basics of the Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
And acid/base chemistry is simple enough to learn IN high school. Many do.
I really hadn't looked to much into the science backing up all these claims of global warming. But now that I have, you people are clearly off the rails. Is there any actual proof that oceans are becoming more acidic? You know, like what was the PH before and what is it now? That should be pretty simple to prove. But nothing. You got nothing. This is more of the same chicken little theory of something that "could" happen. It's possible in the way that anything is possible.
Here's an article I suggest everyone read which does a pretty good job of summing up the theory of man-made global warming.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Ever hear of taking ocean sediment samples? You can get core samples out of the ocean just as you can from bedrock or glaciers.
You got some measurements there, Bub? Have you gone and done that?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
