Global warming exhibit at Monterey Bay Aquarium
Image: Courtesy of Tom Clifton on Flickr
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
SAN FRANCISCO—The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) here has filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that calls on the EPA to override lax water quality standards in 15 coastal states and territories. Requiring those states to meet or exceed minimum federal standards intended to limit the amount of acidification that can occur in coastal waters would in effect force the states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As CO2 in the atmosphere accumulates, more is absorbed by the ocean, which feeds chemical reactions that are making seawater increasingly acidic.
The EPA has the authority to regulate standards for ocean acidification as part of its work under the Clean Water Act to preserve water quality. EPA has said that the pH of ocean water should not vary by more than 0.2 units from its natural state as a result of human influences. The pH scale runs from 0 (highly acidic) to 14 (highly basic); 7 is neutral. Many ocean waters hover around 8.2 or 8.1, although the value varies along U.S. coasts and can vary season to season in a given location. The scale is logarithmic, so a 0.1 decline corresponds to a 30 percent increase in acidity, according to the CBD. New evidence from around the world indicates that even small relative changes in pH can cripple the ability of marine organisms of many sizes to form the skeletons or shells needed for life.
States are responsible for water quality out to three miles (4.8 kilometers) from shore. The EPA is responsible for quality out to 200 miles (320 kilometers), the limit of national waters. Most states have standards for acidity, but many are outdated and do not reflect current science, says Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the CBD.
Some state rules allow a 0.5 or 1.0 deviation from "normal" values. Other states simply allow the pH to vary from 6.5 to 8.5 or even 6.0 to 9.0—levels that would wipe out most microscopic organisms and shellfish in the ocean, in the process destroying the food chain that fish and marine mammals depend on. Some states do not even have a way to systematically measure the pH levels in their waters. Part of the CBD's motivation in filing the petition is to "get to a point where we have better monitoring and good assessment," Sakashita says.
Indeed, she adds, the petition's intent is to prompt states and the EPA to create a robust monitoring system and to devise more rigorous standards in light of all the new science. "Ideally, EPA would create a nationwide plan," she says. In the meantime, she notes, "the action could help reduce CO2 emissions from some of our states that are the biggest emitters." The Clean Water Act requires states to identify all sources of emissions and determine how much they are contributing to the state's overall output.
States may object on the grounds that atmospheric CO2 comes from states and countries everywhere. But Sakashita notes that the same argument holds true for mercury emissions, and for pollution that causes acid rain—and that state and federal regulations have been successfully brought to bear on both those issues through the Clean Water Act.
The 15 states and U.S. territories targeted by the petition are: Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii as well as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. By law, the EPA must grant or deny the petition, which Sakashita expects to happen within a year. Her organization is also talking with individual states to see if they might act on their own. Washington State, for example, has already said it would review pH monitoring and standards as part of its regular environmental work.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentYou are wasting your time and money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, the "natural state" of ocean acidity assumes that it can't vary over time, with undersea vents created when tectonic plates move that spew chemical soup (or even above-ground volcanoes). Secondly, oceans are a global problem that we cannot solve locally given the reality of tides and ocean currents. Thirdly, the amount of human pollution activity relative to the size of the ocean casts doubt on the predictability of human activity causing acidity.
The only thing that is going to result from these efforts is that citizens pay more for their electricity, in addition to arguments for higher taxes to fund earmarks that promote green businesses that may just end up failing.
And every word of that was reactionary propaganda. Ocean acidification is a direct result of human pollution (nitric acid from coal-fired power plants, CO2 (which reacts with water to become carbonic acid) from fossil fuels, etc.). Do some research before proclaiming yourself an expert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@vapur, how appropriate your handle is...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI assume you believe that we should just ignore the ravaging of the natural environment and pretend it is all just fine and dandy, eh? Throw up your little hands and go on about your massively wasteful lifestyle?
Pardon my disgust...
The concept of ocean acidification being a potential great harm linked to human released CO2 is scientifically unsound.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe normal PH level in the ocean varies more over the course of a few days more than it would theoretically in years due to increased atmospheric CO2. Ocean life has been adapting to variances in the PH level of the ocean since time began and the amount the ocean may become more basic as a result of CO2 is not important at all.
There are many other ways that humans are damaging our oceans by dumping vast quantities of waste and chemicals into the ocean as well as uncontrolled fishing with vast nets. I ask that people try to understand the actual science before supporting something as a dire concern.
Unfortunately-this seems to no longer be a site for science, only propaganda
That's not true. All the facts and data suggest otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to be the trend to say what you want people to believe, so that narcissistic people can feel good about dishonest profits at the expense of the hard working people and the environment.
Lack of commonsense is most times lazy thinking trait, but avoiding the truth based on facts. What does that say about you as a quality person?
"""The concept of ocean acidification being a potential great harm linked to human released CO2 is scientifically unsound. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow?
"""The normal PH level in the ocean varies more over the course of a few days more than it would theoretically in years due to increased atmospheric CO2. """
Lie.
"""Ocean life has been adapting to variances in the PH level of the ocean since time began and the amount the ocean may become more basic as a result of CO2 is not important at all. """
It's more ACIDIC, and the sheer speed is more problematic than the amount.
"""There are many other ways that humans are damaging our oceans by dumping vast quantities of waste and chemicals into the ocean as well as uncontrolled fishing with vast nets. I ask that people try to understand the actual science before supporting something as a dire concern. """
Please practice what you preach, then. Please understand the actual science before you post.
"""Unfortunately-this seems to no longer be a site for science, only propaganda """
Like you're not just spouting right-wing propo.
The US economy would benefit from a modest carbon price like BC has today ($30/tCO2). A carbon price at that level would cause around half of USA coal burning to be replaced quickly with cleaner alternatives according to US EIA modelling. We could easily cut our CO2 dramatically while growing our economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBC economy has been the strongest economy in Canada since the carbon tax started. The reason is that the revenue goes to lowering income taxes. So BC now has the lowest tax burden on labor in Canada. The cheaper labor is helping biz much more than the slightly higher carbon prices are costing biz.
Canada government agency just showed that the rest of Canada is losing billions a year because it doesn't have a carbon price. Lack of carbon price is causing capital to be spent on things that will be stranded...and making future low-carbon alternatives much harder to create in time. The low-carbon economy is fastest growing sector and economies without a carbon price signal are ceding this territory to other economies.
Most normal healthy people can see the everyday problems pollution is causing for everyone...almost everywhere you look...we can clean something up. It does not have to cost huge amounts of money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the name vapur have anything to do with the thinking behind your comments? Is that it?
Make it $60/ton and it's perfect; thirty bucks isn't really enough, in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget, though, that this is America, the land of freedom and Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin the Magic Vagina Guy. Mentioning carbon taxes is political Kryptonite.
Well, I don't know if $30 is enough, you're probably right it isn't in the long run. OTOH it might not be a bad starting point. Once people see that the big hairy bugaboo is nothing more than rational market reform then we can far more easily have the discussions about whether we need to raise or lower the rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's hope. I tend not to have much faith in humanity, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSend the EPA inspectors to order the deep sea volcanic vents from spewing sulphur into the water forming acidic compounds H2SO4 . . Cease and desist mother earth you are polluting and face a fine of $ 3 million per day. Oh no the earth is creating pollution in the oceans down the entire plate structure lines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWE humans are doomed . .
Sisko said, "The normal PH level in the ocean varies more over the course of a few days more than it would theoretically in years due to increased atmospheric CO2."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne could also say that local temperature varies more in a few hours than it would theoretically in decades due to increased atmospheric CO2.
Exactly, this is also only true in a few restricted areas. In many other areas this is not true. As you say, it is not really relevant anyway. Nobody is claiming a lower pH is going to kill anything straight off. Of course a fish or whatever can handle a variation in pH, but that doesn't mean it can handle a permanent CHANGE in pH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHonestly, just go talk to anyone that has salt water aquaria, they can tell you ALL about, pH change of 0.1 isn't a catastrophe, but 0.3 is "fish go byebye".
It's a start and one that has taken too long.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLow pH levels off Washington State have been making an economic impact for nearly a decade now with the oyster larvae and spat being killed since at least 2005, and probably longer. This will impact not only oysters but mussels, snails, and many animals which prey upon these molluscs as well.
The pH isn't the only factor as pathogenic bacteria have become prevalent along with the seawater change as well. This causes problems with adult populations as it helps to kill off larvae. Kill off the food chain and the whole ecology dies.
I heard reports from oysters framers in Louisiana that new spat have not been found in many seed beds for several years now. At first it was attributed to Katrina, Rita, the BP Oil Spill and diluent used to disperse the oil but there may be other problems associated with pH. Hopefully, it's the spill which would make it a short term problem. Many of the other fisheries have begun to rebound.
I wish that republicans would realize that protecting the environment and conserving our limited valuable resources, like seafood and fossil fuels, is in fact being conservative. Racing to consume as much of our fossil fuels as humanly possible, i.e. the current drill baby drill republican attitude, is the opposite of being conservative. Also, in some states solar panel leasing is actually cheaper than paying the power company, and offers more certainty for future energy cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, but oil is more macho, and the Republican base is not intelligent enough/to set-in-their-ways to accept facts like that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this**** YAWN.....*****
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill you leave, troll? Or do I need to report you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs anyone noticed the extremely low level of discourse in these comments when the article is about the climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI note that the same 4 or 5 posters come in every time and post the same tripe over and over. In every single case their claims are the same tired horses that have been utterly refuted in the real world. Yet they will just ride them back in again tomorrow and damn the rotting stink.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere really is no rational discussion you can have with someone who will steadfastly tell you that the Emperor is clothed when you can see his bare naked ass with your own 2 eyes. I'd love to have an intelligent discussion, now and then it even happens, but to a large extent you're talking and the other side is just making noise.