Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

GoGreenNation News

Learn more about the issues presented in our films
Show Filters

Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?

Study shows how smart policies could address competing land-use needs.

Capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius is a tall order. Achieving that goal will not only require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, but also a substantial reallocation of land to support that effort and sustain the biosphere, including humans. More land will be needed to accommodate a growing demand for bioenergy and nature-based carbon sequestration while ensuring sufficient acreage for food production and ecological sustainability.The expanding role of land in a 1.5 C world will be twofold — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce clean energy. Land-based carbon dioxide removal strategies include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture; and afforestation/reforestation and other nature-based solutions. Land-based clean energy production includes wind and solar farms and sustainable bioenergy cropland. Any decision to allocate more land for climate mitigation must also address competing needs for long-term food security and ecosystem health.Land-based climate mitigation choices vary in terms of costs — amount of land required, implications for food security, impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem services — and benefits — potential for sequestering greenhouse gases and producing clean energy.Now a study in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of competing land-use and technology options to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Led by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), the study applies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework to evaluate costs and benefits of different land-based climate mitigation options in Sky2050, a 1.5 C climate-stabilization scenario developed by Shell.Under this scenario, demand for bioenergy and natural carbon sinks increase along with the need for sustainable farming and food production. To determine if there’s enough land to meet all these growing demands, the research team uses the global hectare (gha) — an area of 10,000 square meters, or 2.471 acres — as the standard unit of measurement, and current estimates of the Earth’s total habitable land area (about 10 gha) and land area used for food production and bioenergy (5 gha).The team finds that with transformative changes in policy, land management practices, and consumption patterns, global land is sufficient to provide a sustainable supply of food and ecosystem services throughout this century while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the 1.5 C goal. These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.If such changes are implemented, 2.5–3.5 gha of land would be used for NBS practices to sequester 3–6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year, and 0.4–0.6 gha of land would be allocated for energy production — 0.2–0.3 gha for bioenergy and 0.2–0.35 gha for wind and solar power generation.“Our scenario shows that there is enough land to support a 1.5 degree C future as long as effective policies at national and global levels are in place,” says CS3 Principal Research Scientist Angelo Gurgel, the study’s lead author. “These policies must not only promote efficient use of land for food, energy, and nature, but also be supported by long-term commitments from government and industry decision-makers.”

Crews Remove Miles of Abandoned, Lead-Coated Telephone Cables From the Bottom of Lake Tahoe

The cables have been resting on the lake bed for decades, raising fears from environmentalists and residents about possible lead contamination

Lake Tahoe's Emerald Bay is one of the sites where telephone cables were recently removed from. Ken Lund via Flickr under CC BY-SA 2.0 Miles of defunct, lead-covered telephone cables have long sat abandoned beneath the cerulean waters of Lake Tahoe. Now, after years of legal back-and-forth, the cables have been removed. Scuba divers discovered the cables on the lake’s sandy, silty bottom in 2012. The cables consist of copper wires surrounded by a layer of lead sheathing. They were laid in Lake Tahoe decades ago—possibly as early as the 1920s—while telephone service was expanding across the United States. As technology advanced, telecom companies installed newer cables, but they left the old ones in place. Over time, the Lake Tahoe cables suffered damage from boat anchors and debris. Health and environmental activists and residents grew concerned that the torn cables were leaching lead into the lake, which is a popular swimming destination and provides drinking water for some nearby households. The cables’ origins are a little murky, but they are believed to have been originally installed by Bell Systems, which was later acquired by AT&T, as the San Francisco Chronicle’s Gregory Thomas reported in August. In 2021, the nonprofit California Sportfishing Protection Alliance filed a civil lawsuit against AT&T over the cables. A 2023 Wall Street Journal investigation subsequently found abandoned, lead-covered telecommunications cables across the nation. The publication hired an environmental consulting firm to take soil and water samples from areas near the cables. Testing near the cables in Lake Tahoe showed lead levels that, in one sample, were 2,533 times higher than those recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to the Wall Street Journal. AT&T disputed the claims that the cables had contaminated Lake Tahoe, and it commissioned its own lead tests that concluded the cables were “safe and pose no threat to public health nor the environment,” per its website. But the telecommunications company agreed to remove the cables anyway. Crews worked daily 12-hour shifts for more than two weeks to remove the cables. League to Save Lake Tahoe This fall, AT&T hired J.F. Brennan Co., a marine services contractor, to remove the cables. Crews worked daily 12-hour shifts for more than two weeks to extract the old infrastructure from the lakebed. They finished the work on November 17, reports SFGate’s Julie Brown Davis. Scuba divers and a remotely operated underwater vehicle worked in the water, while other crew members were stationed aboard a large barge and a smaller boat, per SFGate. The on-deck teams used a winch to hoist the heavy cables onto the barge, where they cut them into smaller pieces. Crews then ferried the cable pieces to Tahoe Keys Marina, loaded them onto trucks and drove them to a recycling facility. In total, teams removed nearly eight miles of cable from the southwestern part of the lake: One section was located in Emerald Bay, while the other stretched between Rubicon Point and Baldwin Beach. According to the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s calculations, the effort was slated to remove roughly 107,000 pounds of lead from the lake. Researchers have not come to a consensus on whether the cables damaged the lake, reports USA Today’s Greta Cross. “In an abundance of caution and without real access to the full range of all the scientific studies, our priority was to remove the cables as quickly and as safely as possible, always with that environmental protection at the forefront,” Laura Patten, natural resource director for the nonprofit League to Save Lake Tahoe, tells the publication. Lead is a naturally occurring heavy metal. But when ingested, it can accumulate in the body and lead to health issues. Children ages 6 and younger are especially vulnerable to lead exposure, which can lead to issues like slow growth, hearing problems, anemia, behavior and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, according to the EPA. In some cases, lead ingestion can cause seizures, coma or death. The EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that no amount of lead is safe for kids. Pregnant women and some other adults can also suffer from health issues linked to lead, such as high blood pressure, decreased kidney function, reproductive problems, miscarriage and more. Lead is also fatally toxic to animals, including endangered California condors and bald eagles. Historically, lead was used in drinking water pipes, ammunition, gasoline and paint. But over the last six decades, those uses have been restricted or banned. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Drought Is Causing Saltwater to Creep up the Delaware River. Here's What's Being Done About It

Drought and sea level rise are causing salty oceanwater to creep into the Delaware River, threatening a source of drinking water for Philadelphia and millions of other people

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Salty oceanwater is creeping up the Delaware River, the source for much of the drinking water for Philadelphia and millions of others, brought on by drought conditions and sea level rise, and prompting officials to tap reservoirs to push the unpotable tide back downstream.Officials say drinking water isn't imminently at risk yet, but they're monitoring the effects of the drought on the river and studying options for the future in case further droughts sap the area.A closer look at the crawling salt front:The salt front or salt line is where saltwater from the ocean and freshwater meet in the river. That boundary is typically somewhere around Wilmington, Delaware, but the recent drought in the Northeast has pushed it about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north, around Philadelphia International Airport.The farther the line moves upstream, the closer it gets to drinking water intakes, which officials have worked for decades to avoid. The Delaware River provides drinking water for some 14 million people, including most of Philadelphia but also New Jersey and New York. Still, the line is south of those intakes and below the level it traveled in the 1960s during record drought conditions. Desalination of saltwater, which people cannot safely drink, is costly, energy intensive and can create new issues like where to dispose of the highly concentrated salt brine pulled from the water. It's also not a feasible option, officials say. “There are alternative sources, but we don't want to be trucking in bottled water for people,” said Amy Shallcross, the water resource operations manager at the Delaware River Basin Commission. “We get nervous when it starts to get up near Philadelphia. It’s only 18 miles right now from the drinking water intakes. And sometimes it can shoot upstream really quickly.” What are officials doing about the encroaching salt? Officials control the salt line by releasing water from two reservoirs, which pushes the front downriver. The commission monitors the flow at Trenton, which is the furthest upstream point affected by the tide. The flow officials target is roughly equivalent to the amount of water in two Olympic-sized swimming pools flowing by per minute. If the rate dips below that, then more water is released. When was the last time saltwater moved this far upriver? The salt front last reached roughly where it is now in 2016 during another drought, officials said. Does this phenomenon happen elsewhere in the country? The Delaware River basin isn't alone in fending off intruding saltwater, which is exacerbated by rising sea levels and dredged riverbeds to aid navigation, Shallcross said. The Mississippi River similarly saw what officials call a “salt wedge” in 2023 resulting in heightening underwater levees and bringing in drinking water. What caused the saltwater to move upstream? A rainless start to fall brought on a drought in parts of the Northeast, including the Delaware's basin. The reduced rainwater has diminished the river's flow and allowed the denser saltwater to creep upstream. Has the recent rain helped? Yes, but it's not enough. The river needs about an inch of rain a week for a time to move the line back to its normal location, Shallcross said. How are officials planning for the future? The Basin Commission, which is a federally created agency run by Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania, that manages the river's resources, is studying the impact of climate change on water resources and considering other options including additional storage, Shallcross said. Water managers are starting to consider more serious conservation measures as well. “I would say the East is not water-rich, we’re water adequate, and we need to recognize that,” she said.Peterson contributed to this report from Denver.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Wildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of Dementia

The particles that make up wildfire smoke may raise the risk of dementia even more than similar airborne pollutants from other sources

November 26, 20243 min readWildfire Smoke Linked to Increased Risk of DementiaThe particles that make up wildfire smoke may raise the risk of dementia even more than similar airborne pollutants from other sourcesBy Chelsea Harvey & E&E NewsA firefighter is surrounded by heavy smoke as he battles the advancing Silverado Fire fueled by Santa Ana winds at the 241 toll road and Portola Parkway on October 26, 2020 in Irvine, California. Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | Wildfire smoke can aggravate a variety of medical conditions, from asthma to heart disease.Now, new research adds another worry to the mix. It can elevate the risk of dementia.A study published Monday in the scientific journal JAMA Neurology, finds that long-term exposure to smoke concentrations is associated with a higher risk of dementia diagnosis over time. For every one microgram increase in wildfire pollution per cubic meter of air over the course of a three-year period, the odds of dementia diagnosis rise by about 18 percent, the study finds.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.That’s compared with each person’s baseline risk of dementia diagnosis, which remains relatively low among the general population. Still, the increased risks are large enough to pose a public health concern.The study focuses on a form of air pollution known as particulate matter — tiny, inhalable particles, with diameters of 2.5 micrometers or smaller. This kind of air pollution can originate from a variety of sources, including automobiles, industrial sources and fires.Previous studies already have suggested that particulate matter can increase the risk of dementia, among other health problems. The new research zooms in specifically on particles produced by wildfire smoke, which can have different chemical and physical properties than particles produced by other sources.The study examined medical records from more than 1 million people in Southern California from 2008 to 2019, all part of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California medical care consortium. It also analyzed air quality records from the same time period to estimate long-term pollution concentrations, including particles stemming directly from wildfire smoke.The study found that wildfire smoke increases the risk of dementia significantly more than particulate matter from other sources. There are several reasons that could be the case, the researchers say.Wildfire smoke particles tend to have higher concentrations of molecules known for toxic or inflammatory properties. And wildfire smoke tends to spike at certain times of the year, compared with other kinds of air pollution — intermittently exposing communities to extremely high pollution concentrations, which may have greater effects on their health.The study also found that certain demographics are at higher risk than others, including people with lower incomes and people of color, including Black, Hispanic and Asian communities.Low-income communities often are at higher risk of exposure to air pollution, the researchers note. Lower quality housing in these communities may allow particulate matter to infiltrate homes more easily, and residents may have less access to air filtration systems.Marginalized groups also may contend with more health challenges, in part because of systemic discrimination, compounding their risks of developing dementia later in life.“We know that climate change impacts the most vulnerable communities first and worst and we appear to see a similar signal in our data,” said Joan Casey, an environmental epidemiologist and co-author of the new study, in an email to POLITICO'S E&E News.Policymakers can take certain steps to protect these vulnerable communities, she added. They can make sure that all communications about public health are issued in multiple languages. And they can push for policies aimed at combating climate change, reducing other sources of air pollution and mitigating wildfires through strategies such as science-based controlled burns.Meanwhile, there are other questions that scientists can examine in future research.The new study looked at dementia of all kinds. But future studies can investigate whether certain types of conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease, have stronger ties to wildfire smoke than others.The research team is also “very curious” about the effects of multiple climate hazards working together, Casey added. If wildfires happen to coincide with power outages, for instance, that could restrict the ability of many households to use air filtration systems — potentially worsening their health risks.These kinds of questions are growing more urgent as the effects of climate change worsen. Recent research has found that about a quarter of all particulate matter pollution in the United States comes from wildfire smoke. And in parts of the Western U.S., smoke is responsible for as much as half.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

The Guardian view on cruise ships: a licence to pollute | Editorial

The environmental harm caused by this shapeshifting, underregulated industry must be tackledLocal pushback against cruise ships in the world’s top tourist destinations is nothing new. More than three years ago, these vast vessels were barred from Venice’s lagoon on grounds of the risk they posed to the city’s historic buildings. This summer, cruise ships in Amsterdam and Barcelona were targeted by protesters, on grounds of chemical pollution but also as part of a wider movement against overtourism (as the negative impacts of huge influxes of visitors have become known). But – as revealed this week in a series of Guardian articles, The real cost of cruises – the environmental and social impact of this fast-growing industry goes way beyond individual cities, and requires action on a global scale.The carbon emissions of a cruise are roughly double that of the equivalent flights plus a hotel stay. The industry is also responsible for a vast quantity of waste discharged directly into the sea, as well as high levels of toxic air pollution in the ports where ships are docked – usually with their engines running. Once seen as the exclusive pursuit of a minority of wealthy retired people, these holidays are now mainstream, with vast floating resorts designed and marketed for families and young adults. The largest ships have up to 20 floors and room for several thousand people. Continue reading...

Local pushback against cruise ships in the world’s top tourist destinations is nothing new. More than three years ago, these vast vessels were barred from Venice’s lagoon on grounds of the risk they posed to the city’s historic buildings. This summer, cruise ships in Amsterdam and Barcelona were targeted by protesters, on grounds of chemical pollution but also as part of a wider movement against overtourism (as the negative impacts of huge influxes of visitors have become known). But – as revealed this week in a series of Guardian articles, The real cost of cruises – the environmental and social impact of this fast-growing industry goes way beyond individual cities, and requires action on a global scale.The carbon emissions of a cruise are roughly double that of the equivalent flights plus a hotel stay. The industry is also responsible for a vast quantity of waste discharged directly into the sea, as well as high levels of toxic air pollution in the ports where ships are docked – usually with their engines running. Once seen as the exclusive pursuit of a minority of wealthy retired people, these holidays are now mainstream, with vast floating resorts designed and marketed for families and young adults. The largest ships have up to 20 floors and room for several thousand people.With numerous new vessels under construction, and the latest models twice the size of older ones, the industry is predicted to be worth nearly 4% of the £1.9tn global holiday market by 2028. Rightly, environmental campaigners are calling for much tougher regulations.Like aviation, shipping in general has benefited from lenient environmental and tax rules – partly due to the difficulty of deciding in which national jurisdiction, and under whose regulatory regime, their activities belong. The EU has recently agreed new penalties for those that use dirty fuel. But in the UK, shipping has not so far been included in the emissions reductions plans submitted to the United Nations – though this should change when these are renewed. The International Maritime Organization’s own carbon reduction targets do not put it on a path to net zero or even the 1.5C average temperature rise allowed for in the Paris climate agreement.As with aviation, there is an urgent need for increased international cooperation and agreement. Cruise companies should not be able to operate with lower environmental standards than other kinds of travel businesses. Their track record is poor, with many opting to fit “scrubbers” that dump emissions into the sea when they were told to reduce air pollution. In future, the ocean, as well as the air, must be protected when rules are tightened.As in other industries, the development and adoption of green technologies must become compulsory, not optional. One example is the currently patchy use of shoreside electricity, which is much lower-carbon than on-board power. The green taxes being discussed in relation to air travel should also be imposed on cruises. If this means that the industry’s plans for rapid further expansion are checked, that would be for the best. In its current form, it is not only unsustainable but causing disproportionate harm by comparison with other forms of tourism, including air travel. The environmental costs of the hedonistic visions it promotes – trips of a lifetime, and so on – must also be more effectively communicated. Trading on images of paradise while doing so much damage cannot carry on.

Most NZ dairy farmers put profitability first – but some are planting native trees anyway

A new study finds attitudes to biodiversity changing down on the farm, but there are still perceived barriers to planting what could be productive land in natives.

Phil Walter/Getty ImagesGlobally, about 40% of ice-free land is used for agriculture, managed by farmers and herders. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this share is even higher, with 51% of land used for agriculture and horticulture. Of this, currently about 10% is used for dairy farming. When natural habitats are cleared for agriculture, most native biodiversity is lost. Dairy farms represent intensive farming systems with significant detrimental consequences for biodiversity, water and soil quality. However, hedgerows, riparian plantings and shade trees can enhance native biodiversity within these landscapes. In our new study, we visited 14 dairy farms and interviewed farmers in the Waikato and Canterbury. The research was qualitative, allowing for an in-depth exploration of the experiences, values and priorities New Zealand dairy farmers have for their land and the implications for native biodiversity on farms. We found dairy farmers have multiple values and priorities but limited time, resources and energy. While working within external constraints such as land ownership or regulations, farmers will act on what they value most. Unlike most developed countries, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is entirely exposed to global markets. About 95% of dairy products are exported and government support is the lowest among OECD countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found most dairy farmers list economic viability as their highest priority. Planting native trees is seen as a trade-off between productivity and other values, such as animal welfare. Phil Walter/Getty Images When biodiversity is a trade-off While being profitable is a necessity, maximising profitability is an option. Our interviewees say they would trade off some profit for other values, such as spending time with family, enjoying one’s work, having a visually pleasant home and work environment, improving animal welfare and minimising some negative environmental consequences of dairy farming. Waikato farmer Riley argued: You have to make money to keep [the farm] afloat, to be sustainable. But it doesn’t have to spit out millions of dollars in profit. And we want the lifestyle, and we want everything to be better than when we found it. Beyond the constraints of making a living and paying off farm debt, the landowner’s value hierarchy determines whether they incorporate native biodiversity into farm landscapes. Our interviewees spoke of many barriers to planting natives, including the cost of plants and ongoing maintenance, labour and lack of knowledge of which species to plant where. Apart from land ownership, however, these barriers are surmountable to those farmers for whom native biodiversity ranks highly in their hierarchy of values. They acknowledged that planting natives took time and cost money, but it was important enough to them to do it regardless. These farmers had incorporated native biodiversity into their farm management. For them, planting natives was not an optional extra but an integral part of running a sustainable dairy farm. Their definition of land improvement, sustainability and being a good farmer had come to include planting natives. Competing for land Currently, farm productivity and native biodiversity are usually viewed as being incompatible and in competition for land. This is a sentiment dairy farmers voiced in our study as well. Most participants did not see a clear connection between native biodiversity and milk production, and therefore did not believe planting natives could benefit the productivity or profitability of their farms. Some described areas of native vegetation as “lost land”. Some of our participants did, however, see opportunities for native biodiversity to contribute towards other values, such as the attractiveness of the farm or animal welfare by providing shade and shelter for cows. Many studies confirm that on-farm benefits are critical for the adoption of new management practices. Clarifying and emphasising known benefits of native biodiversity to the farm is therefore vital. Many farmers think they should use their land only to produce food. Phil Walter/Getty Images Value hierarchies can also shift over a farmer’s lifetime. How highly farmers value native biodiversity will influence how much land they are willing to “lose” for something other than milk production. Even for the “greenest” dairy farmer, however, strong convictions about the morality of using land for food production will limit how much native biodiversity is acceptable on farm. Native species will primarily be restricted to “marginal” land, mirroring Aotearoa’s broader approach to have conservation land in unproductive mountainous areas. Unless we can draw a clear connection between native biodiversity and the economic viability of a dairy farm, making space for natives will continue to depend on landowners’ value hierarchies. Incorporating care for native biodiversity into what it means to be a good farmer has potential to contribute to some transformation of agricultural landscapes. This requires cultural change – a change in the socially embedded understandings and symbols of good farming. A gradual shift may already be underway, as is suggested by the experiences of those participants who have seen changes in their own value hierarchies and in those of wider farming communities. Some farmers perceived a shift from the older to the younger generation, with younger farmers being taught to consider the environmental consequences of their practices. Some older farmers described their increasing appreciation of native plants, though they still struggled with the idea of using land for something other than growing pasture. We need to consider how as a nation we can work towards a shared understanding of good landcare and healthy landscapes. Elizabeth Elliot Noe receives funding from Centre of Research Excellence Bioprotection Aotearoa. Anita Wreford and Ottilie Stolte do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

How the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife Conservation

Once a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlife

November 26, 20244 min readHow the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife ConservationOnce a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlifeBy Jeff OppermanThe removal of the earthen Iron Gate Dam at the Klamath River in its final phase on August 14, 2024 in Hornbrook, California. Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesImagine standing on a riverbank as thousands of dead salmon float past, belly-up and rotting in the hot California air. That's the sight—and smell—that greeted people along the Klamath River in September 2002, when 35,000 fish perished there in the span of a few days. They were victims of warm water temperatures and low river levels, both caused by dams and diversions that altered the river’s flow.This dramatic loss isn’t unique: according to October’s 2024 Living Planet Report, of which I was a co-author, wildlife populations monitored around the world have declined on average by 73 percent in just the last half century. Freshwater species like salmon have suffered even greater losses. Farming and development, like dams, in natural habitats have driven these declines.But the Klamath story continues to be written. Just a little over two decades on from the massive fish kill, the Klamath became the site of the largest dam removal project in history. Since removal of the lower four dams on the river was completed last month, salmon have surged upstream to parts of the river where they haven’t been seen for more than a century. On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.No longer is the Klamath River a tragic example of the global nature crisis; instead, its restoration serves as an inspiring story of how people can work together to repair wildlife habitats. This huge turnaround was made possible through collaboration and unwavering commitment—especially by the region’s Indigenous people. It is an example we can learn from and start replicating across the world.The scale of that global need for restoration is daunting. The alarming results in the Living Planet Report are derived from the Living Planet Index (LPI), a set of statistics developed by the Zoological Society of London. The LPI provides a broad view of wildlife health across the planet, drawing on data from nearly 35,000 populations of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, across more than 5,000 species. It can also be used to track specific groups, such as migratory fish—from tiny gobies to giant catfish—which have experienced a staggering 81 percent decline since 1970.Halting—and then reversing—the alarming downward trends in fish and other wildlife populations will require major shifts in how we produce energy and food, and how we implement conservation. The Klamath shows that those shifts are within reach.Biologists capture juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in Wooley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River which is one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath River on August 15, 2024. The Coho and Chinook are tagged with a monitoring device and also fin clipped for a genetic study.Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesThe Klamath was once the third most productive river for salmon on the west coast of the United States. Its migratory fish were the primary food—and central to the culture—of the Karuk, Yurok, Klamath and other tribes. But, beginning in the 1920s, four hydropower dams were built on the river, blocking salmon from swimming upstream to spawn and limiting them to a reduced stretch of the river. The expansion of irrigated farming further stressed the salmon through reduced flows and high water temperatures—the factors that caused the 2002 fish kill—and the runoff of chemicals and nutrients.But from that low point, the opening for recovery emerged. At the heart of the Klamath’s stunning turnaround was the unwavering dedication of the tribes to restore their salmon. Their long-neglected legal rights, cultural commitment, and steadfast efforts made river restoration possible. Collectively, their breakthroughs demonstrate that implementing conservation at the scale necessary to restore wildlife will require a diversity of both leadership and strategy.A man rides past an "Undam the Klamath" mural on the Orleans Market on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023 in Orleans, CA.Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesFirst, regulators, conservation groups and tribes negotiated agreements with farmers to reduce agricultural runoff, improve water quality, and balance irrigation demands with water levels in the basin’s lakes and wetlands. That led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, signed in 2010. That agreement also set the stage for removal of the four hydropower dams, an outcome the tribes had been pursuing for decades.Another catalyst for removal was the legal requirement that the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, renew the dams’ licenses, which were set to expire in 2006. In the U.S., hydropower project owners must periodically apply for new licenses through a process that considers options for reducing the projects’ social and environmental impacts. For the Klamath dams, regulatory agencies recommended that license renewal would require the addition of fish ladders to allow salmon to swim above the dams— construction projects that would have been prohibitively expensive. Ultimately PacifiCorp signed a settlement agreement with the tribes, agencies and conservation groups to remove the four dams, which started late last year.The removal of four hydroelectric dams may seem like a major loss of renewable energy. Thanks to California’s rapid expansion of wind and solar energy generation projects, however, the loss of the Klamath dams—which provided just 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s generation capacity—will be offset many times over. In fact, California’s new renewable capacity added during the dam removal process will be nearly 20 times greater than that of the Klamath dams.Restoration of the Klamath clearly demonstrates the potential for leadership and resource management by Indigenous people—whose lands encompass 40 percent of the world’s remaining natural areas—and whose efforts will be central to effective conservation in the 21st century.Further, restoration was only possible through a diverse set of strategies. For centuries, nature conservation has been synonymous with setting aside large tracts of land in national parks or wildlife refuges. The Klamath Basin encompasses six national wildlife refuges, two national parks, and wilderness areas—and approximately two thirds of the basin is in public land, mostly national forests. And yet the salmon—one of the basin’s most important environmental and cultural resources—still found themselves on the ropes. Restoring that resource required agreements on water use, agricultural management and dam removal to restore river connectivity.Just such examples are sorely needed. In November representatives from 196 countries wrapped up the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia and, while some important agreements were reached, much of the work of setting targets and designing strategies for conserving and restoring nature remains to be done. Reversing the losses of wildlife worldwide will require a diverse set of strategies. Protected areas will remain important, but so will transformations in how we produce energy and food and implement conservation. And while “transformation” may sound daunting, the Klamath’s remarkable turnaround demonstrates that the recovery of nature remains in reach.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

How Magnet Fishers Catch Underwater Garbage, Guns and Sometimes Treasure

With the help of a powerful rare-earth alloy, magnet fishers pull garbage out of polluted waterways

Magnet fisher James Kane cradles a shiny, four-pound magnetic disk: a stainless-steel shell housing an alloy of iron, neodymium and boron. He hucks it into a lake in a public park in New York City, then tugs it slowly toward shore with a sturdy synthetic rope. As the powerful magnet bump bump bumps along the bottom, it kicks up a line of bubbles—and then suddenly there’s a heavy drag, as if the lake bed has turned to taffy. The magnet is stuck to something. Filmed by his partner Barbi Agostini, Kane hoists their dripping catch: a thick iron rod called a sash weight, a counterbalance used to open heavy windows a century ago.Over the next few hours on this October afternoon, Kane and Agostini also pull in a 20-year-old flip phone, a signpost, fishing hooks and lures, pliers, bottle caps, batteries and an iPhone 6. They give the smartphone to a girl who’s nearby with her friends, fishing for bluegills. “If it works, I’m going to be so happy!” she says. Then she sniffs the phone and wrinkles her nose. “It smells.”To magnet fish is to plumb unseen depths for sunken treasure, but it also means getting acquainted with the stinky, the scummy and the bizarre. Agostini’s magnet once clanked onto the lid of a mason jar, inside which floated a dead tarantula in purple liquid. A particularly exciting catch can bring headlines—or the police. The American zeal for guns has sown firearms below the waterline, and magnet fishers harvest them with regularity. Agostini and Kane have found pistols, shotgun parts, Revolutionary War–era grapeshot and modern ammo clips. The two magnet fishers call the police whenever they find a gun, and they do so often enough that some officers recognize them. Last year Kane pulled an inert hand grenade out of New York City’s East River, summoning the police department’s bomb squad to a posh waterfront block in Queens. But the pair’s most notable catch—and probably the most famous thing ever found by U.S. magnet fishers, which Kane says has earned them a mention in an upcoming volume of Ripley’s Believe It or Not!—was a safe containing stacks of waterlogged cash, pulled from a river this past May.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The $100 bills were so degraded that Agostini and Kane don’t yet know precisely how much they found, but based on the stacks’ thickness, they estimate the total was $50,000 to $80,000. As soon as they could do so after the catch, they took a Megabus to Washington, D.C., to hand deliver the money to the Mutilated Currency Division at the federal Bureau of Engraving and Printing. There it will be counted and eventually paid out to the pair, though processing might take a few years—Kane says they’re in line behind people who had bills blackened by last year’s deadly wildfires in Hawaii.Agostini and Kane, both age 40, didn’t get into this pastime expecting to get rich; mostly they wanted something to do outside during the COVID pandemic. Magnet fishing, alongside baking sourdough bread and solving jigsaw puzzles, took off in the early months of 2020. “Magnet fishing was so COVID-friendly. You were forced to distance yourself” even if you bumped into a fellow hobbyist outdoors, says Pittsburgh-based archeologist Ben Demchak, who sells specialized magnets through his company, Kratos Magnetics. Magnet fishers, he explains, need to give each other a wide berth in the field; their powerful lures tend toward mutual attraction.Non-working revolvers found by James Kane and Barbi Agostini atop an old safe.James Kane and Barbi AgostiniSocial media algorithms boosted the hobby, too. Reddit has a magnet fishing forum with nearly 220,000 members. On YouTube, channels such as Kane and Agostini’s Let’s Get Magnetic emphasize the thrills, editing out hours of dragging and dipping for the moment a precious or peculiar item is yanked out of dark water. But magnet fishers say that what has lasting appeal, and makes up the bulk of their time, is taking trash out of the environment. “It’s a good thing to do. You’re cleaning up the water. It’s an amazing feeling,” says Colt Busch, a magnet fisher in Maine, who recently discovered an antique Coca-Cola bottle, intact but empty, embedded in a clump of metal scraps.Magnet fishers don’t always get a warm reception. Walking near the lakeside after their latest catch, Kane and Agostini are approached by a member of a nonprofit group that partners with the city to help maintain the park. She tells them magnet fishing isn’t permitted here. She adds that she hasn’t called the police—at least, not this time.Neodymium’s Mighty PullNo one would be able to fish with neodymium magnets at all if it weren’t for metallurgist John Croat and engineer Masato Sagawa. In the early 1980s Croat, then at the General Motors Research Laboratories, and Sagawa, then at the Sumitomo Special Metals Corporation, were both searching for alternatives to cobalt and samarium magnets, which are powerful but expensive. Independently and almost simultaneously, Sagawa and Croat identified the same intermetallic compound, which is a substance with a fixed ratio of elements: in this case, two atoms of the rare earth element neodymium to 14 iron atoms to one boron atom. “That didn’t exist yet,” Croat says. “The discovery of that intermetallic compound is the invention.” You can’t trip over a rock with the chemical composition Nd2Fe14B. Such magnets must be created artificially, through sintering or bonding. In what Croat describes as a “shock,” each happened to announce their discovery at the same conference in Pittsburgh in November 1983. Then they changed the world.Neodymium magnets weren’t simply more affordable. They were strong enough to enable miniaturized computer hard drives and tinier, mightier electric motors. Wind turbine cores have neodymium magnets to efficiently turn kinetic energy into electricity. They are also key components of headphones and speakers, and they remain the most popular rare-earth magnets sold commercially. “I don’t think they will ever come up with a better magnet,” Croat says.Neodymium magnets, despite their name, are mostly iron. Such magnets contain regions “where all the electrons are lined up like soldiers on parade, all facing in the same direction,” says Andrea Sella, a professor of chemistry at University College London. In neodymium magnets and other permanent magnets—which don’t require electric currents or other external help to stay magnetic—multiple layers of these aligned electrons stack up. The result can be imagined as a pattern like three-dimensional wallpaper. Sella likens the structure to a series of unending nightmares. “Every time you move a certain distance, oh, my God, you’re back where you started,” he says. The neodymium, even in a relatively tiny amount, helps pin the iron atoms in place in this repetitive crystalline lattice.“Magnetism is really a reflection at a macroscopic scale of the quantum phenomenon called spin,” Sella says. This property is often described in terms of an atom’s nucleus or its particles spinning about an axis. But that’s a fairly crude mental picture, he says. The reality is that spin “represents something about the fundamental nature of the particle.”As a quantum phenomenon, magnetism might seem ethereal. But it can quickly become much less so when handling actual neodymium magnets: Agostini says she once found herself stuck to a subway seat, held fast by a magnet in her backpack. If two neodymium magnets get too close, they can slam together, crushing a wayward finger in a painful metallic sandwich. When two of them accidentally bump each other, Kane strains to separate them, like he’s breaking apart the world’s most frustrating KitKat bar.Stores like Demchak’s sell neodymium magnets according to their shape and pull force, measured in the thousands of pounds. A “360,” for instance, is a solid magnet housed in a metal cylinder. To comply with the regulations for shipping these objects by air, Demchak nests them in boxes of foam to buffer the magnetic fields. Shipping magnets in the U.S. by ground doesn’t have such restrictions, he says, although he now packs those parcels carefully, too. He learned his lesson after selling his first 360—which never made it to the customer. It probably got stuck somewhere in a mail processing plant, he says. Or maybe it’s still out there, clamped to the belly of a delivery truck.Deep Cleaning?Once the Bureau of Engraving and Printing sends them the funds from the mutilated cash, Agostini and Kane say they want to use the money toward a down payment to move out of New York City. Agostini would like to buy a place with enough space to raise chickens, dogs and goats. She loves animals, she says, and considers magnet fishing to be an extension of this because it helps clear pollution from their habitat.“If you really talk to magnet fishers, you can tell they have a sense of pride about it—they’re cleaning up the waterways,” Demchak says. For example, he notes that magnet fishers recently helped pull hundreds of electric scooters out of a river that runs through the campus at Michigan State University. Busch says he has caught more than 140 bicycles since he began magnet fishing. And there’s plenty more trash to collect. “As much as I clean up the water,” Busch says, “I feel like there’s three times as much junk left to pull up.”If there have been comprehensive scientific reports on the environmental impact of magnet fishing, they aren’t in any mainstream databases. Only a handful of studies even reference the hobby, such as a 2024 analysis in the journal Hydrobiologia of Hungarian magnet fishers’ social media posts that evaluated how much discarded fishing gear had been recovered since 2016. Photographs and videos posted online showed that magnet fishers pulled in more than 2,000 pieces of gear, including rods, reels, hooks and other items, from Hungary’s waterways.It’s helpful when magnet fishers remove sharp bits of metal, which can be physical hazards to swimmers and wildlife, points out Timothy Hoellein, an aquatic ecologist at Loyola University Chicago, who studies trash in freshwater environments. Electronic devices and batteries also contain heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury, plus other chemicals that are potentially toxic to “microorganisms, or invertebrates, or fish or people,” he says. Dull iron is not a particular danger to anything, though, he says; soils already contain natural iron and rust.Various objects found by magnet fishers including jewelry, coins and an old beer can.James Kane and Barbi AgostiniBut lake beds can host things worse than rust. Toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, can stick to charged particles in sediments. Fine silts and clays also retain pollutants such as microplastics and particles from nuclear fallout, as well as nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous, which can harm ecosystems if concentrations are too high. Releasing these trapped materials presents a possible downside to magnet fishing. “Any practice that could disturb the sediment at the bottom of a lake, especially an urban or periurban lake, has the potential to resuspend this sediment—and any associated pollutant—back into the water column,” says Phil Owens, an environmental sciences professor at the University of Northern British Columbia. Whether magnet fishing has a “net positive or net negative effect on lakes and ponds” could depend on the individual body of water, its surroundings and the intensity of magnet fishing activity. Hoellein hypothesizes that such disturbances are minor relative to magnet fishing’s potential benefits. “There could be some sediments with industrial chemicals or other pollutants that are released back into the water through magnet fishing, but I don’t know if it would be that different than a major storm coming through” and agitating a lake floor, he says.Plus, magnet fishing dredges up an additional perk: it gets people outdoors, where they can enjoy often-overlooked waterways. A few urban bodies of water are shunned for a good reason, though—the Environmental Protection Agency says New York City’s sludgy Gowanus Canal is one of the most contaminated water bodies in the U.S. (Kane would love to magnet fish there but says he hasn’t because the canal water is “very bad for your health if you get it in your facial area.”) But many other aquatic areas in cities are unfairly dismissed as too dangerous or unpleasant to be around, Hoellein says. Or they’re treated as junkyards. That’s a counterproductive attitude, he says, “especially in places where we also drink from that same water.” He welcomes anyone who wants to contribute, in their own style and with the time they have, to fixing the problem of environmental trash. “For some people, that’s magnet fishing,” Hoellein adds.Know before You ThrowAt the shore, the magnet fishers and the nonprofit staffer reach a détente; the discussion turns to a mutual appreciation for local history. Later, privately, Kane insists he has played by the book: he has a fishing license and a metal-detecting license, and this lake is in a public park.Magnet fishing is permitted in publicly accessible places in the U.S. But it might also be subject to local rules and regulations. Although magnet fishing is not specifically mentioned by the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation in its publicly listed regulations, “using magnets to retrieve sunken metal objects can have negative impacts on local wildlife and is against [Parks] rules in any bodies of water under Parks jurisdiction,” wrote a spokesperson for the department in an e-mail to Scientific American. The spokesperson added that the applicable rule is Section 1-04(b)(1)(iii), which prohibits disturbing vegetation.Demchak’s rule of thumb is that “if you could fish with a fishing pole, for the most part, you can magnet fish.” Certain historic sites, however, can be off-limits to magnet fishers. In fact, fearing the destruction of delicate submerged artifacts, South Carolina has outlawed magnet fishing under the state’s Underwater Antiquities Act. It’s the only U.S. state to have made the hobby illegal in public areas.If you ever decide to toss a magnet into a lake (where legal), Kane and Agostini offer a few pointers: Be up-to-date on your tetanus shots. Bring a first aid kit for scrapes and pokes and a large bucket for the garbage you will inevitably find. Dispose of that junk properly or sell it to a scrapyard. Wear thick, protective gloves and clothes you don’t mind getting muddy. And look out for the click—the haptic sensation that travels up a rope when a magnet has stuck to something hard and hollow, such as a safe. It’ll probably be trash, but then again, you won’t know until you pull it out of the water. “We still get excited,” Agostini says, “because it’s a mystery every time.”

Unstoppable invasion: How did mussels sneak into California, despite decades of state shipping rules?

Most ships discharging ballast water into California waters are inspected, but state officials have tested the water of only 16 ships. Experts say invaders like mussels are inevitable under current rules and enforcement.

In summary Most ships discharging ballast water into California waters are inspected, but state officials have tested the water of only 16 ships. Experts say invaders like mussels are inevitable under current rules and enforcement. After the recent discovery of a destructive mussel in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, some experts say California officials have failed to effectively enforce laws designed to protect waterways from invaders carried in ships’ ballast water.  A state law enacted 20 years ago has required California officials to inspect 25% of incoming ships and sample their ballast water before it’s discharged into waterways. But the tests didn’t begin until two years ago — after standards for conducting them were finally set — and testing remains rare. State officials have sampled the ballast water of only 16 vessels out of the roughly 3,000 likely to have emptied their tanks nearshore.  Experts say stronger regulations are needed, as well as better enforcement.  “It’s not really a surprise that another invasive species showed up in the Delta,” said Karrigan Börk, a law professor and the interim director of the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences. “It’s likely to continue happening.” Native to eastern Asia, the mussels — detected near the Port of Stockton, in a small San Joaquin Valley reservoir and several other Delta locations — were the first to be detected in North America. If the mollusc evades eradication efforts, it could spread over vast areas of California and beyond, crowd out native species and clog parts of the massive projects that export Delta water to cities and farms.  Invasive golden mussels, shown at a California Department of Water Resources lab, might crowd out native species in waterways and clog parts of the state’s massive water projects. Photo by Xavier Mascareñas, California Department of Water Resources Ted Lempert, a former Bay Area Assemblymember who authored a 1999 state law aimed at preventing ships from bringing invasive species into California, said state officials “apparently took their eyes off the ball.”   “We were trying to get ahead of the game, so I’m really frustrated that after all these years some of the events we were trying to prevent have come to pass,” he said.  But the prospect of an invasive species colonizing a new region frequented by ships “is a numbers game” that can happen even under the most rigorous regulations and enforcement, said Greg Ruiz, a marine ecologist with the Marine Invasions Research Laboratory at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. “This is not a failure in the system,” he said. Ballast water is stored in tanks to stabilize vessels at sea. Often taken on at the port of departure and released at the port of arrival, it is a global vector of invasive species, including pathogens that cause human diseases. “We were trying to get ahead of the game, so I’m really frustrated that after all these years some of the events we were trying to prevent have come to pass.”Ted Lempert, former Bay Area Assemblymember To address the threat to ecosystems and water supplies, the State Lands Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Coast Guard enforce a suite of overlapping regulations.  The goal of these state and federal rules is to reduce as much as possible the number of living organisms in discharged ballast water. Vessel operators can achieve this by exposing their ballast water to ultraviolet light, filtering it and treating it with chlorine, which is then removed before discharge.  ‘Highest standards in the world.’ But are they enforced? About 1,500 ships a year entering California waters release ballast water, according to Chris Scianni, environmental program manager of the State Lands Commission’s Marine Invasive Species Program. To check for compliance, officials board and inspect nearly all of them, plus another thousand vessels prioritized for inspection for other reasons, Scianni said. During these inspections, officers review ballast water logbooks and reporting forms, interview crew members, inspect water treatment equipment, and occasionally take water samples for testing.  “We’re the only entity in the world that’s doing this right now,” Scianni said. A 2003 state law declares that the State Lands Commission “shall take samples of ballast water, sediment, and biofouling from at least 25% of vessels” subject to invasive species regulations. But commission officials told CalMatters they interpret it to mean that 25% of ships must be inspected, with no specific requirements for sampling.  Sampling for some ships began in 2023, after the commission enacted standards for how the tests are conducted. It’s a considerable endeavor: A cubic meter of water  — which weighs a metric ton — must be collected from a ship. It can take an hour to draw, and it must be done while the vessel is actively discharging. Hours more may pass before results are ready.   Federal officials have their own ballast oversight program. It leans on a system of self-reporting by vessel operators — which critics consider a weak tool for ensuring compliance. An EPA spokesperson said the agency “can assess compliance with (the rules) either through a desk audit or an on-site inspection.” Many experts told CalMatters that the state and federal limits on how many organisms are allowed in discharged water are adequate but that enforcement is lacking.  “We had the highest (ballast water management) standards in the world, but they were never actually enforced because the state couldn’t come up with a set of technologies to implement them,” said Ben Eichenberg, a staff attorney with the group SF Baykeeper.   Ted Grosholz, a professor emeritus with the UC Davis Coastal and Marine Sciences Institute said “the standards are very exacting…The problem we have is compliance. How many ships coming in with ballast water can we really sample and verify? Enforcement officials can’t watch everyone.” “The standards are very exacting…The problem we have is compliance. How many ships coming in with ballast water can we really sample and verify? Enforcement officials can’t watch everyone.”Ted Grosholz, UC Davis Coastal and Marine Sciences Institute Smithsonian’s Ruiz said state records show that all documented ballast discharges at the Port of Stockton since 2008 have followed state regulations. Ships that discharge, however, occasionally remain uninspected as they enter a port. And some vessel operators may cheat, filling their ballast tanks with clean ocean water to pass off a faulty water treatment system as functional. Moreover, even treated ballast water can contain high levels of zooplankton.  Ruiz, who has studied California’s data on ship arrival and locations of the mussels, said it’s probable the golden mussel entered the Delta at least a year ago and even possible that it’s been there for a decade or more, adding that “it could even have happened in the pre-treatment (of ballast water) era.” Somehow, the creature slipped through the cracks and made itself a new home in what has been called one of the most invaded estuaries on the planet.  It’s an outcome that Lempert as an assemblymember tried to prevent a quarter-century ago, when he authored the Ballast Water Management for Control of Non-indigenous Species Act. The law required incoming vessels to either retain their ballast water, drain it while simultaneously refilling with new water hundreds of miles out at sea, or use an “environmentally sound” treatment system. It tasked the California State Lands Commission with monitoring vessels for compliance.  California has since enacted a complex system of regulations: In 2003, the Marine Invasive Species Act expanded the scope of Lempert’s legislation. Three years later, the Legislature required the commission to set limits on organism concentrations in ballast water; these “standards of performance” were implemented in 2022. While the standards allow minute levels of organisms in the water, the goal is “zero detectable living organisms” by 2040.  Several federal laws also aim to protect U.S. waters from creatures like the golden mussel.  Penalties for breaking ballast management rules have been modest. At the state level, violations have resulted in 24 fines in the past six years, totaling just over $1 million. Federal fines are rare, with just nine penalties issued amounting to about $714,000 in the EPA’s Pacific Southwest region since 2013. Commission officials said “the frequency of noncompliant discharges … has dropped dramatically since our enforcement regulations (with penalties) were adopted in 2017.” Can ballast water be sterilized? California officials say achieving the law’s goal of zero organisms in ballast water discharged into waterways is infeasible. It would require a network of treatment plants at coastal ports, costing $1.45 billion over 30 years. The shipping industry would face another $2.17 billion in costs for installing systems capable of transferring ballast water to the floating treatment plants.  But Eichenberg said some ships already use commercially available systems that consistently, and by a wide margin, outperform industry standards. He said the state’s failure to require that vessels use the most advanced treatment systems available — technology capable of nearly sterilizing ballast water — has culminated in the golden mussel’s arrival.  “Something like this was bound to happen eventually,” he said.   State and federal performance standards — modeled after international standards — limit the concentration of living zooplankton-sized organisms, like mussel larvae, in ballast water before discharge to 10 per cubic meter. For smaller organisms, allowances are higher.  But even in ballast water that has undergone treatment in approved systems, zooplankton concentrations can be off-the-charts for reasons not always clear, according to Hugh MacIsaac, an aquatic invasive species researcher at the University of Windsor in Ontario, who has studied the spread of the golden mussel in South America and central China.  Golden mussels, measured at a state lab, have been found in several Delta locations. Photo by Xavier Mascareñas, California Department of Water Resources Treating ballast water doesn’t necessarily work. A study in Shanghai found up to 23,000 zooplankton-sized organisms per cubic meter in the ballast water of half of ships sampled, MacIsaac said.  Ruiz, at the Smithsonian research center, said the study’s sample size of 17 ships is too small to be representative and that such high concentrations are abnormal in the United States. “We sample vessels here, and that’s not what we see coming into the U.S.,” he said.  Ship operators have shifted radically in the past 20 years “from no management to a nearly complete use of open-ocean exchange to, now, an almost complete transition to ballast treatment technology,” Ruiz said. Attention turns to federal rules The federal government, not state agencies, will soon become the key player in ballast management. That’s because new EPA rules, which are likely at least 18 months away from full implementation, will preempt state regulations.The new rules — which state officials will help enforce — will keep the existing standards for organism concentrations, but prevent states from implementing their own rules that exceed federal standards. For example, California’s goal of zero detectable organisms in ballast discharge will be nixed.  Nicole Dobrosky, the State Lands Commission’s chief of environmental science, planning and management, said states can petition the federal government for changes to the rules.  Shippers welcome the shift to national rules that align with international standards, said Jacqueline Moore, Long Beach-based vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.  “An international industry by nature, the maritime community always appreciates consistent standards across the board, and across the ocean in this case,” Moore said. “It’s much easier for everyone.”   “We have the technical ability to efficiently remove or kill organisms that are trapped in a tank of water. For half a century federal law has required EPA to …protect the environment and public health — yet EPA still refuses to do so.”Environmental groups in a letter to Biden But the change of regulatory oversight concerns Marcie Keever, the oceans and vessels program director with Friends of the Earth. She said that to date the State Lands Commission has been the more active enforcer. Preempting state laws with federal standards that she says are too weak “will essentially give the shipping industry a free pass to pollute…These shipping companies are self-reporting pollution instances, and no one is doing anything about it except for the state.” In 1973, the EPA exempted ballast water from the Clean Water Act. Eventually forced by court rulings to comply with the act, the agency released its newest standards in October for limiting organism concentrations in ballast water. Keever said the EPA is not setting the bar as high as it should.  “We’re still basically at the same place we were at 20 years ago,” Keever said. “The EPA has never set what we see as the best available technology for ballast water discharges.” More than 150 environmental groups made similar claims in a 2022 letter to President Joe Biden, arguing that the technology exists now to almost entirely sterilize ballast water.  “[W]e have the technical ability to efficiently remove or kill organisms that are trapped in a tank of water,” they wrote. “For half a century federal law has required EPA to use that ability to protect the environment and public health — yet EPA still refuses to do so.” The EPA disagrees with the criticism. Joshua Alexander, press officer with the agency’s Region 9 San Francisco office, told CalMatters that “the EPA concluded that these standards (in the new rules) are the most stringent ones that the available ballast water test data can support.” Can anything stop the mussel invasion? October’s discovery of the golden mussel in California is being treated urgently by state and federal officials. The creatures have wreaked havoc on water supply and hydroelectric facilities in South America, and they are spreading rapidly through central China. In the Great Lakes, invasive zebra mussels cause $300 to $500 million in damages annually to power plants and other water infrastructure — the types of impacts officials in California hope to avoid.  Tanya Veldhuizen, the Department of Water Resources’ special projects section manager, said officials are considering the use of chemicals to remove the creatures from pumps, intakes and pipelines of the massive State Water Project, which transports water to farms and cities.   Several scientists told CalMatters that with most nonnative species, eradication is only possible early in the game — meaning management officials often have one shot at success. Biologist Andrew Chang, who works at the Smithsonian research center’s Marin County field lab, noted an old adage in invasion ecology — containing the spread of a nonnative species is like trying to put toothpaste back into a tube. “The more time that passes, the process of putting the toothpaste back in the tube gets messier and messier,” Chang said. University of Windsor’s MacIsaac thinks California may be on the cusp of an unstoppable mussel invasion.  “This is an enormous problem for your state,” he said. More about water ‘Immediate threat’: Mussel invades California’s Delta, first time in North America October 31, 2024November 5, 2024 Prop. 4 passes: Californians approve $10 billion for water, wildfire, climate projects November 5, 2024November 6, 2024

No Results today.

Our news is updated constantly with the latest environmental stories from around the world. Reset or change your filters to find the most active current topics.

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.