Arctic seas turn to acid, putting vital food chain at risk

[CHIMO]

Carbon-dioxide emissions are turning the waters of the Arctic Ocean into acid at an unprecedented rate, scientists have discovered. Research carried out in the archipelago of Svalbard has shown in many regions around the north pole seawater is likely to reach corrosive levels within 10 years. The water will then start to dissolve the shells of mussels and other shellfish and cause major disruption to the food chain. By the end of the century, the entire Arctic Ocean will be corrosively acidic.

"This is extremely worrying," Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso, of France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, told an international oceanography conference last week. "We knew that the seas were getting more acidic and this would disrupt the ability of shellfish – like mussels – to grow their shells. But now we realise the situation is much worse. The water will become so acidic it will actually dissolve the shells of living shellfish."

Just as an acid descaler breaks apart limescale inside a kettle, so the shells that protect molluscs and other creatures will be dissolved. "This will affect the whole food chain, including the North Atlantic salmon, which feeds on molluscs," said Gattuso, speaking at a European commission conference, Oceans of Tomorrow, in Barcelona last week. The oceanographer told delegates that the problem of ocean acidification was worse in high latitudes, in the Arctic and around Antarctica, than it was nearer the equator.

"More carbon dioxide can dissolve in cold water than warm," he said. "Hence the problem of acidification is worse in the Arctic than in the tropics, though we have only recently got round to studying the problem in detail."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/04/arctic-seas-turn-to-acid

[Control-Z]

1. "There is only one way to stop the devastation

the oceans are now facing and that is to limit carbon-dioxide emissions as a matter of urgency."

So why the fuck aren't we doing it? Why????

[DLnyc]

2. That would be inconvenient for a few large, multinational corporations.

They would have to adjust their business model.

[Gregorian]

4. I believe this is a bottom up problem/solution.

The corporations may want to do business, regardless of much of what may happen, but they do it because WE ask them to. We want the Olympics. Does anyone here know what the carbon footprint of the Olympics is? It's that trip to London. It's that trip to the store that could have been combined with five other ones. It's having children. The carbon footprint of a new human being is...evil to even bring up. And until each and every one of us begins to sacrifice and be responsible, the problem will continue. And what makes things even worse is that the biggest populations on the planet are just starting.

I'm sick and tired of having to watch this as the people seem to go about their lives oblivious to the fact that anything is wrong. And it's intelligent people. Not just the morans of the world. I'll spare the stories. But all I know is I've sacrificed for decades. Finally, I've just given up. I hardly mention it, or even reply to threads any more. And partly because it is so easy to be irresponsible. People just going about their daily lives. Doing just what normal people are supposed to do. It all seems so normal. And it is. Where it all comes apart is in the multiplicity of it. Billions. That is the problem. Having a kid is natural. Billions having kids is death to the planet and all future inhabitants.

The problem is that people say, "But I'm not billions. I'm just doing my thing". We're cheating ourselves. Much of the misunderstanding is that people don't fully understand the exponential function. It's like a map of history and future times. For all of our history we could do anything we wanted, and it had no effect on the planet. Then recently we passed a sort of inflection point where now any small act is multiplied by so many people that we can barely do a thing that isn't highly detrimental to the ecosphere.

I'm very pessimistic about where this is going. Part of that is because I have some knowledge of manufacturing systems. I know what we can do. And I don't think we can do anything that will fix this problem. And it goes beyond that. It's not a problem of "doing". It's a problem of "not doing". And that is contrary to the western civilization. We just don't get it. I've always loved that bumpersticker that says "Don't do something. Just sit there!".

[DLnyc]

5. With all due respect, I beg to differ.

It is a small change, not a large change, to our habits that is needed. An honest effort on the part of governments can accomplish what is needed, and do so quite quickly. A good example is Germany, which has moved quickly to conservation and non-carbon energy sources. It is true that if everyone would just use a bit less we would be in much better shape. And many people will actually modify their behavior given a reasonable opportunity. But without governments setting the pace, individual action won't really compensate for lack of action by other individuals (not to mention for large scale offenses like the building of new coal-fired plants). The point is that the economy will burble along quite as happily in non-carbon mode as it does in carbon mode. The problem is that until there is universal pricing of the carbon cost of people's behavior, most people (and, more importantly, corporations) figure "why should I be the one to shoulder the burden?" But once governments agree that that is the law for ALL of us, the corporations simply add that into their cost structure and the behavior changes across the board. Ozone destroying chemicals were eliminated without much fuss, and the move to wind and solar energy generation will be made without a great deal more fuss, once the energy companies see that they are ALL going to be playing by the new rules. In fact, the energy companies will make billions off the new technology, just like they are making billions off the old technology. They are just too damned lazy and selfish to make the adjustment before they are forced to.

The real problem, as I see it, is neither technological nor cultural. Rather, it is our political structure, and in particular the United States' political structure, which allows large mega-corporations to amass and wield way too much power. Just as a corporation would have to be considered a psychopath if it were actually a person, a society which allows its most important decision making processes to be dominated by a small group of psychopaths is a society which is in deep need of intervention!

And, P.S., if you know manufacturing processes you might look and notice that the manufacturing of wind turbines and large-scale solar panels is currently expanding at quite a rapid pace (although not in the US, since our government's policies, thanks to heavy lobbying by certain corporations, effectively subsidize hydrocarbon and nuclear industries and, thus, discourage wind and solar development).

[Gregorian]

6. Some of what you say is true.

I totally agree that our pathetic lack of leadership, (not including Jimmy Carter), is partly to blame for American's exaggerated use of petroleum.

Wind and solar are indeed moving at a rapid rate. I keep my finger on the pulse. And even helped obtain a patent for a fuel cell hot water heater. But much of our energy use, if not most of it, simply requires the energy density of petroleum. At least in the near future, that will remain the case.

The problem is an equation with two factors. One is what we are doing, and the other is how many are doing it. Population is the factor that is growing. And growth is the biggest issue that very few people have a grasp of. Even the tiniest growth is massive in it's effects.

If you have any interest, just spend some time watching this video to get a sense of the magnitude of the problem of growth-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[DLnyc]

7. Very interesting video.

I've only gotten through the first 4 of 8 so far, but I've got the basic idea. His documentation of the misinformation (intentional in my view) promulgated in the late 70's (at the end of video 4) is quite breathtaking.

I still maintain, though, that these problems are not intractable, PROVIDED there is unequivocal support at the highest levels of power. In China, for example, I believe the growth rate of the population has been cut to essentially zero. I don't really advocate the Chinese model of government, but the point is that we only fail to address these problems because powerful forces (for example, large corporations) have an interest in these problems NOT being addressed. For example, I think the push for 'growth' in a community like Boulder comes more from groups interested in pushing up the price of real estate and other bank holdings rather than from the local population in general.

Another example is the misinformation cited above. If certain groups weren't loudly promoting the idea that constant growth is possible and desirable, perhaps we the people would have a better shot at altering our behavior.

[Gregorian]

13. I absolutely agree.

The notion of growth is still vehemently protected and promulgated by groups of clowns who have no idea of our situation, or don't want to know. But where I have a difference of opinion is in that none of this would be happening if not for the potential pushing forward and supporting it from the large population. If the population were small, talk of growth would make no difference. The very invention of the corporation began as a means of supporting larger groups of people, and now it's us who are dependent upon them, and actually making them produce for us. It's not just the chamber of commerces and developers, but it is the individual contractors who need to continue working. I see the same thing in our Afghanistan occupation. Obama can't touch the war machine. Isn't that what JFK had in mind before they put him away? We are at war because war manufacturing is our economy.

One of my greatest laments is how I ended up going from engineering to real estate. Not for money. I left a high paying job in Silicon Valley in order to find beauty. My search has been ongoing for nearly 20 years. As I found a property, the hoards were right behind me. When I went to Petaluma to look for land after college, the town I knew was gone. It was overrun by the automobile. I cursed subdivision with every fiber in my body. And after 9/11/01 people headed for the countryside in mass. As I say now, there is no nowhere any more. And I've got it made. My 100 acres with an ocean view. It pains me. I think of the young people who will never have a chance to enjoy the silence. But I've digressed.

Yes, it's a mentality. The notion of reckless, thoughtless growth. I have said that living in a modern society requires modern knowledge. We have people living like kings with 300 servants, due to abundant petroleum use. We haven't had to think. We use inventions that are utterly spectacular. And treat them with carelessness. Everyone should have a modicum of knowledge regarding what they use. It is to the corporate advantage to keep people ignorant. But we can no longer sustain that way of being. Also, there is a societal delay, from action to realization. People have 11 children, like my grandmother, and yet never see the results. We live with the results. It's almost like a hit and run. This is what makes it so insidious. People don't really see what is happening. And also we're at that point of the exponential curve where we're only seeing extreme growth over the last quarter century. It's very scary to see everything from carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, to literally the price of gold, all going up with the same exponential curve. It cannot go on much longer. What China did was a partial solution that wasn't really enacted nor enforced completely. Rural families could have more than one child. Families who gave birth to a female could have another child. But honestly humans should have freedoms and civil rights. Having children is a pretty serious subject with respect to the environment, but extremely basic to the specie. It's a weird subject that no one has ever had to think about until now. Unfortunately, almost no one seems to see what is happening. Oh well. It wears me out. I've been unable to take a vacation from it since the mid 70's when I first became aware of it. The dairy farms in the San Francisco area turned to parking lots. And my fields disappeared. And I saw it.

[Control-Z]

9. Thanks for the reply

You saved me the trouble.

"It is true that if everyone would just use a bit less we would be in much better shape. And many people will actually modify their behavior given a reasonable opportunity. But without governments setting the pace, individual action won't really compensate for lack of action by other individuals (not to mention for large scale offenses like the building of new coal-fired plants)."

"it is our political structure, and in particular the United States' political structure, which allows large mega-corporations to amass and wield way too much power."

I agree.

[joshcryer]

3. Goodbye magnificant blue whale.

I only hope I can get to see one of you before your species is extinct. :(

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Sigh. I can see from 300 feet this article is alarmist, and full of holes.

First off, the oceans are not turning to acid. They are becoming less Base. It's not acidic until the PH of the ocean drops below 7. Chemistry 101. Nor is it going to dissolve shellfish for the foreseeable future. We have way, way bigger problems before the water actually becomes that acidic. What it does do, is it lowers the saturation of CaCO3 ions in the water, which the shellfish use to build their shells. Normally surface water in the oceans is supersaturated with CaCO3. When the PH comes down, the water can hold less suspended calcium carbonate. When the water is no longer supersaturated with CaCO3, the shellfish use more energy building their shells. If you've ever looked into agriculture for meat supplies, energy is everything. Every time a cow moves, it burns energy. That's why farmers get so pissed off when people bother their cattle, even if the cows just move around the enclosure and don't hurt themselves. Lost energy is lost profit, from energy that is burned, and not retained as fat, meaning the animals lose weight. For meat, weight is money.

In the wild, shellfish burning extra energy means less energy available to reproduce, or find more food. That 'could' lead to a massive decline in shellfish. I put could in single quotes, because what I mean is, it's virtually certain, but I cannot predict the future, so eh.

They aren't going to fucking dissolve. And it doesn't help the cause to say so, when XYZ media outlets and talking heads will use such obvious flaws to attack and dismiss IMPORTANT WARNINGS ABOUT OUR FOOD CHAIN AND HABITAT.

[Viking12]

11. Indeed, very poorly written article that distracts from the reality of the isse.

However, I would take exception to the "alarmists label. The more accurate details of the issue are awfully alarming in and of themselves:

http://www.uaf.edu/news/news/20090811160143.html

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Good point, and my mistake. It's not 'alarmist' if the danger is real.

We can't even begin to predict what impact the wholesale loss of even half the shellfish in any given ocean might have. The only words to describe the possibility are 'oh shit'. And of course, any impact to fisheries are going to be disproportionate to poorer nations.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Primary Sources

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=205188&mesg_id=205188
http://www.uaf.edu/news/news/20090811160143.html