The work is the conclusion of the longest and most extensive record of plastic marine debris in any ocean basin.  Scientists and students from the [Sea Education Association] collected plastic and marine debris in fine mesh nets that were towed behind a research vessel…

The researchers carried out 6,100 tows in areas of the Caribbean and the North Atlantic – off the coast of the US. More than half of these expeditions revealed floating pieces of plastic on the water surface.  These were pieces of low-density plastic that are used to make many consumer products, including plastic bags.

The maximum plastic density — 200,000 pieces per square kilometer — is comparable to the Pacific Garbage Patch, though the size of both patches is hard to estimate.  The Pacific Vortex is often described as a “plastic continent,” but this isn’t strictly accurate.  Although the total area is indeed continental, the plastic pieces are generally small (up to one centimeter across) and widely dispersed.

Nevertheless, plastic debris in the ocean is a serious problem.  Dr. Lavender Law, part of the team of researchers from SEA, told BBC News that, while specific impacts remain unknown,

“…we know that many marine organisms are consuming these plastics and we know this has a bad effect on seabirds in particular.”

The very thing that makes plastic useful, its durability, also makes it a problem for oceans.  Plastic does not decompose, but breaks down into smaller and smaller pieces.  While it’s clear that plastic debris is hazardous, it’s difficult to judge the actual “size” of the Garbage Patch.  In her (highly recommended) book The World is Blue, oceanographer Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence at the National Geographic Society, writes,

“[The Pacific Trash Vortex] is as big, as wide, as deep as the ocean itself.  On every dive I have made in the past 30 years, whether snorkeling or in deep-diving submarines, trash of some sort, and sometimes of many sorts, is visibly present.” (page 94)

Our other corporate gossip story this week is about Wal-Mart.  The retail giant is pursuing a plan to cut 20 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015.  That amount is roughly equivalent to the company’s current annual emissions, and according to the press release, the same as taking 3.8 million cars off the road.  You can read the details at Treehugger and ClimateProgress.

Wal-Mart’s eco-friendly efforts mean either the execs sincerely care about climate change, or they think that consumers care and that cutting emissions will clean up the company’s image.  Either way, it’s good news, but maybe we should look deeper than the press releases.

Whatever Wal-Mart does to improve energy efficiency, etc., it is still the icon of American consumerism.  Can a society based so heavily on consumption ever be truly sustainable?  Can we become sustainable by changing what we consume, or do we also have to change how much we consume?  It’s something to think about.

You don’t need a science degree to realize that snow in Denmark, or the Northeast U.S., during the winter, is not really surprising.  No one ever said that global warming is abolishing winter… yet.

In fact, a study published in Geophysical Research Letters show that higher temperatures trump lower temps in the U.S.  Here’s an excerpt from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) news release:

Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

Another important point: the study’s findings are consistent with climate model predictions.

As for the data itself:

The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results.

The data then went through a quality control process to correct potential inconsistencies caused by various factors.  Read more here.

Of course, temperature changes on one continent do not prove worldwide warming.  But three separate global data sets show warming over the last century.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

This month, California adopted the nation’s first statewide green building codes.  Dubbed “Calgreen,” these codes are expected to help the state achieve its goal of cutting CO2 emissions by one third by 2020.  According to the New York Times, every new building in California will have to “reduce water usage by 20 percent and recycle 50 percent of its construction waste instead of sending it to landfills… Mandatory inspections of air conditioner, heat and mechanical equipment will be also be instituted for all commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet.”

To help offset the increased construction costs, developers will not have to receive certification from third parties like the U.S. Green Building Council.  The price of a new home will still increase, but since many of the standards save money as well as energy, the codes may result in an overall savings.  They will definitely produce a net drop in carbon pollution — about three million metric tons by 2020.

That California was the first state to adopt these codes isn’t surprising.  Hopefully, they will prove successful, and other states will follow suit.  Since buildings account for a large amount of our energy use, increasing their efficiency is just common sense.

Pretty much speaks for itself, doesn’t it?  Interestingly, actively publishing climatologists (the most specialized group with regard to climate change) were most likely to agree that global warming is happening and that human activity is a major factor.  The numbers are taken from this survey, which concludes,

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

The January-February issue of Audubon reported that brown pelicans have been removed from the endangered species list.  In the 1930s, brown pelican populations began to rapidly decline throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts.  In fact, by 1963, pelicans were no longer found in Louisiana, long known as the “pelican state.”  The main culprits, biologists found, were pesticides like DDT.  The poisons moved up through the food chain and affected pelicans and other birds by thinning their eggshells, impairing their ability to reproduce.  Brown pelicans were declared endangered in 1970; two years later, DDT was banned in the United States.

After the DDT ban, pelican populations grew steadily, with the help of numerous restoration projects.  In 1985, the Fish and Wildlife Service delisted populations along the Atlantic Coast and in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.  In November 2009, the FWS delisted the remaining Pacific and Gulf Coast populations.  There are now more than 650,000 brown pelicans found across Florida and the Gulf and Pacific Coasts, as well as in the Caribbean and Latin America.

“At a time when so many species of wildlife are threatened, we once in a while have an opportunity to celebrate an amazing success story,” said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. “Today is such a day. The brown pelican is back!”

Although they are no longer covered by the Endangered Species Act, they are protected by laws such as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  That’s a good thing, since pelicans still face the same threats as other seabirds: pollution, oil spills, and habitat loss, to name a few.

Nevertheless, the brown pelican’s future looks good.  And its past could be a model for future wildlife success stories.  Scientific research revealed the problem, and government action got the ball rolling.  But without the efforts of concerned individuals, the brown pelican might never have recovered so successfully.  Remember that the next time you walk along a beach and see a flock of pelicans gliding over the waves.

Read more about brown pelicans:

• How Rachel Carson Helped Save the Brown Pelican
• All About Birds: Brown Pelican

So what went down in Denmark?  It all came down to the final day, when President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa.  They all made compromises and produced an agreement.  This in itself is important; as Andrew Light says,

“the Copenhagen Accord was not forged among our closest allies in the developed world; it was the product of cooperation between the US and a group of the largest carbon emitters in the developing world.”

But what about the agreement itself?  Well, it’s just that: an agreement, part of a two-step process that was actually proposed last month by the Danish prime minister.  According to the plan, the Accord will serve as a framework for the legally binding treaty, which will probably be formed in 2010.  This is disappointing for those who wanted a treaty this year, but it doesn’t make the conference a complete failure.

Here’s what you need to know about the Copenhagen Accord.

• In general, the nations acknowledged a need to stabilize warming at 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, without making specific requirements for emissions reductions.  The major polluters did agree to voluntary reductions.  The big news: China is in the game now, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity — use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent.  India, Brazil, and South Africa followed suit.
• Probably the most progress was made in humanitarian aid to poor countries.  Richer nations will finance a $30 billion, three-year program to help poorer nations deal with climate change and develop clean energy, with more funding possible in the future.
• Several countries, including the U.S. promised a total of $3.5 billion to reduce deforestation.
• And probably the biggest fault is the lack of an explicit deadline for a binding treaty in 2010.  There is also no specific peak date for carbon emissions.

That’s the basic info.  For more details, check the Guardian article, these two posts on Climate Progress, as well as Grist’s (rather negative) coverage, and the AP report.

Here’s my take:  The Copenhagen Accord could have been much better.  As it is, it definitely isn’t enough.  If the goal was to solve the climate crisis, then COP15 failed miserably, but if the goal was to make a step forward in solving our crisis, then it turned out all right, considering the political challenges.  Aside from the Accord itself, there’s another important thing that COP15 has shown us.  Of all the delegates and heads of state who worked on the Copenhagen deal, I don’t know of any that stood up and declared global warming a hoax (Well, Inhofe was there, but no one paid much attention to him).  Not every country agrees on how to deal with climate change, but the most powerful leaders on earth take the threat seriously.  That counts for something.

First, tens of thousands of people are rallying in support of climate action.  That’s not an exaggeration.  A massive march took place on the thirteenth, with estimates ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 protestors (see the slideshow here).

From Grist's Flickr photostream.

A variety of smaller, but very creative, activist stunts took place in Copenhagen over the last few days.  A group of aliens from Avaaz asked people to take them to the “real climate leaders.”  ”Cut emissions, not trees,” said climate change activists in tree costumes.  ”We are not your climate loophole.”  Treehugger has a slideshow of these protests and several others.

A number of art exhibits are popping up, as well.  The CO2 cube, a multimedia installation by Alfio Bonanno and Christophe Cornubert, represents one ton of carbon dioxide — the amount emitted each month by the average person in an industrialized country, or in the case of the United States, every two weeks.  On monday, the cube outside the Copenhagen Planetarium started moving and talking.  It also screens video footage and live info (Read the whole story at Inhabitat).

Art and activism aside, there are some very important things happening in Copenhagen.  Tens of thousands of people around the world have called for bold steps to confront climate change.  But decisions have to be made by political leaders, and politicians do not always deliver.

Politically, the Copenhagen discussion centers around two main points: emissions targets and money.  Cutting emissions is what the whole thing is about, and the pledges offered by several nations vary widely.  The European Union has pledged a 20% cuts, 30% if other countries will follow suit.  And Japan has made similar commitments.  The U.S. has promised a pitiful 3% cut below 1990 levels, though we do have the EPA ruling as well.

The sticking point is (surprise!) money.  ”Developing” nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, want financial help from richer nations.  Meanwhile, nations that are most vulnerable to climate change are pushing for funding as part of legislation stronger than bigger countries would prefer.  The logic is that the nations most responsible for climate change are most responsible for solutions — and that means bigger commitments and bigger investments.  You can read more political details here.

All things considered, I think COP15 is more likely to produce a “political agreement” than a “legally binding treaty.”  Still, I can’t predict exactly what will happen in the next few days.  Even people that know way more about the politics than I do are unsure.

To close, here’s a statement from Greenpeace spokeswoman Tove Riding.  This is something that all political leaders should listen to.

“Cancel the speeches, cancel the fancy dinners, skip the photo opportunities and spend the time working,” she said. Doing otherwise, she added, “would be like dining on the Titanic.”

In a historic finding, the EPA officially announced its “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gases.

The EPA said that the scientific evidence surrounding climate change clearly shows that greenhouse gases ”threaten the public health and welfare of the American people” and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

“These long-overdue findings cement 2009’s place in history as the year when the United States government began addressing the challenge of greenhouse-gas pollution,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson at news conference.

There has been some debate over whether CO2 and other GHGs count as pollutants, since they aren’t actually poisonous.  In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that GHGs could legally be regulated under the Clean Air Act, if the EPA determined that they posed a danger to public health — which is has now done.

What happens next?  Not much.  The Administration would rather curb emissions through a cap-and-trade bill, since that would be easier on the  economy.  A lot of environmentalists are wary of a carbon trading plan, especially one that gives away free pollution permits.  But those free permits are intended to keep the cost down, which may be necessary to pass the bill.

I think the EPA’s decision has two main benefits.  First, it’s a sign that the Obama Administration is serious about cutting emissions, even if Congress doesn’t pass a clean energy bill.  Second, it puts the U.S. in a better position for Copenhagen.

Of course, if the EPA did try to implement “command and control” regulations, it would be a long and difficult legal process, with protest from business groups — probably even greater than what we’re seeing now.  And we don’t know for sure that the Administration would even take that step.  But the option is more open than before.  We’re on the right track.

If you’re interested in more detailed info, my analysis is here, along with several links.