4 years ago by mikeg8
I started free diving for abalone along the Sonoma coast in 2008. The first few years of diving were plentiful and majestic. But my friends and I noticed the changes around 2015. Less sunflower stars and star fish. After some red tide events, the abalone die offs were crazy. Coves that used to have abs stacked on top of each other were almost empty. Finding a 9ā abalone became a chore. The thinner kelp forests meant less fish, less life. Itās been difficult to watch first hand. I get sad thinking about the reality that my children will most likely never see the underwater forests that filled my soul and gave me a deep love of the ocean. I hope we can help the system get back in balance.
4 years ago by lrem
We likely won't, at least nowhere near the 20th century balance. For all the new tree saplings planted elsewhere, Brazil straight burns down old growth in the rainforest. For all the wind and solar installed by the rich countries, poor countries are happy for the cheaper coal. Replacing nuclear base power with fossil fuels doesn't help too.
Even if we ever do manage to come together and fund active carbon capture, it will take decades to reverse the trend. And then possibly centuries for the oceans to de-acidify. Together with active efforts to burn down nature in the places where most biodiversity remains, the mass extinction even is likely to run its course before we get to a stable ecosystem. Sure we can restore most of the biomass, but it will be much fewer species. And letting the nature run its course will, naturally, take millions of years.
4 years ago by ClumsyPilot
This is factually wrong, looks at CO2 emissions per capita, USA has carbon footprint double that of France.
Do people in US have twice better life? They don't, its just that the policy doesnt give a flying fuck about environment. The government spends more on military programs to defend from hypothetical weapons that dont exist yet, than it does on dealing with the certainty of climate change.
People here bitching about brazil removing forest, forest cover of UK is like 12%, one of the lowest in thw world. The 'ambition' is to plant like 2% more trees in 30 years. We just cut it down years ago, and so are off the hook.
You know what the wealthy countries should have done? Funded development of fusion properly, actually invested in renewables and shared technology with developing nations, had electric vehicles in mass production by 2010. Then you could do around and point at aome poor farmer fuck knows where trying to feed his family.
As things stand China has 10x more electric buses than the rest of the world combined, a couple Nordic countries have shown leadership in Wind. But most of western world is not just complicit, but a partner in crime, has actively enabled and protected their oil firms to commit literal crimes.
4 years ago by watertom
Working on planting more trees is nice, but we have a much bigger problem.
Phytoplankton are responsible for between 50 and 80% of the oxygen in the atmosphere https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-oxygen.html
Phytoplankton population has declines almost 40% since the 50's. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-pop...
As the oceans warm and more fresh water is released into the ocean from melting ice it caused the ocean to become more acidic, which is causing the phytoplankton population to decline further. Also as the water warms different types of phytoplankton increase and not all as economics at converting CO2 into oxygen, and some create other problems.
https://theweek.com/articles/747106/climate-change-putting-o...
Phytoplankton are the basis for the marine food chain
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/plankton-revealed/
Over 3 Billion people rely on the oceans as their main source of protein.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-seafood
There is nothing we can do as a "stop gap" solution for the oceans, and phytoplankton, just like any natural system in decline the phytoplankton population will continue a slow decrease and then when it hits a tipping point it will crash.
When the phytoplankton population crashes, and it will, the impact will be catastrophic. Short of inventing a technology to capture and sequester 45 Billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere each and every year, there is nothing we can do to stop or even slow down what's happening to the oceans.
4 years ago by melonmouse
> This is factually wrong, looks at CO2 emissions per capita, USA has carbon footprint double that of France.
It's closer to 3x: USA 15.7 vs France 5.2 tonnes of CO2 per capita per year (2017, not accounting for other gasses that contribute to warming) [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
4 years ago by intotheabyss
A big part of this is that urban planning in the US is suburb centric which is devastating not only for the environment, but also for the economy. City centers have higher density and more tax dollars and they subsidize the infrastructure of the suburbs. Basically, the suburbs tax income can't sustain their own infrastructure so American cities rely on growth in order to fund new developments and infrastructure maintenance. It's essentially a ponzi where the music stops when the growth stops. So not only are American cities terrible for the environment, but they are incentivized to continue to grow in order to fund legacy infrastrucure, which inevitably places a strain on the environment.
The car model of a city is what is destroying our environment. North America needs better urban planning if we have any chance at all in making a dent in global climate change.
4 years ago by Angostura
For context, the UK is actually doing fairly well in terms of reforestation- we are at the highest level of forestation since about !350
https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statis...
4 years ago by marricks
While your comment isnāt factually wrong itās phrased to almost blame the poorer countries.
Brazil burns down forest mainly because of the United Stateās desire for think like soy beans to feed cows.
Poorer countries use coal because itās cheap and global conditions donāt enrich them enough to get better sources.
The sad truth is we force countries to be poor and exploit their own resources so we donāt have to do it ourselves. And of course then weāll all pay the price living on a dying planet.
4 years ago by f_allwein
Also, apparently fifty percent of the worldās carbon emissions are produced by the worldās richest 10%: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/12/richest-10-percent-ca...
4 years ago by samatman
75% of Brazil's soybean exports go to China, for pig feed. This is 47.6% of all soybean exports.
The number two exporter? The United States, at 34.1%, the vast majority of this also goes to China, again, for pigs.
4 years ago by DrBazza
> Brazil burns down forest mainly because of the United Stateās desire for think like soy beans to feed cows.
In the UK at least, we seem to have palm oil in everything, and Indonesia and that part of the world are busily hacking down forests and killing orangutans in the process.
What's the sudden need for palm oil? We hardly used it in the 70s and 80s when I was a kid.
4 years ago by concordDance
I don't think "But I can get money for burning my children's future!" is a good excuse for sais burning unless you're literally starving. Which the burners in Brazil et al are not.
People have agency, there's no Coca Cola goons with guns to their heads this time.
4 years ago by smokey_circles
Why is the default always to blame poorer countries?
The US is one of the largest contributors of CO2 in the world. The per capita argument is silly: They're a single, centralised source of pollution. Just regulate it already. The impact would be phenomenal.
As for the poorer countries: How about the wealthier nations that outright stole the mineral resources from us start paying that money back in the form of a solution rather than having their denizens pointing obese fingers at us?
I'm not saying give the money back (would be nice though), but how about spending that ill-gotten gain on progress for a change?
4 years ago by lrem
You misread me quite badly. I've never lived in the US and actually come from a country 4x poorer (at least according to GDP/C), that's still ramping up coal, despite being told not to.
4 years ago by adnzzzzZ
Most electricity production in Brazil is renewable, at much higher levels than most first world countries, including yours most likely. https://i.imgur.com/gMBJEQG.png
Also look up a chart of CO2 production per capita and compare Brazil's to your country's before you start talking like you are.
If you want to point fingers then fine, but at least do it properly and be informed.
4 years ago by ajmadesc
I support and agree with your sentiment. Western countries are to blame, but
_Biomass should not count as renewable_
It is not carbon neutral. Monocultures requires petrol based inputs (and petrol reliant for output), and store less than half the c02 of an old growth forest.
Biomass was one of the biggest mistakes in the green movement.
4 years ago by PhilosAccnting
Why so much fatalism? From what I understand, this seems like a one-off situation, and could swing back into full restoration once the urchins die off from starvation.
If nature is anything, it's most certainly resilient! Mt. Saint Helens erupting caused more pollution than the entire industrial revolution combined, and a year of worldwide lockdown cleared up metric shedloads of air pollution.
Why trust what so-called experts say about 20 years out when their models suck for the next few years?
4 years ago by mikeg8
Itās more than just letting urchins starve. The spines from their dead bodies prevent the bull kelp from establishing their foothold. And ocean warming is also very problematic for the kelp. Much more so than urchins.
I donāt mean to be fatalistic, but Iām realistic. One of my closest friends in the world is a marine biologist studying red abalone on the CA coast. Weāve been discussing this problem for years as it has caused the closure of the fishery, thus eliminating one of our favorite shared pastimes. We WANT to dive for abs again, but all the evidence is pointing to towards an ecosystem where that wonāt be possible anytime soon.
4 years ago by undefined
4 years ago by nradov
I have been diving in the Monterey, CA region since 1999 and have seen the change first hand. Sunflower sea stars are now extinct in the area; I haven't seen one in years. Some of the smaller sea star species have started to gradually recover but they aren't effective at preying on purple urchins. There is a local group culling urchins but they'll only be able to cover a small area.
4 years ago by deanCommie
Same thing in British Columbia: over 90%, 5.7 billion have died since 2013 [1].
When I was a kid in the 90s, and starting to dive in the 2000s, sea stars were everywhere on the ocean floor, even really close to the city center of Vancouver. They were so ubiquitous that they were completely uninteresting to us locals. We would hear that BC was considered world-renowned for scuba diving quality, and think "How dull, it's just a shit ton of sea stars"
(Of course, we were young, stupid, and also called them starfish not sea stars then)
Me and some friends would go camping at an oceanfront spot on Vancouver Island every year, and go crabbing with mixed results. Half of the irritation was sometimes you'd be pulling up what felt like a really heavy crab trap full of goodness (We were always responsible and only kept the males over the legal size), only to find it full of sea stars who chased away the crabs and ate our bait.
Then, about six or seven years ago, the sea stars just...disappeared. And they didn't come back.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sunflower-se...
4 years ago by barbazoo
I remember my partners parents saying the same about star fish population around Hornby island. The time frame matches up as well.
4 years ago by contingencies
Please consider taking the time to add your historic observations to https://inaturalist.org/
4 years ago by nradov
I appreciate the suggestion but I would rather focus on gathering data for Project Baseline Point Lobos which is tracking changes at one specific area near Monterey.
4 years ago by aryik
Thank you for sharing this. I literally got open water certified in Monterey this afternoon, and I will be signing up to volunteer!
4 years ago by ubertoop
I've clearly been doing this quarantine / pandemic wrong.
4 years ago by kaybe
You still have time. sigh
4 years ago by scubazealous
I am very excited for the results of the urchin culling experiment Fish and Wildlife has allowed in Monterey. There is debate in the scientific community if allowing the public to kill urchins will hurt or help the cause.
Many divers in the area (mostly from out of town) think they can help the kelp forests by smashing them with whatever tools they can. I have even found a lost hammer while diving a popular site in Monterey.
While smashing effectively ends the life of the urchins, it also releases their spawn and can cause a even worse environmental disaster. It is also not an effective solution for the whole coast and will only work to clear areas frequented by divers.
4 years ago by riffraff
> it also releases their spawn and can cause a even worse environmental disaster
Wouldn't the spawn be released anyway? I can see how this strategy would be ineffective, but how is it worse?
4 years ago by the_cramer
They are probably pointing out that there could be a better way to kill/remove/move the urchin without releasing the spawn.
Although it's very hard to get them off their spot and handling them.
4 years ago by shartshooter
One reason we don't have kelp forests in Oregon is due to sea otters having been wiped out, which kept the urchins at bay.[0]
Unfortunately, according to OPs article:
Others have suggested bringing in another kelp forest predator, the sea otter, to help fight back the urchins. The problem with this appears to be that sea otters arenāt so interested in the skinny, starved urchins occupying the most barren areas, reports Anuradha Varanasi for Inverse. A separate study published this week in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests the otters do eat urchins but that they prefer the more well-fed residents of the coastās remaining kelp forests to the so-called āzombie urchinsā clinging to life in the denuded barrens.
[0] - https://oregonwild.org/about/blog/lost-sea-otters-oregon-par...
4 years ago by ryan_j_naughton
There is a company called Urchinomics that is catching the purple urchins, then feeding them in a land based environment, then selling them worldwide as high quality uni.[1][2]
The reason this is critical is that purple urchins can effectively starve themselves and go into hibernation with a virtually empty body. This virtually empty body is not desirable for either (a) traditional fisherman or (b) any predators (e.g. even fish that eat urchin know to not eat the urchins that have overgrazed a kelp forest as they know they are empty.
If Urchinomics can get the unit economics to work out such that there is a financial incentive to catch a significant number of these urchin, that could change this situation.
[1] https://www.urchinomics.com/
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/09/756929657/sa...
4 years ago by killion
Thank you for sharing this, I hope they find a California location soon. Because they are filter-feeders I would guess they are as helpful as oyster farms for cleaning the water. As long as they are contained that is.
4 years ago by undefined
4 years ago by tremon
If there will be a financial incentive to catch a significant number of these urchin, they might die out too.
4 years ago by nradov
There are millions and millions of purple urchins along the California coast. Rocks in many areas are literally covered in urchins. In order to harvest them you have to pry them off one at a time so they're not going to die out that way.
4 years ago by david38
I am a diver in NorCal and regularly participate in sea urchin culling.
The state had been horrible at allowing ANY action to combat the kelp forest collapse.
A blight wiped out the sea stars. The lack of sea stars caused a 100x jump in urchin population.
Urchins eat kelp. Worst yet, they only eat the bottom part, and then 99% of the kelp floats away.
The state banned even the most modest actions.
You need a fishing license to harvest urchins.
You could only harvest 20 per day. Recently itās upped to unlimited though.
You had to harvest the urchin, which is way more involved than simply smashing them with a hammer. Smashing in NorCal is only allowed in a spot in Monterey and Fort Bragg. The myth that smashing leads to spawning was laid to rest long ago and yet the authorities were still paralyzed. The paralysis lasted so long that everything is just a barren desert.
Sea urchins can live 100 years in a semi dormant starvation state. This isnāt some case where letting them starve out for a season will bring back the kelp.
4 years ago by shadowfaxRodeo
The podcast "How to save a Planet" did an interesting two parter on kelp farming as a climate solution. If anyone is interested:
https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/94h3rvm/kelp-...
4 years ago by warmwaffles
Another solution is to utilize algae, but it would destroy ecosystems at the scale we'd need it. Still a fun thought exercise.
4 years ago by elevaet
Kelp _is_ algae
4 years ago by forgotmypw17
Many comments here wondering what an individual can do... I'll tell you what I've done in order to stop feeling complicit.
I stopped buying anything "new" unless I absolutely cannot live without it.
Not all at once, but one thing at a time, I looked for alternatives and pulled the trigger.
4 years ago by readflaggedcomm
Your self-absolution does not a scientific solution make.
4 years ago by scottrogowski
Disagree. In a democracy, the only way to make the important policy changes is for the majority of people to be on board with it. Tiny actions by individuals move the needle of public opinion. Additionally, different individuals reducing their consumption in different ways provides a diversity of ideas which can later inspire the so-called "scientific solutions".
4 years ago by josephg
I hear you; and I'm pretty pessimistic that the "democratic" solution will solve anything. Look at covid - the US's approach to mask wearing seems to be what you're proposing - millions of tiny actions by individuals. The result is over half a million people dead. If those deaths were clustered in SF, that would be every man (or every woman) in San Francisco dead from the pandemic. In comparison here in Australia during the entire pandemic we've only lost 900 people to covid. Single cases make the news here.
The difference is that (on this topic) our government has showed real leadership. We haven't left health policy in the hands of millions of individuals. We put health policy in the hands of experts, and then implemented strict policies to get us to 0. Change didn't happen from individuals independently figuring out what to do. Change happened from the country as a whole picking a direction and moving in that direction together.
In comparison, Australia has been utterly appalling with climate change. Its a national embarrassment. I don't eat meat and I don't have a car - but I don't think thats going to matter much in the long run. What we need is to do the same thing for the planet that we did for covid - we need effective leadership on climate change. We need to do it together.
4 years ago by readflaggedcomm
Vague inspirational language is exactly what I was talking about. The anti-prosperity gospel won't solve the "mysterious" starfish wasting disease the article mentioned. But it will demoralize, like self-righteous economic shutdowns do.
4 years ago by Hnrobert42
All any one person can do is make individual contributions.
4 years ago by tehjoker
You can also organize politically to get large scale action.
4 years ago by forgotmypw17
I don't understand what you're saying here...
4 years ago by kortilla
Your individual reductions in consumption are pointless here. If you just ceased to exist it would not meaningfully move the needle.
At this point we need hard societal pressure via laws to make any kind of statistical difference. Iād prefer someone be a hypocrite pushing for legislation to reduce emissions (e.g. Al Gore on a private jet) than someone who reduces locally and calls it good.
There are just too many people that donāt care for ālocal actionā to stop the impending doom.
4 years ago by irrational
I think they are saying that your actions might make you feel better, but have no practical value.
4 years ago by vaylian
It actually does make sense. Overconsumption is a huge contributor to the problems that we see today. People buying a lot of junk that they don't need leads to wasted resources and overexploited ecosystems.
4 years ago by Can_Not
Mathematically, using a metaphor, it's like your family is having a budgeting crises, your spouse spends 10k/year on coffee, your kids spend 50k/year on dog patreons, and your accountant's only recommendation is for _you_ to personally look out for and pick up every penny you find in a parking lot.
4 years ago by readflaggedcomm
The article isn't about your neuroses, it's about a specific chain reaction of sea life. Soothing your guilt with anticonsumptionism doesn't solve the questions raised.
4 years ago by hedora
The most effective thing is probably banding together to vote in politicians that will actually do something about climate change.
Itāll be at least another 8 years until the US does that (unless Biden ends up changing course), and thatās way past the point of no return for the planet.
Even if Biden isnāt reelected in 4 years, it will just mean we end up with an even more climate hostile president.
In the very short term, people should be protesting in the streets to end the filibuster, and then immediately fund primary challenges to any democrat the stands in the way of the green new deal.
4 years ago by forgotmypw17
With all due respect, I've been voting for 20 years, and it's done exactly jack shit to help the environment.
4 years ago by tootie
That's pretty cynical. Biden says he wants to end fossil fuel consumption by 2050. You might say it's insufficiently aggressive but it's also still 100% impossible so long as we have an opposition party unwilling to even acknowledge the problem.
4 years ago by sumedh
> Even if Biden isnāt reelected in 4 years
Biden has said he is not going to stand for reelection.
4 years ago by sp332
This was something that was reportedly "signaled to aides" but never made official. Officially, he has not decided to only run for one term. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/23/joe-biden-no... & https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/biden-campaig...
4 years ago by hedora
Source? I see some speculation, and comments from Biden saying heās planning to run again.
4 years ago by boulos
Adjacent topic: My Octopus Teacher [1] was a fascinating view into a single kelp forest and occupant that folks here might enjoy.
4 years ago by abootstrapper
I enjoyed it, but damn that dude is hella privileged.
4 years ago by therealdrag0
Further adjacent, Subnautica is a fantastic game for exploring underwater (albiet on an alien planet).
Daily digest email
Get a daily email with the the top stories from Hacker News. No spam, unsubscribe at any time.
