A federal plan to tackle ocean acidification must focus more on how the changes will affect people and the economy, according to a review of the effort by a panel of the National Research Council.

"Social issues clearly can't drive everything but when it's possible they should," said George Somero, chair of the committee that wrote the report and associate director at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station. "If you're setting up a monitoring station, it should be where there's a shellfish industry, for example."

Acidification is one of the larger problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions, as oceans serve as a giant sponge for carbon dioxide. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater, water chemistry changes and acidity increases. More acidic seawater can hurt ocean creatures, especially corals and shellfish, because it prevents them from properly developing their skeletons and shells. Shrinking coral reefs could dent eco-tourism revenue in some coastal areas. It also could trigger a decline in fish populations dependent on those reefs.

Decreasing shellfish populations would harm the entire ocean food chain, researchers say, particularly affecting people who get their protein or paycheck from the sea. Globally, fish represent about 6 percent of the protein people eat. 

The acidification blueprint was drafted by nine federal agencies in March 2012. It establishes guidelines for federal research, monitoring and mitigation of ocean acidification. In reviewing the plan, the research council, which advises the government on science policy, recommended that federal research and action be focused on issues with human and economic consequences. 

Pacific Northwest
The panel cited the Pacific Northwest as an economic example, where high acidity levels have hampered oyster hatcheries, worth about $270 million and 3,200 jobs to coastal communities there. It is unclear if ocean acidification is the culprit, but it could be a harbinger of things to come, according to the report.

In 2011, U.S. commercial fishers caught 10 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The panel also suggested the plan should have a clearer mission, prioritized goals and ways to measure progress.

"This plan would cost a lot of money so there needs to be priorities and ways to prove impact," Somero said. "The federal budget simply won't allow for everything that needs to be done."

In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, creating a federal program to deal with ocean acidification. 

Somero said the agencies will take the recommendations and "tune up" the plan.

Ocean acidification is an "emerging global problem," according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans, according to a 2010 study. Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research Council.

Ocean advocacy groups supported the panel's recommendations.

"Ocean acidification is one of the greatest threats to marine life and fisheries," said Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist at Oceana. "We are encouraged that the Council has suggested communicating this issue to policy makers and the public to increase awareness and hopefully lead to solutions."

Julia Roberson, a director at the Ocean Conservancy, said the original plan was a good first step and she hopes government will use the council's suggestions.

Amid recommendations, the panel also offered praise for the federal effort, saying the plan does "an excellent job of covering the breadth of current understanding of ocean acidification and the range of research that will be required to advance a broadly focused and effective National Ocean Acidification Program."

This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.

11 Comments

1. 1. sault 12:34 PM 1/11/13

   While the dangers of climate change, pollution and chemistry changes like Ocean Acidification have been well-known to scientists for decades, the general public has not kept up. This is partly because environmental damages and their associated costs have not been clearly communicated to them in human terms like this article states.
   
   Another factor is the massive fossil fuel misinformation machine, pouring millions of dollars into "think" tanks, politicians' campaign coffers and buying tons of misleading ads that also serve to deter the media outlets that sell these ads from covering climate change in an objective manner.
   
   The U.S. alone consumes around $2B in oil PER DAY. Coal and natural gas consumption is also a HUGE business and all these companies have an ENORMOUS incentive to keep that gravy train running. Delaying the day when people wake up and start making these companies clean up their mess has one of the highest returns on investment imaginable.
   
   The pollution from just coal power in the USA alone causes between $100B and $500B in annual damages (healthcare costs, worker productivity, property damage, premature death, etc.). Making this industry account for these damages via a carbon tax and sensible pollution regulation can provide huge benefits for the American People. The historical return on investment to the entire US economy for compliance costs with environmental regulation has been between 15-to-1 and 30-to-1. Since the fossil fuel companies pay for the compliance costs and EVERYBODY benefits, they won't do the right thing unless forced. Better public communication on environmental dangers like Ocean Acidification will prevent their strategy of deny, delay and attack the science from working as well as it has previously.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Sisko 02:44 PM 1/11/13

   Sault—You are quite funny.
   
   You write about the massive fossil fuel misinformation machine. Do you have ANY evidence to support this claim? Is there somewhere or someone I can write to in order to get a check?
   
   Can you please explain how ocean acidification is such a major concern? Isn’t it true that the PH level at any specific point in the ocean varies more in a typical month naturally than it would change by due to ocean acidification in many years?
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. sault in reply to Sisko 04:05 PM 1/11/13

   I've heard this natural variability argument over and over again. You do realize that the lowering pH due to higher CO2 concentrations is SUPERIMPOSED over the natural variability, right? The higher carbonic acid concentration is like a "thumb on the scale", pushing pH levels consistently downward farther than they would normally go. You also know that the pH scale is nonlinear, right? And that organisms that can tolerate a 6.8 pH for short periods cannot necessarily tolerate a 6.5 pH for short periods and will experience stress from the consistently lower ocean pH, am I correct? If you didn't know these things, you need to do some research before you can try to contribute to this discussion.
   
   A good intro to Ocean Acidification and why it is a big problem can be found here:
   
   http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_1.html
   
   As for fossil fuel misinformation, look at the backers of astroturf groups like Americans For Prosperity or look who bankrolled disgraced scientist Willie Soon. It's harder to track now because of unlimited corporate spending on super PACs, but Exxon and Koch Industries are the usual suspects in funding climate denial. When "America's Oil and Natural Gas Producers" buys a big chunk of ads on the nightly news, are you surprised to find extremely poor reporting on climate change and other environmental issues?
   
   Regardless, changing the chemistry of the oceans and the atmosphere is dangerous. We have built our civilization using a set of climatic and resource assumptions. We are invalidating those assumptions with our pursuit of "cheap" fossil fuels and it will cost a lot more to redesign trillion$$$ in infrastructure than to start cleaning up our fossil fuel mess. The fact that we will save AT LEAST $100B annually in pollution damages JUST FROM PHASING OUT COAL can more than pay for the transition.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. G. Karst in reply to sault 02:56 PM 1/12/13

   "You also know that the pH scale is nonlinear, right?"
   
   Sault, you do know that while we use a logarithmic scale for pH notation convenience (reduces large number notation), the acid concentration, or H+ ion is completely linear... right. That seawater pH varies slightly naturally, it's stability is owed to that fact that it is the largest known buffered system, in the known universe. What you call a large pH change within it's own pH decade is miniscule on the full scale of measurement... at or below the ability of most instruments to detect.
   
   Ocean acidification is just another ideological backup plan, due to the dismal failure of the earth, to respond negatively to enhanced CO2 levels. What else are they going to do... admit they are wrong... and the whole CO2 issue is a scam??? NOT likely. GK

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. sault in reply to G. Karst 03:45 PM 1/12/13

   Higher carbonic acid concentrations make it harder for marine life to form shells. It also disrupts myriad biological processes, many of which we do not understand or even know exist, but may be vitally important to ocean ecosystems. How in the world can you so sure that nothing bad will happen?
   
   You call ocean acidification (OA) an "ideological backup plan" without a scrap of evidence to back it up. If I knew you were debating in good faith, I would show you DOZENS of scientific papers to the contrary. Since you dismiss the mountain of scientific proof showing that OA IS ALREADY AFFECTING aquatic life, along with your completely laughable denial of climate change in the face of all the climatic disruptions we've seen this year alone (record high temperatures, Sandy, record low arctic sea ice, year-to-year drought, etc.), I don't think ANY amount of proof will get you to reevaluate your belief system.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. dwbd in reply to sault 11:41 PM 1/12/13

   Sault, you ARE MR. Ocean Acidification, since you don't have even the remotest idea how to reduce CO2, SOx & NOx emissions and throw your full support behind those whose objective is to INCREASE fossil fuel consumption & emissions - like your buddies in the Green Party, Greenpeace, the WWF, the Sierra Club & the Union of Concerned non-Scientists. Just why is it that your poster boy, Green Party special, Germany has both one of the highest emissions in Europe as well as the highest power rates?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. G. Karst in reply to sault 01:04 PM 1/13/13

   Sault- I know this will come as a surprise and severe shock, but isolated severe weather events, do not a climate make. You can list storms and other weather events, ad infinitum, but unless you can show that a "Sandy" type storm is unusual, or happening on an ever increasing frequency, you are merely blowing smoke up everyone's derriere.
   
   As everyone knows, New York, is from time to time, hit by severe weather. As Gomer Pyle was fond of saying: Surprise Surprise.
   
   When you have a basic understanding of acid, base, and buffer solutions, get back to me and we can discuss ocean pH. In the meantime, reflect on how everything looks big under a microscope. GK

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Jürgen Hubert 05:25 AM 1/15/13

   Here is an article from Nature on ocean acidification:
   
   http://epic.awi.de/13479/1/Orr2005a.pdf
   
   Feel free to share any peer-reviewed papers discounting ocean acidification, if you know of any.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Jürgen Hubert in reply to dwbd 05:44 AM 1/15/13

   Regarding German CO2 production, German CO2 output has been declining steadily, apart from a slight bump in 2010 due to our government's rather hasty retreat from nuclear power:
   
   http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/76558/umfrage/entwicklung-der-treibhausgas-emissionen-in-deutschland/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. G. Karst in reply to Jürgen Hubert 01:47 PM 1/15/13

    Jurgen Hubert: The paper you cited is models all the way down. While this remains interesting, models for climate show no skill, as our understanding of OA and climate projections are dependent on our current unproven hypothesis.
    
    Here is one which reflects some real world properties.
    
    http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983&representation=PDF
    
    For those who just want the abstract:
    
    http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0028983.t001

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. dwbd in reply to Jürgen Hubert 07:55 PM 1/15/13

    Yeah, so. Most western nations have declining CO2 production due to the shift of heavy industry and CO2 intensive industries to Developing Nations. Include the embodied emissions in imported goods and then see whether emission are REALLY decreasing. Dieter Helm is one enviro critic who is adamant that embodied imported emissions MUST be counted to get a true appraisal of REAL emissions.
    
    And adding to the emissions decline in the West is more efficient autos, MUCH less people driving, driving less, and not buying autos. And more moving from suburban to urban environment. And the decline of the Middle Class as wealth is concentrated in the Global Super-Rich Elites. With 600,000 German families having their power disconnected because they can't afford the 2nd highest electricity prices in Europe has a lot to do with emissions decline.
    
    So in spite of all that Germany has the 2nd highest emissions per kwh of electricity produced in the EU, last data I've seen is 601 gms/kwh vs 83 gms/kwh for France. I would call that a pathetic failure for the 100's of $billions they've thrown down the sewer on "clean" Solar & Wind Electricity production. And, of course, not including the high embodied emissions from the Coal fired Solar PV factories in China, where most of their Solar comes from.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this