As Ocean Oxygen Levels Dip, Fish Face an Uncertain Future Global warming not only increases ocean temperatures, it triggers a cascade of effects that are stripping the seas of oxygen. Fish are already moving to new waters in search of oxygen, and scientists are warning of the long-term threat to fish species and marine ecosystems.
Off the coast of southeastern China, one particular fish species is booming: the oddly named Bombay duck, a long, slim fish with a distinctive, gaping jaw and a texture like jelly. When research ships trawl the seafloor off that coast, they now catch upwards of 440 pounds of the gelatinous fish per hour â a more than tenfold increase over a decade ago. âItâs monstrous,â says University of British Columbia fisheries researcher Daniel Pauly of the explosion in numbers.
The reason for this mass invasion, says Pauly, is extremely low oxygen levels in these polluted waters. Fish species that canât cope with less oxygen have fled, while the Bombay duck, part of a small subset of species that is physiologically better able to deal with less oxygen, has moved in.
The boom is making some people happy, since Bombay duck is perfectly edible. But the influx provides a peek at a bleak future for China and for the planet as a whole. As the atmosphere warms, oceans around the world are becoming ever more deprived of oxygen, forcing many species to migrate from their usual homes. Researchers expect many places to experience a decline in species diversity, ending up with just those few species that can cope with the harsher conditions. Lack of ecosystem diversity means lack of resilience. âDeoxygenation is a big problem,â Pauly summarizes.
Our future ocean â warmer and oxygen-deprived â will not only hold fewer kinds of fish, but also smaller, stunted fish and, to add insult to injury, more greenhouse-gas producing bacteria, scientists say. The tropics will empty as fish move to more oxygenated waters, says Pauly, and those specialist fish already living at the poles will face extinction. (...)
I'm not in disagreement with you, but it seems odd to not also include flood/hurricane insurance in the gulf coast, Florida and along the Mississippi. That is a major cost center that has been ongoing for decades. Why is California being singled out here (and will the Feds step up to help CA like they do FL)?
Rather than insure them, they should provide relocation assistance for those that need it.
Given that the costs are already starting to add up for ignoring this issue for decades and the fact we have very little control, or potential to reverse the path we are now on, it makes more sense to divert our limited capital to means of addressing the pending problems, rather than these half-assed initiatives (e.g. electrifying cities and cars), which is adding costs and will never work, especially since at least half the country doesn't believe or doesn't care enough to change their behavior.
You think defund the police decriminalizing non-violent crime was a bad idea for cities?
I'm not in disagreement with you, but it seems odd to not also include flood/hurricane insurance in the gulf coast, Florida and along the Mississippi. That is a major cost center that has been ongoing for decades. Why is California being singled out here (and will the Feds step up to help CA like they do FL)?
Given that the costs are already starting to add up for ignoring this issue for decades and the fact we have very little control, or potential to reverse the path we are now on, it makes more sense to divert our limited capital to means of addressing the pending problems, rather than these half-assed initiatives (e.g. electrifying cities and cars), which is adding costs and will never work, especially since at least half the country doesn't believe or doesn't care enough to change their behavior.
You think defund the police decriminalizing non-violent crime was a bad idea for cities?
Two to three days of rain are coming. But don't let that get in the way of a tasty narrative.
Questions:
Are teenagers that light grass fires part of Climate Change? Do tobacco, alcohol, crystal meth and sloppy burns figure as part of Climate Change?
Most of the fires British Columbia and Alberta during the month of May were "human caused". A few smaller ones were caused by lightning just recently.
From the BBC article:
During the spring, the snow begins to melt, exposing the twigs, branches, and dead leaves beneath. Experts refer to this as "fuel".
What is this? Monty Python explains wildfires to Brits?
Again, from the BBC article:
Early data suggests this wildfire season could be one of the worst on record.
Given the English we speak here in the colonies, "wildfire season" does not refer to just the month of May but all of the late spring, summer and early autumn months where the risk of wildfires is higher.
That statement hints at the possibility that wildfires will continue to rage all through the summer. That is most unlikely. We are headed into an El Nino phase of the ENSO. That usually means more rain.
random thoughts
looking at something like this and a couple of words come to mind
lofty and ambitious
will it go down like this? no, i don't think so
how much of this can we achieve? unknown
intelligent people with time, talent, resources and a goal and a plan could make quite a bit of progress
nuclear will help but how much?
saw some good news out of inl recently too
If you donât think youâve been affected by global warming, take a closer look at your last homeownersâ insurance bill: The average cost of coverage has reached $1,900 a year nationwide, but itâs $4,000 a year in New Orleans and about $5,000 a year in Miami, according to Policygenius, an online insurance marketplace. And that is pocket change compared with the impact climate change may ultimately have on the value of your home.
We have reached a turning point: Climate risk is driving insurer decisions like never before.
After recent years of paying out claims for about 20 disasters a year with damages of over $1 billion, a sixfold increase from the 1980s, insurers are getting serious about new pricing models that incorporate the costs of a warming climate. Across the United States, premiums jumped 12 percent from 2021 to 2022, according to Policygenius estimates, and they are expected to continue to rise.
Even with higher premiums, unpredictable losses are wreaking havoc on insurersâ bottom lines. Ten insurers have gone belly up in Florida in just the last two years. And in many cases, insurers are pulling back in risky areas, leaving state-backed insurance plans holding the bag. Both private and government-backed insurers are undercapitalized for dealing with the potentially massive disasters we could be facing in coming years. This shortfall foreshadows more premium increases, which will drag down house prices. And losses will not be borne by those residing in higher-risk areas only; they will be borne by policyholders everywhere. (...)
Whether we need to move to green or not, it doesn't seem like we are on a good path to tackle climate change (not that we didnt have decades to deal with it).
Though most of this story deals with communities pushing back because of the industrialization of their towns...I don't think we can effectively force legislation through our capitalist, private ownership system...it's bound to lead to excess cost, abuse and inefficiency...not to mention these types of pushbacks.
Denver has a new green program called Energize Denver...mandating significant cuts to energy/EUI use...specifically gas. Recently had an audit of our 96 unit condo, it will cost up to $2 million to comply within the next few years. ..using unproven tech like heat pumps in an environment where Denver sees temps range from -10 to 100+. I'm not sure if there have been yet, but I would bet their will be lawsuits. I will repeat what a law professor once told me: "All laws should be moral, but morality should not be the law."
âOver My Dead Bodyâ: Backlash Builds Against $3 Trillion Clean-Energy Push
Ballooning size of wind and solar projects draws local ire as they march closer to populated areas
LAWRENCE, Kan.âThe federal government has ignited a green-energy investment spree thatâs expected to reach as high as $3 trillion over the next decade. The road to spending that money, though, is increasingly hitting speed bumps
County-by-county battles are raging as wind and solar projects balloon in size, edge closer to cities and encounter mounting pushback in communities from Niagara Falls to the Great Plains and beyond. Projects have slowed. Even in states with a long history of building renewables, developers donât know if they can get local permits or how long it might take.
The U.S., though, is a patchwork of state and local governments with different rules on development, and opposition to projects has mounted for myriad reasons. Increasingly, many communities are concerned that the rapidly expanding size of wind and solar farms will irreparably alter the complexion of where they live.
In a pattern familiar across the U.S., Kansas wind developers years ago snapped up the rights to tracts of rural land in the less-populous western part of the state. That filled capacity on large transmission lines that deliver electricity over long distances, pushing newer projects east into more-populous areas such as Douglas County, a place where many people commute to jobs in Kansas City and Topeka and large farms are interspersed with smaller plots.
Market demand and economies of scale have pushed solar and wind farm size to hundreds or thousands of acres. They may not sit on contiguous parcels, but instead spread throughout a community, increasing the odds of friction.
