By now you’ve heard the dire predictions for how sea level rise would affect Miami. Basically this city, already imperiled by worsening hurricanes, is in the bulls-eye for rising oceans too.

But did you realize that a one meter sea level increase — now believed by many scientists to be a likely outcome of global warming by 2100 — would put Philadelphia underwater?

Greenland Ice Flow (Photo: NASA)

Yes, the city of Brotherly Love would be among the large family of coastal cities potentially devastated by coastline changes. And not in the too-distance future either.

According to glacier and ice shelf expert Dr. Gordon Hamilton, Philadelphia could experience troubles decades before that 2100 benchmark if storm surges pushed rising oceans inland.

In other words, there is no magic threshold when the seas, warmed by the atmosphere and swelled by melting ice sheets, will spill over their old boundaries. There is a steady creep occurring now. But flooding, hastened by storms, could happen well before the ocean’s reach the 1 meter increase (absent any serious human action to slow the current progression).

Hamilton, a research professor at the University of Maine who studies melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica , and Dr. Asa Rennermalm, a Rutgers University professor who studies Arctic and Greenland ice sheets,  are kicking off a lecture tour today to spread this news about how the oceans are rising even faster than projected just a couple years ago.

The first talk was this morning at the Wagner Free Institute in Philadelphia followed by a demonstration at the Adventure Aquarium in Camden, N.J. Subsequent engagements will take the pair to Miami; Washington, New York City and several other cities. The tour, dubbed the “hip boot tour” to emphasize the reality of the coming floods, is sponsored by Clean Air-Cool Planet, a non-profit dedicated to fighting global warming.

None of these cities where the scientists will be speaking will be spared by rising sea levels. Just as most mega-cities around the globe will be affected, because so many population centers sit on the coast or on rivers that lead directly to the coast. Cities like Paris. And Philadelphia.

Talking to Hamilton is a bit like previewing one of those apocalyptic movies where the world suffers from monster storms, vast floods, temperature changes and incredible destruction of infrastructure.

At a one-meter rise, for instance, the subway entrances in Manhattan would be at the water level, which means the subways would be inundated, permanently, said Dr. Hamilton, whose degree is in geophysics.

One doesn’t need a degree in geophysics to understand the consequences of the nation’s financial capital being underwater. Having St. Louis and Chicago on dry ground would not ameliorate the devastation to humans and world trade.

In Philadelphia, a 1 meter increase would flood the downtown district and areas along the river. Harbor trade would be shut down and on the east side, Camden, N.J., would be inundated. Across New Jersey, aquifers would likely be contaminated with sea water.

Neighborhoods at higher elevations, north and west of Philadelphia would remain dry.

Parts of Florida at 33 feet above sea level and below are shown flooded (Image: NASA.)

In Miami, nothing would be unaffected. A 1 meter sea level rise would put most of the city underwater, and it wouldn’t be alone. “Most of Florida’s big cities would be severely affected,” Hamilton said. Models overlaid on satellite images show Miami, the Keys, St. Petersburg and Tampa under water. The everglades would become a saltwater marsh and aquifers in the state would become brackish or completely salinated.

Hamilton says he shows people how their city’s coastline would change, but also tries to get local audiences to see the global nature of the problem.  “Not only are you flooding downtown DC, but hundreds of millions of people in Southeast Asia like Bangladesh, ” he said.

The key point of the tour is not just to demonstrate impending devastation, but to explain that the threat is more imminent than was predicted by the Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just two years ago.

In 2007, the IPCC warned that the sea levels would rise a little more than half a meter and possibly more. Even at that less drastic increase, the “the impacts are virtually certain to be overwhelmingly negative,” scientists wrote.

That prediction was based on the best available science.

What didn’t make the report, Dr. Hamilton said, was that in 2005, geophysicists studying the freshwater ice sheets in Greenland and changes in Antarctica had witnessed an alarming quickening in the speed of some glaciers as they carried ice toward the ocean.

In Greenland, some of these rivers of ice “were doing these crazy things,” he said. Some were moving 45 meters in a day — about the distance of one half a football field. In glacial terms, they were moving very fast. You could hear the ice cracking, he said.

“Almost over night, in the course of 9 to 10 months, they started moving about three times faster than they had been,” Dr. Hamilton said.

Scientists know the changes were prompted by global warming, and that the ice melts can grow exponentially, with water in crevasses contributing to the problem. But they still don’t understand what it all means. Some glaciers later slowed, but others sped up, Hamilton said. The net effect is likely to be a faster melt, with more water raising the ocean levels worldwide.

“Our talks right now are to emphasize that the picture has changed dramatically. If you were to take a consensus among my colleagues who work in Greenland and Antarctica, everybody is likely to say that it (sea rise) is more likely to be a meter.”

If not more.

“Politicians,” he said, “regardless of their political leanings on climate change need to be aware that they’re ethically bound to consider the upper bounds of sea level change…It’s delinquent for people to say they’re going to plan for the minimum (possible change) and then in 50 years time find that huge amounts of their infrastructure is flooded because they didn’t pay attention.”

• The lecture tour dates and cities are:

• Oct. 20 – Philadelphia

• Oct. 21 -  Portland, Maine

• Oct. 22 – Tampa, Fla.

• Oct. 23 -  Tampa, Fla.

• Oct. 24 – Miami, Fla.

• Oct. 27 -  Wilmington, N.C.

• Oct. 28 – Norfolk, Va.

• Oct. 29 – Hampton, N.H.

For details on those talks see the Clean Air-Cool Planet website. For more information on melting ice and rising ocean levels, as well as other predicted outcomes of global warming, see the US Global Change Research Program 2009 report (East Coasters can see the section on the Northeast) or the  IPCC reports at the United Nation’s website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Ocean waves near Freeport, Texas (Photo: National Weather Service)

Ocean waves off the coast of Texas may soon provide the first commercial wave power in the US to generate electricity and desalinate water.

Renew Blue Inc. said today that the Texas General Land Office has granted it the first-ever state off-shore wave energy lease. The company said it will use ocean water and waves to produce desalinated water; the first 100 percent fossil-fuel-free bottled water.

Renew Blue, a wholly owned subsidiary of Minneapolis-based Independent Natural Resources Inc., is the first licensing entity of SEADOG Pump, a technology that uses ocean waves to generate electricity. The company plans to operate in the Gulf of Mexico near Freeport, Texas, to produce 3,000 gallons a day of desalinated water and will bottle and distribute it under the brand Renew Blue.

This will be a small demonstration of what SEADOG Pump technology can do in providing electricity and clean water to regions all over the world that lack fresh water and energy but have an abundance of ocean waves along their coastline.

“Texas is proud to be the initial site of this wave-powered energy innovation,” Rene Truan, deputy commissioner for professional services at the Texas General Land Office, said in a statement. “Renewable energy production on the Texas coast means renewable revenue for the school children of Texas. The SEADOG Pump is another great example of the exciting opportunities that exist and that the Texas General Land Office is working hard to take advantage of.”

Renew Blue will place an off-shore modular platform about one mile off the coast of Freeport, in roughly 25 feet of water. The company said it expects the platform, which is currently being manufactured outside of Houston, to be installed in the fourth quarter of 2009 or the first quarter of 2010.

Independent Natural Resources Inc. said it sees major advantages in the SEADOG Pump system, which is powered solely by the wave energy it harnesses. The company says electric power accounts for 40 to 50 percent of the operating costs in the desalination process, meaning the new pump system should provide significant cost savings and minimal environmental impact compared to the large-scale use of power generated by fossil fuels.

“For the past seven years the SEADOG has been fine-tuned to produce this major accomplishment as the first commercial wave power generation in the US,” Mark A. Thomas, CEO of INRI, said in a statement. “We are thrilled to showcase the SEADOG to the world as an innovative yet simple technology illustrating the ability to extract wave energy at low cost, with high levels of efficiency resulting in immeasurable benefit to humankind.”

January Jones, star of the Mad Men TV series and an ocean advocate, went to Washington this week to lobby for the Shark Conservation Act of 2009 and stronger US leadership for saving the ocean’s top predators.

January Jones (Photo: American Movie Classics)

“We should be scared FOR sharks, not of them,” said the Golden Globe nominee. “The survival of sharks and the health of our oceans depend on it.”

Jones met with various members of Congress, including Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The actress, best known for her role as Betty Draper in the critically acclaimed Mad Men series on the American Movie Channel, became a spokesman for Oceana’s Save Sharks campaign earlier this year.

Sharks have survived in the oceans since the age of the dinosaur, but today some species are nearly extinct due to overfishing and killing some sharks just for their fins, Oceana reports. As the ocean’s top predators, they play a critical role in keeping ecosystems healthy; their decline is causing potentially irreversible changes in the make up of the seas.

The Shark Conservation Act would outlaw shark “finning,” in which the animals fin is sheared off at sea with the body discarded. The law would require that all shark brought in to land would be whole.

The Act was introduced by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in April. A similar measure introduced by Rep. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), passed the House of Representatives in March.

For more on sharks and why their survival matters see the Oceana website. There you can also find out about Ms. Jones’ recent trip to swim with sharks (no, that’s not the same as the Washington tour).

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Bay City News
SAUSALITO — Three weeks after their return from exploring a vortex of floating plastic garbage 1,000 miles off the Pacific coast, scientists working on Project Kaisei are focused on how to clean up the giant garbage patch. >> Read the full story

By Wayne Freedman
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — Concern over global warming has a lot of people concerned with how they deal the very real possibility of rising sea levels. Who better to give advice than those living right now below sea level? The Dutch have discovered that their experience with bad geography might create healthy profits. >> Read the full story

Barbara Ettinger and Sven Huseby knew their documentary about ocean acidification would have to pass a high test to avoid overwhelming a public already grappling with the many technical facets of climate change.

To sound the alarm about yet another looming global warming catastrophe, the potential destruction of all marine life, their film would have to be engaging, accessible, down-to-earth.

Happily, A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish succeeds on all those levels. Humanizing this critical issue like no previous film or book, it follows the soft-spoken Huseby on an odyssey of discovery as he meets with scientists and activists in Alaska, Seattle, California and Norway trying to understand the phenomenon of ocean acidification.

Gently, the story drives home what’s at stake: A healthy planet for future generations, embodied in this case by Sven and Barbara’s spirited grandson, Elias, age 5. The irrepressible Elias serves as the film’s touchstone, reminding us of the urgency of his grandfather’s mission and of the simple wonders of beach and ocean.

Sven writes “home” about his discoveries to Elias, who lives in California (where in real life, he watches Blue Planet and is known as “a very verbal fellow”). He tells him he’s deeply worried about the oceans, but adds that as a former teacher, “I really believe the power to change begins with knowledge.”

On his travels, Sven considers how he’ll explain to Elias about this problem that should rightly fall outside the scope of childhood — the potential complete destruction of the oceans via acidification, the result of the seas absorbing humankind’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In asking, what are we leaving behind for our kids and grandkids, A Sea Change doesn’t mince words.

But this inter-generational interplay also lends the film a warmth, and keeps it clear of the rocky shoals where more strident, proselytizing documentaries sometimes crash. Sven is on a fact-finding mission, not a soap box. His director and wife, Barbara Ettinger, uses ample footage from expert subjects, but also keeps them off the preaching podium.

A Sea Change deliberately reaches out to people of all ages and political stripes. Kids will enjoy Elias’s viewpoint. Newcomers to the subject will appreciate Sven’s Mr. Rogers-like approach to interviews. The film is paced to allow for periodic reflection, and beautifully filmed along the rocky coasts of the Pacific Northwest and Norway, all the way to the Arctic, where we see and hear the ice dropping into the sea.

Sven ultimately meets a score of scientists and environmentalists who are passionate about their mission to save the oceans (which cover more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface). He also visits with artist Maya Lin to ponder the psychology of why we haven’t been better ocean stewards.

The film, released this spring, is being featured this week at the Downtown Film Festival-Los Angeles on Aug. 20 (Thursday at 7 p.m.) and will have its New York City premiere at the American Museum of Natural History on Sept. 13. It is also playing at cinema festivals around the world. It was conceived of in late 2006 when Sven and Barbara were both struck by the New Yorker article, “The Darkening Sea” by Elizabeth Kolbert. Barbara, a filmmaker, and Sven, a former teacher and headmaster of the Putney School in Vermont, considered themselves enlightened people; Barbara’s last film had even tackled a regional environmental fight. Yet the ocean article was startling.

“We were flabbergasted that we’d never heard of the phenomenon of acidification of the sea,” Sven said last week from his home in upstate New York.

The couple set out to investigate. Sven pursued financing (eventually signing several foundations to back the movie), as Barbara figured out how to turn the story into a film that could reach a wide audience.

“We made a very clear decision. I guess part of it is who we are as people. We didn’t want to make an apocalyptic film. But what we see in this area of ocean acidification are some very big issues,” Sven said in an interview with GreenRightNow.

Much of what the film crew uncovered was disturbing, he said; “I got pretty depressed the first half of this film as we interviewed scientist after scientist.”

As the native Norwegian and former private school headmaster travels from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest US to a scientists’ outpost in Tromsoe, Norway, a dark cloud emerges. Everything out in the deep blue is in jeopardy. The oceans have been absorbing the earth’s mounting CO2 emissions, but now, all life, from the tiniest marine creatures to those at the top of the food chain – to humans – is paying a toll.

“For 20,000 years, we’ve had a relatively stable environment. Now, there are going to be a lot of extinctions,” reports Dr. Jeff Short, then with NOAA, now the Pacific Science director for Oceana.

“Ocean chemistry is being altered on a scale not seen for millions of years,” says marine professor, Dr. Edward L. Miles, ot the University of Washington: “And we don’t know what the consequences will be.”

When the oceans turn acidic, Sven explains in our interview, “it’s like dropping a piece of chalk into vinegar.” That’s an exaggeration, but what happens to the chalk shows how shellfish, coral and the delicate, tiny pterapods at the foundation of the marine food chain are being affected.

Increasing carbon emissions here on land mean more ocean acidity, which is sapping the oceans’ capacity to support life and pushing them to the brink. Fish populations are thinning, coral is dying and the Ph of the water is nearing fatal levels for many species.

We get many visuals. Sven interviews a chemistry teacher who demonstrates with baby teeth what acid (in the form of a soda) can do to a calcium coating, like those on the pterapods. (You’ll understand the oceans better, and reconsider your next Coke.)

Similar mini-tutorials keep us hanging in with Sven as he bikes, hikes and hovers on several coastlines, explaining the threat to our oceans – and during the last part of the film, what can be done to save them.

It’s an enjoyable ride, even under that brooding cloud. Our amazingly robust 65-year-old narrator, his glib grandson, and the fleet of people working to solve things make for an eye-opening tale. There are poignant moments, like when the author of the New Yorker piece Kolbert commiserates with Sven about leaving such an ailing planet for our children.

“I continue to think about that remark and trying to turn this thing around,” Sven says in our interview.

A Sea Change does offer hope, on several coasts. There are the lawyer activist in California, wind engineers in Norway, executives at Google and others, who believe pollution can be stopped and alternative energy harnessed to turn back the carbon clock.

Even in unlikely spots, such as the century-old Solstrand Hotel in Norway, which now operates on renewable energy from the ocean, there’s hope.

How can ordinary people help? “They can think about their carbon footprint,” says Huseby. “They can ask themselves how can they decrease the fossil fuel they use for transportation. They can ask how well have they insulated their homes…through conservation alone we can do the most. It’s not that expensive and it can have a huge impact.”

And, he adds, you should contact your Congressional representative.

“It sounds old-fashioned, even quaint. But it’s really important that people write to their representatives and stress that they want to get off fossil fuels…They all say they need the push. So let’s start pushing.”

Details:

A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish
Director/producer: Barbara Ettinger; co-producer: Sven Huseby; co-producer: Susan Cohn Rockefeller; editing: Toby Shimin; cinematography by Claudia Raschke-Robinson; associate producer: Ben Kalina.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related video:

Watch the trailer for A Sea Change:

“Don’t let the vacation ruin the destination.”

These words of wisdom hail from environmentalists who have legitimate concerns about ocean pollution due to cruise ship dumping.

Cruise ship vacations have gained in popularity in the last decade, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, which states that the industry has grown nearly twice as fast as any other means of travel during that time frame. And, at the same time, the average ship size has been growing at about 90 feet every five years. Ships used to average about 3,000 passengers, but today some carry as many as 8,000.

So with larger ships carrying more passengers, there is mounting concern about how this growth will affect the ocean’s marine life and water quality.

Recently the World Wildlife Federation’s Baltic Sea chapter recommended that area ports upgrade their facilities to cope with contamination from cruise ship sewage. The WWF said that Baltic-area ports are not keeping their facilities up-to-date in terms of disposing of cruise ship waste and suggested that the money being made by cruise ship tourism be spent upgrading the facilities, according to a report in the Environmental News Service.

“We find it unfair that so many ports are profiting from cruise line tourism but are not prepared to take care of their waste,” said Pauli Merriman, director of the WWF Baltic Ecoregion Progamme, in the ENS report.

In one week, a single average size cruise ship can generate about 200,000 gallons of sewage as well as 1 million gallons of gray water (the runoff from showers and kitchens), says Friends of the Earth Clean Vessels Campaign director Marcie Keever.

“That amounts to about 50 swimming pools-worth of polluted water,” she says.

Cleaning up pollution from cruise ships uses technology that separates the solids from the liquids and uses reverse osmosis to get rid of the pollutants. The solids get incinerated with the ashes either being dumped on land or at sea beyond 3 to 12 nautical miles. On land, the human manure can be recycled as nutrients for soil.

In the U.S., says Keever, there are no regulations for dumping sewage from vessels beyond three nautical miles from shore. Beyond three miles, cruise ships are allowed to dump raw, partially treated, or treated sewage.

As for port-side dumping, she says, “the dumping of treated sewage (using 30-year old-technology) is allowed in many ports except for states that have created no-discharge areas or agreements…. California is one of the places with anti-dumping laws, as are Alaska and Maine. Washington and Florida have voluntary agreements with the cruise industry but those agreements don’t go any further that U.S. federal requirements in most cases.”

A group of island nations, facing an uncertain future amid the threat of rising seas, says it needs the United States to take the lead in pushing for aggressive climate mitigation standards. However, after a week of discussions among the 195 countries that back the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty, the coalition said today it was unable to convince the United States to take a larger role.

The islands have proposed using the Montreal Protocol to phase down production and consumption of a group of super greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs are projected to grow so fast that they could represent up to 45 percent of CO2 emissions in 2050, assuming the climate treaty is able to stabilize CO2 emissions at 450 ppm by that date.

The final Montreal Protocol negotiations are scheduled for Nov. 4-8 in Egypt.

The Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a non-profit group that promotes sustainable societies and protection of the environment, says the Montreal Protocol’s 2007 decision to accelerate phasing out production and consumption of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) is contributing to the rapid growth in HFCs, which are being used as replacements for HCFCs. HCFCs cause both ozone destruction and climate warming.

“U.S. action on HFCs presents the biggest near-term climate victory now available,” Durwood Zaelke, president of the IGSD, said in a statement. “Phasing down HFCs under the Montreal Protocol would provide mandatory climate mitigation by China, India, and other developing countries,” as well as the U.S. and other developed countries. “But until the U.S. leads the fight on HFCs they won’t have the moral or political standing to compel global action.”

IGSD says the preliminary position of India and China starts is counter to that of the low-lying islands, even though both countries are already feeling impacts of climate change, including loss of snow and ice in the Hindu-Kush-Himalaya-Tibetan Plateau, which provides dry-season flow for virtually all of the major rivers of Asia. IGSD says India and China have reaped large profits from selling emissions of HFC-23 for climate credits in Europe.

The Europeans’ preliminary position is to defer the HFC issue so they can discuss it first as part of the climate negotiations, which are expected to conclude at the earliest in December 2009, though many observers believe they will drag on well into 2010.

At the moment, no treaty regulates the upstream production and consumption of HFCs. Downstream emissions of HFCs are included as one of the 6 tradable gases in the Kyoto Protocol basket.

The island proposal, submitted jointly by Mauritius and Micronesia, attempts to reconcile the ozone and climate treaties by having the Montreal Protocol phase down HFC production and consumption, just as it has done for 96 other dangerous ozone-depleting substances, which it has phased out. The climate benefit from the Montreal Protocol is 5 to 6 times greater than the Kyoto Protocol is seeking. The Montreal Protocol’s experience and history of success makes it the appropriate framework for reducing HFCs.

Eight other island States just joined the FSM-Mauritius proposal as formal co-sponsors: the Seychelles, Kiribati, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Comoros, Madagascar, and Palau. South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, also supported continuing discussions of the issues raised by FSM and Mauritius.

“Getting a decision to phase down these gases this year will be a key indicator of success that we are committed to doing everything in our power to slow global warming and sea-level rise,” Sateeaved Seebaluck, lead delegate from Mauritius, said in a statement. “The Parties signaled a willingness to expand the role of the Montreal Protocol to tackle this problem that is, partly, of its own doing. We need to use the time leading up to the final negotiating session in November to resolve certain details.”

“Without immediate HFC reductions, we may win the battle against CO2, but lose the climate war,” said Zaelke. “With tipping points for catastrophic climate changes just around the corner, we need fast action on HFCs under the Montreal Protocol—a treaty that never fails.”

“This is not only an issue for islands, but all countries, including those with low-lying coastal areas or facing desertification and diminishing water supplies,” Tony Oposa, lead delegate of Micronesia, said in a statement. “I hope that future generations will be able to look back at our efforts on HFCs and see that we were up to the task, that we were serious about using all tools available to combat climate change.”

“The islands have the heart in this battle, but they’ll need the muscle of the U.S. to win,” Zaelke added. “Success on HFCs in November would be a shot in the arm for the climate negotiations.”

In addition to phasing down HFCs, the islands propose addressing emissions from the “banks” of refrigerants and other ozone- and climate-damaging gases in discarded products and equipment, such as refrigerators and air conditioners. These emissions from landfills could cancel the climate mitigation under the Kyoto Protocol unless quickly addressed under the Montreal Protocol.

Greenpeace followed up the release this week of its latest Carting Away the Oceans scorecard with a friendly and fishy demonstration outside Trader Joe’s stores in San Francisco.

Greenpeace members, two of whom dressed as orange roughy and others who parodied Trader’s by wearing Hawaiian shirts mimicking the store’s trademark uniform, handed out information on why its important to select and buy seafood that can be replenished and also asked prospective customers to sign petition postcards to privately held grocery company.

California-based Trader Joes is a grocery with more than 300 stores that caters to people looking for natural and organic and specialty items at reasonable prices. It prides itself on selling “unconventional and interesting products.” But Greenpeace has ranked the store dead last among national grocery chains for its conventional approach to selling seafood, specifically its lack of attention to seafood sustainability. The advocacy group says Trader Joes (which ranked #17 on the seafood scorecard) has no apparent plant to assure it is buying reputably fished and farmed seafood and sells “Red Listed” fish that are endangered by overfishing or habitat loss.

Orange roughy are on Greenpeace’s Red List, which includes several jeopardized fish that marine experts have identified as needing time to recover from over-harvesting and whose populations are at risk of collapsing.

Trader Joe’s has not replied to a query for response.

To keep the heat up on the chain, Greenpeace also opened a website, called “Traitor Joe’s” where a cartoon pirate welcomes people to his “one stop shop for ocean destruction.” The site further explains Greenpeace’s seafood campaign.

Greenpeace is urging consumers to buy from stores that are trying to minimize their impact on the oceans by selling sustainably farmed or caught fish. It’s new rankings released this week commended Wegman’s, Ahold USA, Whole Foods and Target for doing the best job to maintain an eco-friendly seafood counter. Safeway, Harris Teeter and Wal-Mart also received acceptable marks. But Greenpeace listed nine grocery chains, national and some regional, as doing little to help save the oceans and urged consumers to not buy seafood from those retailers. (Trader Joe’s was last among national chains, with three regional chains ranking lowest on the 20 store list.) For more details on Trader Joe’s response to Greenpeace’s seafood campaign, see the listings on the seafood scorecard.

The company responded to Greenpeace’s query for information on its seafood practices by saying its policy is guided by “listening to its customers” but declining to give any more information, according to Greenpeace’s report card. Greenpeace concludes in its report that the chain is not affiliated with any conservation groups, has no discernible seafood policy to reduce environmental harm and in addition, that signs posted in some of its stores suggesting that its seafood is environmentally friendly appear to be mere marketing ploys.

The company’s stated reliance on customer input helped shape Greenpeace’s decision to have Trader Joe’s customers sign petition postcards asking for strong seafood policies, a spokeswoman explained.

(Photo credit: Greenpeace, San Francisco.)

In 1986, the International Whaling Commission banned the catching and killing of whales for commercial purposes worldwide. Whale populations — such as the North Pacific gray and the North Atlantic right whale — were threatened because of centuries of unrestricted hunting.

That ban is still in effect, with two exceptions: aboriginal peoples whose survival depends on whaling (Alaska, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, Denmark and the Russian Federation) and whaling for scientific purposes.

Citing “scientific” work, in the last year Japan killed about 1,000 whales, and estimates run from 12,000 to more than 23,000 killed since ‘86.

Iceland and Norway have simply refused to comply with the ban, and last year they, too, killed hundreds of whales.

The 61st meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), made up of 85 representatives, took place last week on the Portuguese island of Maderia. To the frustration of many, the commission made no progress on addressing the three countries’ ongoing killing of whales for what conservationists say is strictly commercial purposes.

On the IWC meeting web pages, numerous reports and summaries of the recent gathering are available. One report spelled out the number and species of whales killed globally in the last year. The parsing of much of the data-filled information varies according to who is reading it.

Australia is most outspoken in its opposition to Japan’s whaling, especially in the Southern Pacific whaling sanctuary. Australia’s conservationist-minded representatives have reportedly threatened to take Japan to international court for its killing of whales.

The majority of whales being killed are smaller Minke whales, which are not endangered or threatened. Iceland and Norway have publicly stated that their commercial whaling is an issue of national sovereignty and that they are whaling in a “sustainable” way, catching a species that is plentiful. The IWC lists population estimates of each species of whale.

Japan’s chief representative at the meeting, Akira Nakamae, reportedly defended his nation’s position, saying that whaling can be done in a “sustainable manner.”

But Humane Society International representatives at the IWC meeting called for an end to any legalized killing of whales. Although they lauded the IWC for passing a resolution concerning the effect of climate and environmental changes on the whale and dolphin populations, they decry Japan’s use of the “scientific” loophole to commercially kill whales. Their “Save Whales – Not Whaling” report contains more details.

Greenpeace made an opening statement at the meeting in Madeira, calling for the IWC to become a conservationist group and stop attempting to “manage whales for the benefit of the whaling industry.”

Though they had much criticism for the IWC, Greenpeace did laud a report introduced during the meeting that detailed the booming business of whale watching around the world.

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society also called for the IWC to stop the taking of humpback whales in Greenland (by Denmark). The World Wildlife Federation reports that 13 whale species are still endangered or vulnerable, even after the years of IWC protection. The Pew Whale Conservation Project also took the IWC to task for making little progress in protecting whales.

PHOTOS: From top (Japanese whaling ship) Greenpeace.org.uk ; Whale Adoption ; Whale Adoption

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

When you fish for seafood at your local grocery, it can be difficult to tell whether you are supporting sustainable fishing practices.

Was the snapper you selected caught using legal, sustainable fishing practices? Should you even be buying it? Is the Chilean Sea Bass you just purchased on the “Red List” of jeopardized marine species? Does the grocery you’re patronizing buy seafood certified by the Marine Stewardship Council?

Greenpeace is trying to help you sort it all out – and assure that groceries do not ignore the need to keep our oceans and fisheries healthy.

The worldwide conservation group published its third “Carting Away the Oceans” scorecard on Tuesday, outing several grocery chains that flout efforts to support sustainable seafood methods and lauding the stores that are helping conservationists.

The group is calling on customers to stop shopping for seafood at the lowest ranked stores, which have made little or no effort to support ocean ecosystems by selling sustainble seafood, including such large chains as Costco, Publix and Trader Joes.

The scorecard assessed and ranked the top 20 U.S. grocery chains on their green seafood credentials, giving top marks to Wegmans, Ahold USA, Whole Foods, Target, Safeway, Harris Teeter and Wal-Mart. These stores have all made strides toward responsible seafood buying and selling, though they may be innovating in different ways, Greenpeace reported.

Wegman’s, which was ranked number one on the list, for instance, has created a public sustainable seafood policy and supports a variety of initiatives aimed at supporting practices that preserve ocean ecosystems. The New York-based chain’s seafood policy dictates that wild-caught fish be properly reported and that capture methods meet certain standards; the store also buys from aquaculture groups that aim to avoid using pesticides, antibiotics and wild fish as feed. It actively seeks out items that have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council and has removed several red list seafood species, though not all, from its inventory.

Privately owned Wegman’s, which operates 70 stores in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, provides in-store information to educate customers about seafood sustainability.

Ahold, listed number two on the Greenpeace list, operates as Stop & Shop, Giant and Martin’s Food Markets and is owned by Royal Ahold of the Netherlands. It deserves good marks for developing the “Choice Catch” program under which it avoids buying illegally caught seafood and takes ecological impacts into account, Greenpeace reported.

Ahold also gives preference to farmed seafood that is pesticide and antibiotic-free, but could do a better job of in-store education, according to the score card. Ahold has announced they will no longer sell Chilean sea bass, orange roughy and shark (they already have stopped sales of bluefin tuna and Atlantic halibut) but still sell other jeopardized seafood, the report said.

Whole Foods and Target (third and fourth on the Greenpeace list) also have worked to eliminate many unsustainable items from their inventory, though fast-growing Whole Foods, which previously ranked number one on Greenpeace’s seafood score card, continues to offer “a tremendous amount of red list seafood options.”

An ocean advocate who has been working to protect coral systems in Florida for three decades and developed a reef-friendly anchor and mooring buoys was honored for his work on World Oceans Day.

John Halas, a marine biologist, received Oceana’s first Ocean Heroes Award, which was created to honor people making a difference in helping preserve the oceans. He was selected from among nearly 500 nominees. Oceana experts chose a list of eight finalists and online members voted for the final winners in May.

In the early 1980s, Halas saw the damage done to reefs by anchors and developed a more environmentally friendly anchor and mooring buoy system. He’s since worked to export this anchorage system to 38 countries.

The reef mooring systems allow boats to anchor without dropping a traditional heavy metal anchor to the ocean floor, potentially damaging fragile coral reefs.

“My work is something I have felt strongly about and it is really a great honor to receive this acknowledgement,” said Halas, manager of the Upper Region of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

Second and third places in the contest went to New Jersey-based Bob Schoelkopf for his work rescuing and rehabilitating seals, dolphins and sea turtles at the Marine Mammal Stranding Center and to Andy Dehart, a shark expert at the National Aquarium in Washington D.C. who helps educate the public on the role the shark plays in ecosystems.