Last week there was a report published in the Journal of Science that stated that the number of these ocean dead zones around the world has doubled every decade since the 1960s.  There are now some 400 coastal areas that periodically or perpetually become dead due to oxygen starved bottom waters.

While the size of these dead zones is small relative to the total surface of the oceans, they account for a significant percentage of ocean waters that support commercial shellfish and fish species.  This is due to the fact that these zones occur in areas that have historically been prime fishing grounds since these grounds are close to dense human populations.

In recent years there have been consistent dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, the Baltic Sea, the coastal areas of China and even the Kattegat Sea where the Norwegian lobster industry has been decimated..  There is now a regular dead zone off the coast of the Pacific Northwest that was mentioned in the column two years ago.

The developing problem with these dead zones is that over time entire species are killed ...]]> It was two years ago that I first wrote about ocean dead zones. These are areas of the ocean that, due to a lack of oxygen, no longer sustain any life.  While dead zones can happen naturally, they usually are caused by the results of human activity.  A primary cause is nitrogen-rich nutrients from agricultural fertilizers that flow into coastal waters from rivers and streams.

Last week there was a report published in the Journal of Science that stated that the number of these ocean dead zones around the world has doubled every decade since the 1960s.  There are now some 400 coastal areas that periodically or perpetually become dead due to oxygen starved bottom waters.

While the size of these dead zones is small relative to the total surface of the oceans, they account for a significant percentage of ocean waters that support commercial shellfish and fish species.  This is due to the fact that these zones occur in areas that have historically been prime fishing grounds since these grounds are close to dense human populations.

In recent years there have been consistent dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, Chesapeake Bay, the Baltic Sea, the coastal areas of China and even the Kattegat Sea where the Norwegian lobster industry has been decimated..  There is now a regular dead zone off the coast of the Pacific Northwest that was mentioned in the column two years ago.

The developing problem with these dead zones is that over time entire species are killed off.  Additionally, they are preventing the rebound of many species that are under protection due to over fishing.  We have over fished the oceans and are now creating dead zones on the coasts of all continents.

We humans know that all life comes from the ocean.  That was where life first began on this glorious planet.  We have often referred to ourselves as the highest form of life on this planet.  How can we think of ourselves in such a manner if we are allowing our behavior and sloppy use of fertilizer to start to kill the cradle of life?

We have often referred to our planet as Planet Earth.  That is because we are land animals.  Actually, with oceans covering close to 70% of the surface of the planet, a better name would be Planet Ocean.  We know how we have polluted and damaged the land on which we live.  We are now doing the same to the 70% of the planet where we don’t live.

We need to immediately start to do whatever is necessary to stop damaging the oceans and the life forms that live there.  We need to treat the oceans as our connection to survival.  I have only half jokingly suggested that humanity should declare a year moratorium on eating seafood.  Would you stop eating sushi and seafood for a year and refuse to eat food grown with nitrate fertilizers if the survival of your children and grandchildren depended upon it?

As long as humanity has known about the solar system there has been conjecture as to whether there was life anywhere else.  Mars has always been the prime suspect and has led to many books, movies and one famous radio event about Martians.  Most of the time such life forms have been presented as strange angry creatures that attack earth as we humans have trouble thinking other wise.  Those of us who believe in the statistical inevitability of life elsewhere have waited for concrete evidence.

The discovery of water on Mars does not suggest that there has or is life on Mars.  We do currently believe however that water is essential for the existence of life.  We now know, conclusively for the first time that water exists on another planet.  That is an incredible discovery.  It is a first.  Water is not unique to earth.

In an earlier column here I discussed the fact that scientists found another sun and planetary system that is similar to ours.  I also suggested in another column that perhaps the definition of life should be expanded as we search for it in space.  The fact that ‘life’ should be narrowly defined by earthly ...]]> Amidst all the chatter and news stories about who said what in the Presidential race and how SUVs have become undesirable, there was a story last week that will be one that 2008 will be remembered for, at least in the scientific community.  NASA’s Phoenix Mars lander found ice on Mars!!

As long as humanity has known about the solar system there has been conjecture as to whether there was life anywhere else.  Mars has always been the prime suspect and has led to many books, movies and one famous radio event about Martians.  Most of the time such life forms have been presented as strange angry creatures that attack earth as we humans have trouble thinking other wise.  Those of us who believe in the statistical inevitability of life elsewhere have waited for concrete evidence.

The discovery of water on Mars does not suggest that there has or is life on Mars.  We do currently believe however that water is essential for the existence of life.  We now know, conclusively for the first time that water exists on another planet.  That is an incredible discovery.  It is a first.  Water is not unique to earth.

In an earlier column here I discussed the fact that scientists found another sun and planetary system that is similar to ours.  I also suggested in another column that perhaps the definition of life should be expanded as we search for it in space.  The fact that ‘life’ should be narrowly defined by earthly terms struck me as planetary provincialism.  I still believe that there could be life forms elsewhere that are beyond our current definitions of life.

All that being said, it is essential that we fully acknowledge the discovery of ice on Mars.  It is a true scientific milestone.  Congratulations to all those scientists and engineers who have created the Phoenix and all the wonder it is now providing us.  Bravo!

I am so tired of all of this dialogue.  The earth is warming up and the scientific evidence is irrefutable, at least to this observer.  The question is not is there or is there not global warming.  The question is not whether we humans have anything to do with it.  The question is managing risk.  Whether there is global warming or not, as a species we should be planning for the worst.  If we don’t, hundreds of millions of us will most likely perish over the next 75 years.   Global warming, by all accounts, seems to ...]]> We are moving toward the end of 2007 and there are still people that question whether the planet is warming up and more specifically whether humans have anything to do with it.  I have listened to and read some of the thinking of these people and it falls into several categories.  First, and this is true, there are people, Republicans mostly, that cannot stand Al Gore — they still remember his self righteous sighing in 2000 – and are therefore tying the message with the messenger.  Second, there are those that are natural contrarians, so they will naturally react negatively when every Hollywood star, starlet, celebrity and blow dried news anchor gets on the global warming soapbox again with moral self righteousness (the Polar bears are dying, what about the Polar bears?).  Third there are those that site that the earth has warmed up before, so no big deal this is just a planetary cycle.

I am so tired of all of this dialogue.  The earth is warming up and the scientific evidence is irrefutable, at least to this observer.  The question is not is there or is there not global warming.  The question is not whether we humans have anything to do with it.  The question is managing risk.  Whether there is global warming or not, as a species we should be planning for the worst.  If we don’t, hundreds of millions of us will most likely perish over the next 75 years.   Global warming, by all accounts, seems to be an exponential situation whereby the damage already done will make matters worse.  Even if tomorrow humanity ceased all CO2 emissions, climate change would continue because of what has already been released, dumped and spewed into the ecosystem.

The situation is so clear.  We must act as though the future of humanity is at stake.  It is.  If not, and the current view of global warming today proves to be wrong, well, we will have improved our survival chances.  Finding renewable energy, conserving the resources we have, replenishing the oceans, freeing ourselves from dependence on oil exporting countries, stemming the incredible loss of species currently going on, better managing water, dramatic population control, and generally thinking globally will all have positive benefits.  If there is not global warming, well, we have advanced human civilization.  If the global warming threat is real we will have taken actions to save human civilization.

The risk to humanity from global warming looks to be the greatest threat to our species since we started imposing our selfish will on the planet a few hundred thousand years ago.  It is only rivaled by a massive nuclear holocaust, which essentially would cause the same thing, a planet that could sustain only a fraction of humanity.  The question then is one of risk.  We must act as though we are at great risk.  We must act immediately and with great resolve.  We must redefine our commitment to reversing our headlong, self centered rush to destruction

Let us no longer debate hydrogen versus ethanol, water versus wind power, solar versus nuclear.  We must say yes to ‘all of the above’ and move forward on all fronts.  The great scientists and thinkers I have had the good fortune to interact with all believe that global warming is real and that we are partly at cause.  Some of them even feel that the only way to stem it is to take radical steps such as outlawing CO2 emissions.  When great minds start speaking that way, it is time to take action, in case they are right.

We live in a world dictated by our history and by all sorts of special interests that want to maintain the status quo.  Let us reframe what ‘status quo’ means.  Let us assume that status quo means death and that changing the status quo means life, if not for us then for our young children and grand children to be.  As a species we have put ourselves at great risk, it is now time to address that risk, manage that risk and do so immediately.

We all grew up hearing that metaphor about “saving for a rainy day”.  If that metaphorical rainy day came, we had money in the bank.  If the rainy day never came, we had money in the bank.  We must now work and manage our risk against a “rainless year”

Our future is at stake.

 Regular readers know that I have often written about global warming.  Here I discussed the Intergovernmental Panel, and here I spoke about the change in consciousness about the subject that occurred in 2006, when “Inconvenient Truth” came out. Yes, I am an environmentalist, and yes I have long believed that global warming, and mans’ contribution to it was one of the most important issues we face today.  As a futurist however I also see it as one of the greatest challenges in human history. Why the Nobel Peace Prize?  What does global warming have to do with peace?  There are two reasons.