The Last Oyster Haul?

[j_b]

The Last Oyster Haul?

by Brendan Smith

 

Thanks to greenhouse gas emissions, it's looking like my days as a commercial fisherman are numbered.

 

I've been working the sea on-and-off my whole life. At 15 years old I quit high school to work the lobster boats out of Lynn, MA; later I fished cod and crab boats on the Bering Sea. As over-fishing decimated the cod stocks, I headed back home to Newfoundland to try my hand as a fish farmer growing halibut and salmon.

 

Now I'm an oyster man, growing 100,000 organic oysters a year on a 40-acre plot in the Long Island Sound. I see myself as a new breed of green fisherman, who have shifted from hunter-gatherers trolling the seas in search of declining fish stocks, to ocean-based farmers, sustainably growing shellfish on small plots of ocean acreage for local markets. (Oysters rank as one of the top "super green seafoods" by the Environmental Defense Fund.)

 

But now, just as I've regained my green sea legs, scientists tell me that in the coming decades I won't be able to make a living growing oysters anymore. They tell me greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are turning the oceans acidic, and oysters, already fickle little creatures, are likely to be the first victims.

 

Here's how the marine biologists tell me the process works: Oceans absorb about 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases from human activities. The problem is that too much CO2 absorption also raises water's acidity. Increased acidity reduces carbonate -- the mineral used to form the shells and skeletons of many shellfish and corals. The effect is akin to osteoporosis, slowing growth and making shells weaker. If pH levels drop enough, the shells will literally dissolve.

 

The acidification of the ocean today is larger and faster than anything scientists can find in the fossil record over the past 65 million years. According to a recent study in the journal Natural Geoscience, current ocean acidification is taking place at ten times the rate that preceded the mass marine extinction 55 million years ago.

 

Oysters and other shellfish are expected to be some of the first victims of ocean acidification. Researchers at Stony Brook University's School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences found that even minor increases in ocean acidity have significant, detrimental effects on the growth, development and survival of hard clams, bay scallops and oysters. Scientists already suspect that acidic water is responsible for killing several billion oyster, clam and mussel larvae that were being raised at the Whiskey Creek Shellfish Hatchery on the Oregon coast in the summer of 2008.

 

But it's not just my oysters and livelihood that are imperiled. Shellfish and other vulnerable species function as crucial links for entire ecosystems in the ocean. According to the NRDC:

 

The new chemical composition of our oceans is expected to harm a wide range of ocean life. The resulting disruption to the ocean ecosystem could have a widespread ripple effect and further deplete already struggling fisheries worldwide... A more acidic ocean could wipe out species, disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea.

Commercial fishermen have conflicted hearts. We're famously independent, often wary of government regulation. We have traditionally had a complex, often combative relationship with the environmental movement. But at the same time, we also have a deep respect and love for the sea. Our lives, our livelihoods, are held at the mercy of natural forces more than almost any other occupation.

 

Politicians try to cast workers as not caring about protecting ocean resources and the perilous effects of greenhouse gases. They say the coming crisis is too far off and we're more fearful about environmental policy destroying jobs. Exactly the opposite. Protecting my life and livelihood requires protecting the oceans and planet.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/08-1

[j_b]

If we lose the oysters, civilization as we know it goes down the drain. For sure.

 

what about an oyster forum before they are gone?

[billcoe]

When I was in high school, the smart money all said that we would run out of Gasoline before the year 2000.

[billcoe]

Later we learned that hundreds of millions of deaths would occur from starvation as well as population growth exceeded food production.

 

It was a sure thing. All the smart money said so.

 

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer." - Ehrlich in his book, The Population Bomb (1968), predicting widespread famine that never materialized "

[rob]

There are about a a billion people on the planet starving. Imagine if they had more oysters to eat.

Edited April 8, 2010 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

There are about a a billion people on the planet starving. Imagine if they had more oysters to eat.

 

some people like oysters.

 

kevbone prefers snails

[j_b]

When I was in high school, the smart money all said that we would run out of Gasoline before the year 2000.

 

I guess you didn't make clear who said exactly what but lo and behold it's 2010 and we have a full blown energy crisis on our hands because we are running out of cheap oil.

[ivan]

There are about a a billion people on the planet starving. Imagine if they had more oysters to eat.

 

some people like oysters.

 

kevbone prefers snails

I AM SPARTACUS!!!

[billcoe]

I guess you didn't make clear who said exactly what but lo and behold it's 2010 and we have a full blown energy crisis on our hands because we are running out of cheap oil.

 

RUN FOREST RUN!!! The sky is falling the sky is falling. We have always been at war with Oceania

 

 

BP end of year 2007 estimates US DOE web site.

1,238,892 BILLION Barrels With a BBBBBBB at the start there. Buhillion!

 

Oil and Gas journal as of 1-1-2009

1,342.207 BILLION Barrels

 

 

"Full blown energy crisis!" I see, heh heh

 

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

 

 

"We have never been at war with Oceania

[j_b]

The oil barrel price is back up to $70 while demand hasn't increased because of the recession. As I said we are running out of cheap oil that fuels our entire economy from transportation to agriculture.

[Fairweather]

 

Game over, man! Game over.

[j_b]

A barrel of oil was 7 times more expensive in 2008 than in 2003. Prices have come down only because demand relented during the recession, but they are alredy back up to $70/barrel. It's the end of cheap oil and we better get used to it.

 

 

[j_b]

a plot that I can hopefully hot-link to make my point:

 

[Stonehead]

Fluctuations in the value of the US dollar also influence the price of oil as do signs of potential instability (economic, political, etc) among other things.

 

Why new oil price highs?

 

Oil prices rise modestly on dollar's decline against the euro, overseas supply concerns

[Stonehead]

It's the end of cheap oil and we better get used to it.

 

Cue up the carbon tax mantra.

[j_b]

the dollar didn't fluctuate by 7 times its value. How could anyone claim there isn't an energy crisis after we spent $3 trillion we didn't have and killed 100's of thousands just to keep the spigot wide open a little longer?

[j_b]

It's the end of cheap oil and we better get used to it.

 

Cue up the carbon tax mantra.

 

whether you want to cue it up or not, you are still paying twice the pump price you used to pay less than decade ago, so spare us the anti-tax demagoguery.

[tvashtarkatena]

One word: Titan.

 

Problem solved.

[skykilo]

If the damned glaciers and icecaps would melt already, perhaps the resulting dilution would counteract this imminent threat.

 

Slogan of the Lone Star Oyster Bar: Shuck me, suck me, eat me raw!

 

Il raisonne comme une huitre.

[Stonehead]

“O, Oysters, come and walk with us!”

The Walrus did beseech.

“A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,

Along the briny beach:

We cannot do with more than four,

To give a hand to each.”

 

The eldest Oyster looked at him,

But never a word he said:

The eldest Oyster winked his eye,

And shook his heavy head—

Meaning to say he did not choose

To leave the oyster-bed.

 

But four young Oysters hurried up,

All eager for the treat:

Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,

Their shoes were clean and neat-

And this was odd, because, you know,

They hadn’t any feet.

 

Four other Oysters followed them,

And yet another four;

And thick and fast they came at last,

And more, and more, and more-

All hopping through the frothy waves,

And scrambling to the shore.

 

The Walrus and the Carpenter

Walked on a mile or so,

And then they rested on a rock

Conveniently low:

And all the little Oysters stood

And waited in a row.

 

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,

“To talk of many things:

Of shoes—and ships—and sealing wax—

Of cabbages—and kings—

And why the sea is boiling hot—

And whether pigs have wings.”

 

“But wait a bit,” the Oysters cried,

“Before we have our chat;

For some of us are out of breath,

And all of us are fat!”

“No hurry!” said the Carpenter.

They thanked him much for that.

 

“A loaf of bread,” the Walrus said,

“Is what we chiefly need:

Pepper and vinegar besides

Are very good indeed—

Now if you’re ready, Oysters dear,

We can begin to feed.”

 

“But not on us!” the Oysters cried,

Turning a little blue,

“After such kindness, that would be

A dismal thing to do!”

“The night is fine,” the Walrus said.

“Do you admire the view?”

 

“It was so kind of you to come!

And you are very nice!”

The Carpenter said nothing but

“Cut us another slice:

I wish you were not quite so deaf—

I’ve had to ask you twice!”

 

“It seems a shame,” the Walrus said,

“To play them such a trick,

After we’ve brought them out so far,

And made them trot so quick!”

The Carpenter said nothing but

“The butter’s spread too thick!”

 

“I weep for you,” the Walrus said:

“I deeply sympathize.”

With sobs and tears he sorted out

Those of the largest size,

Holding his pocket-handkerchief

Before his streaming eyes.

 

“O Oysters,” said the Carpenter,

“You had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?”

But answer came there none—

And this was scarcely odd, because

They’d eaten every one.

 

The Walrus and the Carpenter

[Fairweather]

If the damned glaciers and icecaps would melt already, perhaps the resulting dilution would counteract this imminent threat.

 

Slogan of the Lone Star Oyster Bar: Shuck me, suck me, eat me raw!

 

Il raisonne comme une huitre.

 

Yes. At least those pesky Himalayan glaciers will all be gone by 2035. The IPCC said so.

[j_b]

It's rather astonishing how the IPCC publishes a 3000 page long document containing 10,000's of facts, and denialists keep citing the one error that was found (not even in the scientific part of the report) as if it invalidated 30 years of science. I suspect it gives us an idea of the lack of substance behind denialism.

[tvashtarkatena]

IT'S 2035???!!! Damn, I must have slept through the alarm(s)....

[j_b]

It's quite typical to hear conservatives claim that environmentalists or scientists are chicken little who have been caught red handed multiple times making false alarmist predictions. I suspect it's typical to hear such claims because they are regular talking points spewed by dead-ender anti-environmental think tanks like CATO, AEI, Heritage, etc

 

For example, we always hear how the Club of Rome in 1972 had it all wrong because it supposedly predicted "we'd run out of oil by 1992" or it predicted "the end of the world by the end of the 20th century". In fact, not only did Limits to Growth and the Club of Rome not predict any such thing things but the main conclusions from the business as usual scenario considered by Limits to Growth compare favorably with real data for the period 1970-2000 that tend to argue for a system collapse by mid-21st century.

[tvashtarkatena]

That all may well be, but where's my flying car, bitch?