WiLD Blog

Anadromous fish are those whose habitat includes both the ocean and rivers.  Of these, salmon is perhaps the best known. In the Sacramento River, Chinook salmon are suffering from both excessive river diversions and global warming. The fall 2007 run was just 10% of the high reached a few years ago, and the coming May run is likely to be so low that the $150 million fishery will be canceled by the authorities. While the cause of the decline is not known with certainty, scientists point to two likely causes. 

One of the probable causes is a lack of food in 2005 and 2006 due to unusually warm ocean conditions. Global warming has disrupted the timing of the upwells and cold currents that provide the fish with prey such as rockfish and krill. Climate models now “predict unpredictability” instead of the alternation of cold and warm years that has prevailed until recently. Consequently, food may come to the salmon's oceanic range too late, too early, or not at all, and the fish can only travel so far to find it. As Elizabeth Kolbert describes in Field Notes From a Catastrophe: Man, Nature and Climate Change (Bloomsbury, 2006), all species that are around today have already survived catastrophic climate change, namely, the most recent glaciation, often by migrating to a location with a more suitable climate. However, habitat destruction has restricted some species’ mobility, hindering their ability to adapt. A 2004 study attempted to estimate the number of extinctions that global warming would cause. Looking at eleven hundred species of animals and plants from sample regions, and using a moderate projection of temperature rise, the authors concluded that, assuming the species were “highly mobile”, 15 percent would be “committed to extinction” by mid-century.

The other probable cause of the poor Chinook run is the functional equivalent of habitat loss-- excessive diversion of water from the river to agricultural and residential users.  In 2005, for example, 55% of the flow was diverted before reaching San Francisco Bay. A network of nonprofits has threatened to sue the state if diversions are not reduced. Given that water use in California is a complex issue, what can be done on the grassroots level to improve the health of rivers such as the Sacramento? By using less water, people can reduce the amount of water that needs to be diverted.

In Washington and Oregon officials have obtained permission from a federal agency to kill up to 85 sea lions- a dubious amendment in the Marine Mammals Protection Act allows this - in order to protect endangered salmon and steelhead, the ocean-going variety of the rainbow trout. The sea lions have cleverly found their way into areas around the Bonneville Dam designed so that the beleaguered fishes can pass unimpeded around the dam, thus making an easy meal of the them. The Humane Society of the US argues, and we agree, that the sea lions have become a scapegoat for deeper problems, such as pollution and overfishing, that are more difficult to tackle than knocking off a few dozen helpless animals. Another problem, the damming of wild rivers, is more controversial, as dams provide many benefits, including cheap and clean power. However, more environmentally friendly energy sources exist. The dam is what provides the sea lions easy access to these endangered species in the first place. 

-Thomas Holder

A New York Times article discusses some challenging implications of climate change for conservationists. How will currently preserved land change in terms of habitat type and target species? The effects of a warming climate are hard to predict. Species may move in or out, and the habitat type may change. In response, conservation groups are developing various potential strategies that attempt to balance the current known conservation needs with the often-unknown future. For example, scientists are researching coral reefs that proved to be resilient against rising ocean temperatures during an El Nino event in the 1990s. Their findings could be used to restore damaged reefs. Another approach involves “corridors” connecting open space areas, which would allow species to migrate in response to a changing climate.

If the land is on the coast, how will it be affected by the two-foot rise in sea level over the course of the century, which is predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Some key habitats, such as beaches and coastal wetlands, are clearly vulnerable to this threat. The situation is worsened by the fact that they’re often bordered by development, which makes their expansion inland impossible. A great example of this is The Tijuana Estuary and the narrow beach along Seacoast Drive in Imperial Beach. Preserving these places will take a great deal of creativity and cooperation between preservationists, landowners and government.

-Thomas Holder

When it comes to the interests of the Mexican people, the government of Felipe Calderón of PAN is dangerously out of touch with reality. The administration’s blunders have gone beyond the environmental authorities’ turning a blind eye to rampant unsustainable development on Quintana Roo’s coast (link to blog post). Recently approaching an abandonment of some key reforms espoused by the government in the wake of the 1910 revolution.

The administration’s proposal to overhaul Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, is an example. It would allow the monopoly to hire companies to assist it with finding and developing new deposits. This could boost flagging oil production, sales of which account for more than a third of the government’s income. However, as the Wall Street Journal reports, oil companies would likely demand a large fee in order to compensate for the lack of any ownership of deposits that are found, which is prohibited by the Mexican Constitution. The bill would also legalize private ownership of oil refineries. Thus Calderon runs the risk of sparking yet another epidemic of foreign exploitation, a problem that has long plagued Mexico.

Alarmingly, a January 2008 report in Proceso suggests that the administration is not wary of this danger; quite the opposite, in fact. In addition to its push to privatize government-owned industries such as Pemex, the administration has endorsed the growing presence of foreign multinationals, largely American- and Spanish-owned, in many sectors of the economy, often at the expense of Mexican-owned firms. For example, the Spanish multinational Gas Natural is the main distributor of natural gas. The Spanish banks Bancomer and Santander are the first and third largest in the country, respectively. The list goes on and on. The government has awarded major concessions to foreign multinationals: Pemex, for example, relies on Schlumberger Ltd. for many services, and the Spanish firm Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles provided most of the trains in the Mexico City Metro and recently won the contract to build a Suburban Railway between Buenavista and Cuautitlán. This welcome mat comes even as foreign multinationals are expanding their influence in Mexico in a “rapacious” way, according to the nonprofit Observatorio de las Trasnacionales en America Latina.

In addition to being blind to the centuries-old threat of foreign exploitation, the Calderón administration appears to be indifferent about one of the major challenges of the 21st century, global warming. Let’s suppose that Calderón is lucky; that the Pemex bill passes, that oil production reverses its decline, and that the country is able to avoid getting a raw deal from the oil companies. Is oil a resource that Mexico should be investing in and producing more of in the first place, given the potential catastrophic effects of global climate change? The country is no doubt strapped for cash, but there are certainly alternative sources of revenue and more responsible, creative economic solutions available. Why not gradually redefine Pemex’s mission as the development of green energy? Invest in ecotourism? Promote organic agriculture, both for domestic consumption and for export?

-Thomas Holder

Hotel development continues to devastate ecosystems in Quintana Roo, reports the Mexican weekly Proceso. Authorities are enforcing environmental laws very weakly, granting permits for massive “megatourism” projects left and right with little consideration of the subsequent environmental impact. When they do force builders to comply, it is usually the result of pressure by nonprofits such as the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CMDA). For example, at least 50 percent of the projects that the group has leveled complaints of nonconformity against have been canceled or modified.

However, developers sometimes proceed without the necessary permits, as the profits expected from the project outweigh the fine for breaking the law. One of the most flagrant illegal acts came in 1997, when the Spain-based Riu consortium, with the support of the mayor of Cancún, built a hotel there without first submitting an Environmental Impact Statement, as required by law. The Attorney General for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA) fined the consortium 3.5 million dollars for the violation.

Developers and politicians have also done an end-run around the urban development plans for Cancún, which originally included a four-storey height limit for buildings and a maximum of 16,000 hotel rooms. Today there are 30,000 rooms and buildings exceeding eleven stories.

In addition to the lack of enforcement of existing laws, there is currently an alarming proposal in the Senate to weaken them so as to permit hotel zone construction in mangrove areas. Sixty-five percent of this rich habitat has already been destroyed in Mexico. According to La Jornada, President Felipe Calderón directed legislators to get the proposal passed “by any means”.

The concept of sustainable tourism is not yet widespread in Mexico, says Marisol Venegas, who represented the country at the first Encuentro Internacional de Turismo Justo in Málaga, Spain in 2006. The vulnerability of the tourism industry, a crucial sector of the national economy, is often used as a pretext to justify all tourism development, no matter how ill-conceived and destructive.

A majority of the hotel firms in Quintana Roo are Spanish, and already have a history of environmental destruction in their own country. Patricio Martin of CMDA likens them to lobsters, moving on to fresh territory once their reckless development has despoiled the place they are currently doing business in. Some firms expect to see a profit from their investments in as little as five years thanks to cost-cutting measures such as not paying workers bonuses or utilities. (The industry norm is ten years.) At the prompting of one of the few developers who has been shut down by PROFEPA, the Spanish ambassador has even met with officials from the agency to try and persuade them to permit the blocked project.   

-Thomas Holder

Everyone should at least volunteer once in their lifetime. Whether it be at a school, church or a non profit organization. Mainly teenagers should volunteer when they are in high school or even in college. Knowing that in a small way by you volunteering you either changed someone's life or a problem going on in society. Volunteering for WILDCOAST has been extremely wonderful. Knowing that by going out and raising awareness for different problems or by going out and helping pick up trash on the beach has perhaps saved one animals life. You should volunteer at a place that you think is a place that deals with problems that you want to help solve.

WiLDCOAST Volunteers

Domenique Buchanan, High School Volunteer