The Joint Ocean Comission Initiative recently released that the United States is received a “C-” for 2006. This grade is not nearly where it should be; however, it is slightly improved from 2005’s grade of a “D+.”

President Bush and his administration have promised an eight percent increase in the federal budget for coastal and marine conservation programs in 2007. The budget previously was 1.75 billion dollars and now an additional $143 million will be added. The majority of this money will go to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; however, approximately 8 million will go the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument which spands about 14, 000 miles.

At this point the states themselves have been doing better than the federal government at giving money for coastal and marine conservation programs. The cities doing particularly well in this area include: Washington and New York.

I think that it is very sad that we received a grade of a “C-”, although it is an improvement from the year before. I guess that politicians don’t really think of this as a serious issue when soldiers are being killed in Iraq and around the world. Although this might not seem like that important of a thing now, the federal government will regret it if the states don’t continue the funding. I don’t understand if it is the budget/money issue or what it is, but at least it has brought to the administrations attention and they are trying to get it under control.

http://www.enn.com/anim.html?id=1583              Associated Press

According to new research, the fish and seafood population will collapse by 2048. The marine biodiversity is significantly decreaseing with 29% of marine species already in collapse. The collapse that is estimated for 2048 would effect all marine species, including ocean mammals.

Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

Why exactly is a collapsing marine biodiversity important? Well, for starters the ocean would be less able to deal with global climate change, pollution and over-explotation, amoungst other major issues. Plus, seafood would no longer be a part of the human diet. The populations would be gone, thus no seafood to eat for us. There being no seafood for us to eat would also hurt the economy. People would loss out on jobs, which translates into losing out on money.

The population is decreasing due to over-fishing and the ruining of the oceans. Marine-life reserves and no fishing zones should be put in place to help prevent the collapse of marine biodivresity.

   A No Fishing Zone                               

Photo credit: http://www.montereybay.noaa.gov/new/news/italia/asinara.html

Something needs to be done quickly about this. It not only effects wildlife, but it also affects humans. Not only the quality of life for humans is affected (not being able to enjoy seafood), but also what humans do for jobs to support themselves and their families. The oceans being less able to handle major changes also would place a burden on humans. If the oceans cannot support the changes of global warming, etc. something is going to have to change. People are going to have to be more consciencious of what they are doing, i.e. driving a SUV, etc.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11584   Article: Ocean Fish, Seafood Could Collapse by 2048    By: Deborah Zabarenko

I never really thought that global warming would hit the US, but after reading CLIMATE CHANGE IN S.F.: Local Solutions, Local Impacts my view has been changed. A recent plan that has een developed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors covers ways to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The goal: to decrease greenhouse gas pollution to 20% below the 1990 levels by 2012.

San Francisco and northern San Mateo County

Ways to get the word out:

1. Future Sea Level Project: the people of San Francisco get together to discuss solutions to global warming                                                                       

2. San Francisco Department of Environment- “staff is also available to speak at any San Francisco community or business organization about solutions to climate change.”

Individual Involvement:

1. Have the right car- No, I am not talking about a Mercedes or a BMW. I am talking about cars with properly inflated tires burn less gasoline. What does this mean? Less money spend on gas, plus you are helping the environment. OR there is alwasy the option of walking, riding a bike, taking public transportation, or carpooling.

2. Write the leaders to encourage them to increase fuel economy standards to at least 40 miles/gallon. What exactly would this do? 4 million barrels of oil would be saved each day. To put this in perspective, this is “more than we currently import from the Persian Gulf and could ever extract from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge combined.”

3. Encourage wind and solar power, renewable energy sources, which will “reduce our reliance on coal-burning power plants, the largerst source of global warming in the United States.”

4. Change normal lightbulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. They both produce the same amount of light. The fluorescent bulb uses only a quarter of the electricity and lasts 10 times longer.

One type of compact fluorescent light bulbs

5. Lower your thermostat. You should not be cold if before you cualk and use weather-strips along doorways and windows.

6. Low-flow shower heads and faucets will decrease water used by half. You will also save as muh as 50% on your elecctrical bill if you turn your hot water heater down to 120 degrees F.

7. Replace old electronics and appliances with energy-efficient models.

8. Plant trees in your own yard to reduce Carbon Dioxide.

9. Recylce and Buy Recycled. Recycled materials are made with 70-90 percent less energy and pollution as non-recycled new products.

10. Include your community and encourage them to do what is listed above.

Impacts of Global Warming:

It is predicted that the California temperature will increase between 3-10.5 degrees F by the end of the century. Why is there such a broad spectrum? Varying amounts of what action people have done to decrease global warming. Along with the 10.5 degree increase, a possible 3 feet of water would rise the sea level by the end of the century. $48 billion in property damage would most likely accompany it if there was a  3.3 feet rise of sea level in San Francisco.

This article listed some really good suggestions. It is a major problem. I really liked the idea of writing leaders to encourage them to raise the fuel efficiency level to 40 miles/gallon. It would make us less dependent on foreign oil and it would illiviate some of the global warming that is going on.

Information from:   http://www.futuresealevel.org/solutions.asp    http://www.futuresealevel.org/sf.asp Pictures from: www.wikipedia.org

The US Administration had planned on leasing wetlands near Teshekpuk Lake in Arctic Alaska for oil development. This, however, will not be happening in light of a federal judge’s decision which temporarily halted this plan.

These wetlands are home to migratory waterfowl from 3 continents during their featherless molting period, as well as to a herd of caribou.

If the US Bereau of Land Management (BLM) was able to complete the sale as expected on September 27, 1.4 billion barrels of oil would be up for grabs.

According to US District Court Judge James Singleton, the BLM did not consider what the oil development would do to the areas near the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The sale stipulations did, however, include that the

Both sides are able to dispute this preliminary ruling until September 15.

As of September 8, both sides were considering what they should do next in the very touchy issue.

In my opinion, this is a lot of oil that could be put to good use; however, we should wait until better ways of getting the oil are developed. Another solution is to develop a more fuel efficient car…that way not only would we be disturbing wildlife in the arctic, but we would polluting our air less.

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=9E9A30B74C49D07D8150C8C83B1…

By: Yereth Rosen (September 8, 2006)