You’ve likely seen the story already:

A California businessman chartered a fishing boat in July, loaded it with 100 tons of iron dust and cruised through Pacific waters off western Canada, spewing his cargo into the sea in an ecological experiment that has outraged scientists and government officials.

Just *scientists and government officials*? In reality, all of us should be outraged, including you. Over the years, I’ve written quite a bit about the prospect of iron fertilization–a geoengineering strategy that involves dumping large amounts of iron into the ocean. Back in 2008, I described how a for-profit company called “Planktos”canceled its field tests due to a lack of funds–blaming a “highly effective disinformation campaign.”

Now the 62 year old so-called “chief executive” of that company, Russ George, has taken it upon himself to experiment with planet Earth. That’s not okay. Further, it’s not legal. You can read about his egregious and irresponsible behavior at the NYTimes, but I’d like to provide a bit more background on iron fertilization for readers.

The idea is relatively simple: In certain regions of the ocean, a lack of iron limits the growth of phytoplankton.  When dust containing iron settles onto these regions, plankton blooms occur which take up CO2 from the atmosphere. When the algae die, the carbon sinks, and can be stored for varying amounts of time.

As a founding member of ScienceDebate, I must politely disagree with Laura Helmuth’s well-circulated Slate piece entitled, “Romney Out-Debates Obama: How the GOP candidate schooled the president on science policy.” That’s a strong declaration, and from a scientific standpoint – an unfair assessment.

It’s true that many of Romney’s answers to the 14 science questions were longer in length than Obama’s. But both sets of responses were too highly variable to claim that anyone “schooled” anyone. Highlighting question 2 specifically, it’s clear that the GOP candidate has a lot to learn about a very critical global challenge:

Read all of their positions here…

A sad, but fascinating scientific report in the journal Nature describes the physiological and genetic damage observed in generations of butterflies following the collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. While it’s been difficult to study the biological impacts of the accident on animals, scientists have concluded that the pale grass blue Zizeeria maha (a common lycaenid butterfly in Japan) suffered increasingly severe abnormalities over time due to radioactive materials released into the environment.

Representative abnormalities of individuals that ingested contaminated leaves. From the top left to the right bottom, the panels show right antenna malformation (Iitate montane region), right palpus abnormality (Fukushima), dented left compound eye (Iitate flatland), eclosion failure (Fukushima), bent wings (Fukushima), additional bent wings (Hirono), aberrant wing colour patterns (Fukushima), and an ectopic black spot beside the discal spot (Iitate flatland; enlargement in the inset). Arrowheads indicate abnormal parts, and arrows indicate deformed wing spots. Scale bars for the top four panels indicate 1.0 mm, and those for the bottom four panels indicate 5.0 mm.

Although epigenetic effects cannot be entirely excluded, it is most likely that the abnormal phenotypes observed are produced by random mutations caused by the exposure to radiation. This outbreak of abnormal phenotypes in the Fukushima area is very different from the outbreak of wing colour-pattern changes previously observed at the northern range margins of this species, i.e., the Fukaura area, which is located approximately 400 km northwest of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. The Fukaura populations at the time of the outbreak were composed of temperature-shock types that exhibit distinct wing colour-pattern modifications but no other wing modifications or aberrations. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no malformations of appendages and other parts have been detected. In contrast, the outbreak in the Fukushima area includes various unexpected abnormal phenotypes. These abnormalities cannot be expressed within the range of phenotypic plasticity exhibited by normal populations. This information and the experimental data obtained in this study allow us to conclude that the present outbreak of abnormal individuals in the Fukushima area was caused by random genetic mutations in addition to physiological effects due to the artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ich NPP.

For those interested in heritable genetic damage due to low-dose radioaction exposure, this article is a must-read.

You are watching exclusive LIVE footage from Alaska’s Brooks River in Katmai National Park. Every year over a hundred Brown Bears descend on a mile long stretch of Brooks River to feast on the largest Sockeye Salmon run in the world.

via explore.org

Twelve years ago, I was an intern working with the American Museum of Natural History on marine protected areas. One afternoon, after reading mountains of articles that documented the declining state of fisheries and reefs, I naively proclaimed that ocean conservation must be the most depressing field in the world of science.

“Not at all,” countered my mentor. “It’s the freshwater scientists that have it the worst.” He was right.

At first this notion seems counterintuitive. Earth is covered in H2O, after all. Yet, in reality, only 2.5 percent of it is fresh and two-thirds of that happens to be frozen. So, sure, there’s water everywhere on this planet; but very little of it is actually available to use.

According to Jay Famiglietti, director of the University of California’s Center for Hydrologic Modeling, when it comes to the future of water, “we are, on many levels, completely and totally hosed.”

His is a very well informed opinion. Famiglietti has been tracking water availability around the world using NASA satellites for over 15 years. His team has not only documented changes in water on land, they’ve also discovered something deeply disturbing: the water cycle itself is changing.

As temperatures rise due to climate change, evaporation and precipitation have increased. This means that the atmosphere holds more water. Unfortunately, the condition is anticipated to lead to storms and floods of increased severity in some parts of the world, with prolonged and more intense droughts elsewhere.

“Extreme extremes,” says Famiglietti, which could lead togreater conflict over the scarce resource.

But is the looming water crisis “news?” Of course not. Long before satellites were tracking the problem, prior generations of scientists and policymakers realized water security was a big deal.

Over half-a-century ago, President John F. Kennedy challenged the United States to invest in desalination technology to “competitively—at a cheap rate—get fresh water from salt water.” He surmised that success would dwarf every other scientific accomplishment because it would bring men and women around the world out of poverty, while vastly improving human health.

That was 1961 and Kennedy’s plea for freshwater didn’t make the history books because we failed to follow through on it, unlike the seemingly outlandish challenge he made one month later. Most Americans do remember the call to put a man on the moon because it took less than a decade to make it happen. Water here on planet Earth never became a headlining priority.

That is one of many missed opportunities. Decades later, with more than 7 billion people milling about the planet, one-in-six do not have access to clean drinking water. According to theUnited Nations, this leads to over 1.5 million preventable deaths annually. Further, waterborne illnesses are associated with 80 percent of disease and mortality in the developing world. Many of the victims are children.

So, freshwater research can be depressing. The good news is that there is still much we can do about it.

Looking ahead, the most recent estimates project that Earth will host 10.1 billion people by 2100. This means more demand for a diminishing resource. So let’s get serious about finding ways to save more and waste less.

How? The solutions aren’t rocket science. What it will take is a dedicated effort across people and boundaries.

Considering that 70 percent of all freshwater used worldwide goes straight into agriculture, we should be focused on creating incentives for more efficient irrigation practices. That alone would have an enormous impact at home and worldwide. Concurrently, increased federal investment for research toward developing more drought tolerant plants has the potential to carry us even further. And, most importantly, we need policymakers to address the political and legal hurdles related to water regulation.

The benefits of better water conservation would ripple out. We’d not only save human lives globally, but less agricultural runoff means healthier oceans and coral reefs as well. In other words, marine biology would get a little less depressing too.

Back in 2007, I explained what I call “The Montgomery Burns” perspective on ocean decline:

“Keeping economics in mind, there’s arguably reason to question whether we should fret over the oceans’ dwindling and altered stocks. Human tastes are malleable, so we adapt to what industry supplies. For example, lobster and skate – traditionally the ‘poor fisherman’s dinner’ – are now featured at NYC’s finest restaurants. Thus, a boom in lower trophic level species creates newly emerging markets! When traditionally harvested species decline, there is tremendous opportunity to cash in by exploiting the next readily available critter. From Orange Roughy to algae…Why not allow every commercially viable animal possible its 15 minutes of fame? Hey, when life deals you jellyfish, make a salad! Garnish it with a fancy name, add a hefty price tag… Excellent!”

And now folks, as expected, life is dealing us jellyfish.

An article in the latest issue of the journal Hydrobiologia reports jellyfish are increasing in the majority of the world’s coastal ecosystems.

Jellyfish directly interfere with many human activities — by stinging swimmers, clogging intakes of power plants, and interfering with fishing. Some species of jellyfish are now a food source in some parts of the world.

No, it’s not news-worthy, but fisheries are going to hell in a handbasket.

Last week, I announced the release of the second wave of results from UT’s biannual Energy Poll. Now it’s possible to take a closer look at the findings (slides may take a moment to load)..

(You can read the details about methodology, FAQ, and more here).

The next release will be in October–and with all eyes on energy looking ahead to the upcoming presidential election–it should be a very interesting time to be talking about it.

Yesterday I found myself in an interesting conversation with a biologist regarding climate change. We were talking about how the loss of permafrost will be particularly devastating given the positive feedback loop that will lead to warmer temperatures. The subject was carbon emissions…

And that’s exactly where I was focused when I started seriously studying climate change. I was a graduate student at the University of Maine in the School of Marine Science interested in ocean acidification – the way all of our excess carbon is changing ocean pH and the marine environment in ways we cannot yet predict. (A topic that has yet to make a dent in the mainstream media, but soon we won’t be able to ignore as easily).

From there I moved into the political realm, working for Senator Bill Nelson on oceans, environment, and energy. It was the year of An Inconvenient Truth and emphasis was on whether cap and trade might pass. On the Hill, climate was inextricably linked to policy discussions that would ultimately fail, setting us back at least 10 years.

Next came Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment where climate is on everyone’s mind. I was part of The Pimm Group, which is interested in the conservation of biodiversity by saving forests. And since deforestation contributes tremendously to our GHG problem, reforestation would not only trap carbon, but also protect hotspots for threatened species.

Four years later I moved to UT’s Austin’s School of Engineering. Same topic, different language. Climate, after all, is really an energy conversation. Engineers are a more optimistic generally, but very practical as well. At The Webber Energy Group, we were focused on finding solutions through new technologies and more efficient practices.

Now I work at the McCombs School of Business as Director of UT’s Project on Energy Communication. It’s an initiative to understand public attitudes and perceptions of energy topics like hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone Pipeline, renewables, and more–which in turn, will be extremely useful in related policy discussions.

I don’t expect many people spend time in as many academic silos as I have–and with each step I’ve come to appreciate a different way of thinking about the same problem. The language, expertise, interests, and motivations change along the way, but they are all players in a much larger symphony that tells the story of, perhaps, the greatest global challenge we face: A changing planet.

I still have much to learn. But that’s just the point. We all do. So while it’s easy to barricade ourselves off from other compartmentalized departments by presuming we’re the ones who truly understand the arduous road ahead, that’s a losing strategy.

Instead, keep an open mind and talk to colleagues in other fields. You might begin to perceive your own questions in a myriad of new ways. And if we work hard at understanding each other – we might actually make progress.

This is a guest post by Neil Osborne about a terrific new program in Environmental Visual Communication at the Royal Ontario Museum. [Note from Sheril: Make sure to watch this stunning video.]

Solutions to long-term sustainability are not found solely in the realm of science. Environmental visual communication is an emerging field and its practitioners are key leaders who, through collaboration and deliverables, can build bridges between science and society. The ultimate goal is to motivate the public to care about and become active participants in saving our planet.

Positioned at the convergence of science and art, the Environmental Visual Communication program is designed to fill a recognized void of individuals who possess a blend of environmental science skills and the ability to effectively communicate to a variety of audiences.

Witness: Defining Conservation Photography Feature from Neil Ever Osborne.

With a focus on strategic messaging and technical savvy, you will learn to use photography, videography, multimedia and design principles to bridge environmental competencies with thoughtful communication through diverse media channels.

The program takes place in a truly unique learning environment – at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) in downtown Toronto.

Throughout the Environmental Visual Communication (EVC) program, you will learn how to identify strategies to inform and educate, garner engagement and support, and build and share campaigns to address conservation issues.

Equipped with hybrid skills and a sense of active environmental stewardship, graduates of this innovative, integrated, and applied program will be able to connect ideas among diverse groups and tell compelling stories with fluency.

Learn more about the program and register here.

Rising temperatures are bringing earlier migration patterns, according to a new study out of UNC Chapel Hill. Allen Hurlbert and Zhongfei Liang collected data using ebird–a citizen science program database containing 10 years’ worth of observations from amateur birdwatchers–which now includes over 48 million bird observations from about 35,000 contributors. By considering 18 species at various locations during migration, they concluded that on average, each reached various stopping points 0.8 days earlier per degree Celsius of temperature increase.

That may not sound like much, but as Hurlbert explains:

“Timing of bird migration is something critical for the overall health of bird species. They have to time it right so they can balance arriving on breeding grounds after there’s no longer a risk of severe winter conditions. If they get it wrong, they may die or may not produce as many young. A change in migration could begin to contribute to population decline, putting many species at risk for extinction.”

It’s an interesting analysis highlighting how little we know about the impacts of climate change. There are observable direct effects on behavior and survival, but it’s far more challenging to measure species interactions within the larger system.

Read the full article in PLoS ONE.