Lisa Speer's Blog: Reviving the World's Oceans

MMS split a start, but not a solution

2010-05-11T21:08:53Z

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today proposed the first of what we hope will be a long string of reforms aimed at strengthening the regulations of oil industry operations and curtailing the industry’s cozy relationship with the federal government agency responsible for overseeing its operations.

The Minerals Management Service, or MMS, has long suffered from a built-in conflict of interest between promoting --and regulating-- offshore oil and gas development. Salazar’s announcement that he intends to split off the safety and environmental enforcement aspect of the agency’s work is a welcome start, but this alone does not solve the inherent conflict between the drive to develop and the government’s responsibility to promote and protect other livelihoods and the environment.

NRDC would like to see much more than a bureaucratic restructuring. For one thing, other federal agencies with stewardship responsibilities over oceans, fish and wildlife need to be given a much stronger role in making decisions on where and how drilling activity occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf occurs and under what conditions.

We will be blogging on needed reforms as we learn more about the announcement.

Oil & Dispersants Spell Trouble for Florida’s Coral Reefs

2010-05-06T22:07:09Z

When an oil spill happens, the first thing many people think of are the beaches, wetlands, birds and other life along the shore. And the impacts of oil on that life can be huge and devastating. While dispersing the oil with chemicals may help reduce shoreline impacts, it’s a trade-off that still comes at a great cost.

That’s because dispersants don’t make oil go away – they merely shift the oil and its impacts away from the surface and into the water and the sea floor, where they can cause less visible but equally devastating damage. Oiled fish, dolphins, whales, turtles, shrimp, clams, oysters and other marine life aren’t as easy to photograph, but they too suffer and die, an invisible toll impossible to measure.

As the spill heads toward Florida I am beginning to worry more about the trade off between protecting the shore and protecting the ocean. While it may have been the right decision to reduce the impacts on Louisiana’s vastly productive and important wetlands by using dispersants, that decision may come back to haunt us in Florida.

There are a few reasons for this. First, transferring the oil from the surface into the water means that its trajectory will be driven more by currents than wind. The Loop Current will pick that oil up, and like a conveyer belt transport it directly to Florida, and perhaps beyond.

Second, dispersed oil often forms form a mousse-like toxic soup below the surface, which may end up as in Louisiana threatening sensitive shallow water coastal habitats like Florida’s extensive seagrass beds.

And third, one of the marine treasures of the nation – the coral ecosystems in and around the Florida Keys – are especially vulnerable to this lethal soup. A 2007 study found that both chemical dispersants and dispersed oil are often much more toxic to corals than oil itself. Dispersants and dispersed oil can result in extensive mortality that manifests itself over months and years.

The Florida Keys coral reef tract is the third largest in the world, covering over 2,800 square nautical miles in and around the Florida Keys. These reefs are already under tremendous stress from overfishing, pollution, warming water temperatures and ocean acidification. According to EPA, we may lose most of the coral reefs in the world by the next century as a result. The very last thing Florida’s reefs need is to get hit by a toxic soup of dispersed oil and chemicals.

Using dispersants to protect shorelines in Florida’s case could end up spelling disaster for its reefs and seagrass beds, which are already under great stress. On the other hand allowing the oil to reach shore is a horrible alternative. It’s a terrible Catch 22, one that again points up the need for greater safety and a move away from dirty energy.

Something good can still come out this tragedy – we can learn from our mistakes, and we can make sure this never happens again. That’s why President Obama must impose a moratorium on all new offshore oil drilling activities, and our nation must turn our full attention toward clean, renewable energy that can’t spill or run out. The Senate has a chance to pass clean energy legislation this year – join me in telling Washington we want to learn from this tough lesson and get on the path to a cleaner, safer energy future. Take action here.

Video from HSH the Prince of Monaco at the U.N. during Climate Week

2009-09-24T00:42:26Z

NRDC President Frances Beinecke and I did a press conference at the United Nations yesterday with HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco and others to highlight the impacts of global warming on the Arctic and the urgent need to both reduce CO2 emissions AND create new mechanisms to manage fishing, shipping and other industrial activities rapidly emerging in the region.

HSH the Prince also spoke eloquently to the General Assembly about the need to international action - watch his speech below:

The U.S. Should Sign the Law of the Sea Treaty

2009-06-08T20:54:36Z

Today is World Oceans Day - and in Washington, the U.S. Senate is in the midst of deciding whether or not to sign on to the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, which would expand protections for our planet's oceans.

NRDC is urging Americans to sign this letter to President Obama to tell him we want our country at the table while the world determines how to use, manage and protect the oceans.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS) establishes the international legal foundation for the conservation and sustainable use of the world's oceans, which cover more than 70% of the earth's surface. The Convention was concluded in 1982 and came into force in 1994. To date, 158 countries and the European Commission have joined the treaty.

The United States remains the primary industrial nation that has not.

The Convention defines the basic rights and obligations governing uses of the sea. Among other things, it requires cooperation in the conservation of marine resources in international waters, and requires nations to protect and preserve the marine environment.

There is a remarkable constellation of varied interests that want to see the U.S. sign on to the Law of the Sea, including the offshore oil and gas industry, the U.S. Navy, shipping and shipbuilding, the Departments of Defense and State, commercial fishing groups, and many members of the US Senate from both sides of the aisle. These industries and government interests support U.S. joining the convention because its provisions help protect vital U.S. economic and military interests.

A relatively small number of Senators oppose joining the treaty because they fear it would erode US sovereignty and otherwise prove detrimental to our national interests. This couldn't be further from the truth. Signing brings us to the table and gives us a voice in the international community about what we want to see happen with our seas. These Senators have signaled their intention to prolong the debate over the Convention and use valuable floor time in an effort to further postpone Senate action. That's why Presidential leadership is so critical. We need President Obama to press the Senate to approve the treaty quickly.

Join me this World Oceans Day in telling President Obama you want the U.S. to have a say in what happens to our seas.

Managing a melting Arctic

2009-04-29T15:20:05Z

As I type, NRDC Global Leadership Council member Larry Lunt and Belgian explorer Alain Hubert, co-founder of the International Polar Foundation, are trekking across Greenland's Humboldt Glacier, getting a firsthand glimpse of the area of the world showing the most obvious and advanced signs of global warming.

The Arctic ice cap is melting. Summer Arctic sea ice fell in 2007 to the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, and scientists now predict that the Arctic may become ice-free in summer as early as 2013. This will have dramatic impacts on the entire ice-based marine food web, from plankton to polar bears, and on the Arctic peoples who rely on these animals. Larry and Alain will likely see signs of these and other profound changes on their travels.

On top of melting sea ice and warming ocean temperatures, additional impacts are likely from new or expanded industrial activity - fishing, shipping, oil and gas development, cruise ship tourism - made possible by the retreat of the ice.

The first order of business is to get our climate house in order, and agree on dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions. NRDC is fully engaged in working with the international community to reach an agreement at the December United Nations climate meeting in Copenhagen. There is a unique opportunity for the U.S. to help lead the world to a strong global agreement. We have our work cut out for us this year, but NRDC is committed to working with the new administration and Congress to move as quickly as we can domestically to help progress internationally.

But even if such an agreement were reached tomorrow, warming already in the system will continue to propel many of the changes in the arctic already under way, including new industrial development.

Managing human activity in the region itself in a way that maximizes the resilience of Arctic ecosystems in the face of all these changes is the Arctic trek that I'm on. I will blog periodically about this topic, and hope you will join in the conversation.