But they really are things I do very much at the hobby level and very much without any real commitment. And it is that lack of real commitment that I’m starting to question. I have decided that I’d like to try my hand at becoming really good at one of my artistic endeavors, and I’ve decided to focus on photography. The reason music is out is pretty obvious to me — I’m past 40 and the hundreds of thousands of hours of practice time that are required to become a very good musician just aren’t available to me anymore. That leaves painting and photography. Both are visual arts and are very similar in many respects. Photography is painting with light, as someone once said. 

Now, between the two, photography is the one that requires the least retraining of things I’ve forgotten. I dabble around in photoshop enough to know how to the things that will be required of me. I spend enough time taking pictures to remember how the camera works. Whereas with painting I would have to spend considerable time re-learning how to get the effects with a brush that I am looking for. Moreover, photography is just less messy and doesn’t require i set aside a portion of my too small house for my stuff (at least not yet.).

So here we go, I’m off on a photography journey! I have a few goals to get me started:

1) Post at least one picture a day onto photo.net for critque

2) Take a “photowalk” once per month 

3) Read a photography book a month

4) Join a photography club and meet people and make connections

5) Obtain at least 6 paid photography gigs

6). Build a business plan for a part-time business in 2012.

The question not being addressed though is what is the impact to the ocean environments? The oceans are in many ways the most fragile of ecosystems. It must be realized that the power inherent in a wave is the mechanical force the wave is carrying. But that force has an existing role to play in the environment. When we pull the energy out of the wave, we are having a large effect on the environment. We have no idea what those effects will be.

These studies are fantastic. We need this kind of innovative and forward looking research. But we must also contend with the reality that the purpose of alternative energy sources is not merely another revenue stream, another source of jobs, or the elimination of carbon emissions. Those are all important considerations, but ultimately the goal is to have a means of energy production that does not harm the environment.

And that goal is likely not achievable, because changing one form of energy into another will come at some cost. We have to know as many of those costs as possible, and make our choices from a position of knowledge. And ultimately, we will likely have to face the fact that no choice, other than choosing to not use as much energy, is really entirely palatable.

When talking about CO₂ being put into the ocean, the most promising idea seems to be iron seeding.At first the research seems like a god-send:

Projections from this experiment indicate that if the polar oceans were completely seeded in such a fashion, atmospheric CO2 would decrease by about 10%. This would substantially mitigate the greenhouse effect caused by CO2. Such plankton growth has other benefits as well. One potential benefit may be that the increase in plankton would lead to an increase in the populations of other ocean fauna, such as whales and dolphins, that feed on plankton. Another benefit, again, is that it is relatively inexpensive. A continual iron-seeding program would cost only about $10 billion a year. Yet another benefit is that plankton growth stops about a week after seeding, so if the plankton were determined to have a detrimental effect, the effort could be quickly disbanded.

And while the National Academy of Sciences puts the cost of running a large scale program at as much as $110 billion a year, the vast majority of which could be reclaimed by selling part of what would be larger fish harvests (due to the increased food supply) as well as placing carbon taxes on carbon based fuels.

But when we look deeper, it is realized that which planktons grow in iron rich waters matters. Pseudo-nitzchia produce toxins that damages marine mammals, sea birds, and humans who eat shellfish. These toxins would mean that fisheries could not be located in the areas where seeding occurs. Which of course increases the cost of seeding as not only could we not sell off portions of the increased fish catch, but we would have the economic loss of not fishing there at all. Responsible scientists are telling us to put on the brakes, at least as this applies to a long term solution:

But as far as an effective mechanism to mitigate climatic change — we as oceanographers cannot support such large-scale commercial efforts since we have virtually no knowledge of how they will impact natural marine ecosystems in the long-term.

Still that has not stopped the idea from being one of the favorite ideas of politicians and corporations hoping to profit off of the new economic opportunities.

Other companies are going forward with clean energy solutions to try to appease the dual public demand for energy an environmentally friendly solutions. Ocean Power Technologies, trying to help the military comply with Executive Order 13423, which requires every federal agency to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has started deploying wave power generators. This is again a seemingly fantastic idea. But the impacts are still relatively unknown and potentially disastrous. While only about 1/5th of the power waves can be captured with current technology, that may still be enough to cause serious environmental impacts on existing ecosystems. Some impacts maybe quite good, such as having artificial reefs being created by the anchoring systems required for wave farms. But the impact of reduced wave power is completely unknown.

Each new idea bring promise, but also potential negatives, some of which are quite severe. Ultimately the real answer to the environmental impact of energy production is to reduce the need for energy production. But we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. Even given the huge amount of evidence to the dangers of global warming, energy demand continues to escalate.

Our problem is not a lack of renewable energies. Our problem is a selfish desire for the industrialized world to continue in our current life style, and the equally damaging desire for the less industrialized nations to achieve the same level of comfort in their lives. The solution we need is to find a way to not only significantly reduce our energy needs, but also to better distribute that energy to the world. Those of us lucky enough to live in more developed nations must come to grips with the need to reduce the energy demands in our lives significantly, not only to help stop global warming, but also to help our neighbors achieve some level of equity with us in their lives.

But it’s also good to be reminded that the Navy also serve as the good guys. The Navy started serious study in oceanography in the later part of WWII in a small office as part of the Hydrographic Office, a unit that was created in 1854 and who’s mission centered around mapping waterways, predicting tides, current drift effects on floating objects like mines and mouing lines and addressing concerns related to shipping. But the small sub-unit focusing on oceanography soon included research into photo luminescent planktons, animal causes of ambient marine noise, kelp growth, microbial marine animals, and it kept expanding. By the 1960′s, oceanography was so much the center of the entire unit’s mission that the Hydrographic Office was renamed the Naval Oceanographic Office. It is the largest sub-command under the Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command, the good folks who bring us the Naval Observatory.

While the unit is still primarily focused on the impact of oceanographic phenomena on naval operations, they still do a lot of good work that relates to environmental research, including providing data and satellite imagery about sea temperature changes, climatology and anomalies, and providing that data to researchers around the globe.

They also have a fascinating history involving the integration and acceptance of female officer and sailors into the Navy in command roles.

So the next time we get upset about the use of active sonar in unnecessary training activities, we should also remember that this same group is doing some really important work that directly supports oceanography and environmentalists as well.

The report works from the perspective of achieving the 350 ppm CO₂. This value comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri, James Hansen from NASA and many other prominent scientists who contend that the value must be achieved by 2100 for a sustainable future. Currently our atmosphere holds 385 ppm CO₂.

Hansen has contended that the big ticket items that will be necessary to drive this level of reduction include:

• Coal burning is phased out or achieves 100 percent carbon capture by 2030. Oil and gas prices rise steadily as these finite resources approach exhaustion.
• A combination of ending deforestation and initiating large-scale reforestation causes significant
• negative emissions (that is, a withdrawal of CO from the atmosphere)

The E3 paper considers other options that can drive us towards negative carbon growth. Reforestation, biochar, and CSS (carbon capture and storage) and comes to the conclusion that this is achievable at a cost of between 1 and 3 percent of the world’s GDP. Importantly, such an expense will not be destructive to our economy, and may well be off-set by growth sector opportunities driven by the development of additional negative carbon technologies.

1. A national policy that ensures the protection, maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, enhances the sustainability of ocean and coastal economies, preserves our maritime heritage, provides for adaptive management to enhance our understanding of and capacity to respond to climate change, and is coordinated with policy interests.
2. A United States framework for policy coordination of efforts to improve stewardship of the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes.
3. An implementation strategy that identifies and prioritizes a set of objectives the United States should pursue to meet the objectives of a national policy for the oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes. 

Based on their initial report, the task force is then charged to “develop, with appropriate public input, a recommended framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning.” One key element of the memorandum is that the policy framework should be ” . . . a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-based approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user conflict, and sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources . . . “

This is a real opportunity for scuba divers to help shape policy that effects our coastal waters, and thus our diving enjoyment.

Thursday, the only east-coast public meeting on President Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force’s Interim Report was held in Providence. While it is rather difficult to address concerns and present comments in public forums, comments can be submitted on-line.
Technorati Tags: politics, environment, ecology, ocean, scuba

Mariculture, which is the raising of animals and plants in the open ocean for commercial use, is a growing business. Mariculture may introduce invasive species, and it is obvious that this is the corporate pressure under which California is folding. The negatives of mariculture are numerous, and include reduction of biodiversity,  degradation of habitat, transmission of disease, and reduction of genetic variability.

Invasive species present a real environmental threat to marine ecosystems. While the degree of threat from any species is very hard to predict, some impacts have been devastating. Situations such as those presented by zebra muscles, Sea Squirt and other species should serve as more than adequate warning. Both California and NOAA should be very ashamed of themselves.

For a contrary view: Alien Invasion? An Ecologist Doubts the Impact of Exotic Species Technorati Tags: noaa, environment, california

This is a huge step forward for activists interested in protecting the oceans from the acidification caused by CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but also from the impacts of other gases such as methane.

The EPA is agreeing to take public comments on ocean acidity and ways the states can determine if coastal waters are being negatively effected.  There should be a notice in the Federal Register next week, and requires a final decision with regard to how to proceed by Nov. 15th.

Following on prior moves by the EPA to list CO₂ and Methane as greenhouse gases, this provides the government with some powerful tools. Now if we can only get the government to use them!

Technorati Tags: ocean, oceans, environment, epa, legal