http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es901664n?cookieSet=1
Is regulation on ocean acidification on the horizon?
Noreen Parks
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (16), pp 6118-6119
DOI: 10.1021/es901664n
Publication Date (Web): June 24, 2009
Copyright © 2009 American Chemical Society
With mounting evidence that ocean waters
worldwide are turning more acidic, scientists
have issued ever more urgent pleas for policy
makers to recognize that this phenomenon is a
direct and real consequence of rising levels of
atmospheric CO2. Researchers warn that as ocean
pH falls, the capacities of calcifying marine
organisms to build shells and skeletons will be
severely reduced, in all likelihood causing
widespread impacts on marine ecosystems. In June
2009, a statement endorsed by 70 national science
academies emphasized that the issue must be on
the agenda at the upcoming global climate talks
in Copenhagen. "To avoid substantial damage to
ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of
global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and
much more thereafter, are needed," the statement
warned.
On the U.S. domestic policy front, the Federal
Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act
was signed into law in March 2009 to fortify
funding for research on ocean acidification,
which is dubbed "global warming's evil twin".
Otherwise, the issue has garnered little
attention from the government. However, that may
be about to change.
On May 14, the nonprofit Center for Biological
Diversity filed the first federal lawsuit on
ocean acidification, charging that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to
comply with its mandate under the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to protect Washington State's ocean waters
from pollutants such as excessive CO2. The
lawsuit follows the Center's 2007 petition to EPA
to update water-quality criteria for marine pH
under CWA. On April 15, EPA responded to that
petition by initiating a public process to
collect information about ocean acidification, in
order to review the current criterion for marine
pH and determine if a revision is warranted.
*
CWA and pH
Section 303(d) of CWA requires states to identify
water bodies under their jurisdiction that fail
to meet standards set by the states in accordance
with EPA guidelines. States are obliged to review
their listings of such "impaired" waters
biennially and submit them for approval to EPA,
which has the authority to amend the lists if the
agency determines that degraded water bodies have
been omitted. "Once a water body is listed,
either the states or EPA must address the
impairment, establishing limits for identified
contaminants that the waters can receive and
still meet water-quality standards," Center
attorney Miyoko Sakashita explains. CWA
recognizes pH as a conventional pollutant, and
EPA's current recommended criterion, drafted in
1976 and adopted by most states, specifies a "pH
range of 6.5 to 8.5 for marine aquatic life (but
not varying more than 0.2 units outside of the
normally occurring range)."
During 2007, the Center sent petitions to 10
coastal states (Alaska, Washington, California,
Oregon, Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maine,
Delaware, and Florida) urging that they list
their ocean waters as impaired "due to decreases
in pH resulting from anthropogenic CO2
emissions." When the Washington State Department
of Ecology began its public water-quality
assessment process as part of its effort to
update its list, the Center submitted a l3-page
letter presenting scientific findings on ocean
acidification. Without remedial action, the
letter stated, "Ocean acidification will have
significant negative impacts on the survival of
calcifying organisms as well as fish and other
marine species. Commercial and recreational uses
will be harmed as a result, which will
particularly affect the shellfish and fishing
industries that are so important to Washington
citizens." Citing studies showing that the pH of
global ocean surface waters has already declined
by approximately 0.1 units (turning seawater 30%
more acidic), the Center alleged that the
department was ignoring state policy requiring
corrective action in response to changes of 0.1
pH units or greater.
Nevertheless, the Department of Ecology's list,
forwarded to EPA in June 2008, did not include
marine waters. The reason, according to
spokesperson Sandy Howard, was: "State law
requires [that] actual data for specific water
bodies be used for 303(d) listing purposes,
rather than broader studies and assumptions about
the status of waters." She adds, "We acknowledge
that acidification is happening, but listing
ocean waters is not the way to address it. How
can you say where the CO2 originates? What's
needed is an international protocol on global
emissions."
The Center's input to EPA during its review of
Washington's list was likewise shrugged off, and
in January 2009 the agency approved the list
without additions. "At the same time, EPA
informed us of its intention to consider
reviewing pH criteria and to develop biological
assessment methods and other technical guidance
relating to evaluation of the health of coral
reefs, which are particularly threatened,"
Sakashita says.
To date, most of the other states petitioned have
yet to finalize their lists, Sakashita notes. The
legal complaint against EPA essentially mirrors
the arguments that the Center made while
Washington was drawing up its list. "Our goal is
to get EPA and the states to list acidified
waters and ultimately enact CO2-reduction
measures." She adds, "Greenhouse gas emissions
affecting U.S. coastal waters may well originate
from other countries, but that doesn't weaken the
need to reduce them state by state, or set
regional reduction targets."
Because litigation is pending, an EPA spokesman
says, the agency is unable to comment on the
lawsuit.
*
The scientific case
Two major studies published during 2008 did in
fact demonstrate reduced pH levels in Washington
waters. In the first, shipboard sampling
conducted during spring 2007 revealed that
coastal waters from British Columbia to Baja
California were considerably more acidic and
lower in carbonate than expected. "The effects
were especially pronounced for Washington," notes
oceanographer and lead author Richard Feely of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental
Laboratory.
The second paper reported results from about
25,000 acidity readings made by University of
Chicago ecologist Timothy Wootton and colleagues
from 2000 to 2008 in waters bathed by a major
current off northwestern Washington. "The results
showed that overall pH has fallen by more than
0.2 units since 2000, and detrimental impacts on
calcifying species are already detectable,"
Wootton says. "Ocean acidification is apparently
progressing faster in our study area than
predicted."
However, the pH of seawater is known to fluctuate
significantly, depending on a host of factors,
such as temperature, phytoplankton abundance,
seasonal upwelling of CO2-rich water from the
depths, and other drivers still being worked out.
"Coastal waters generally range from 7.4 to 9.0,"
Feely explains, "and the open ocean has seasonal
as well as diurnal cycles, with pH ranging from
about 7.9 to 8.5."
Ocean acidification is well established
theoretically, based on fundamental physics and
chemistry and modeling informed by vast datasets
assembled from large-scale research programs; the
first of these programs was the U.S. Joint Global
Ocean Flux Study in the 1980s. Moreover,
laboratory studies on a wide variety of taxa,
from calcifying plankton and corals to mollusks
and fish, have revealed a range of harmful
physiological effects from acidified seawater.
However, Feely says, "Reliable long-term
measurements of pH have been limited to a small
number of instrumented ocean stations. Very few
direct time-series measurements of pH in U.S.
coastal waters exist for defining natural
variability in given areas. [Yet] new criteria
and any possible regulatory mechanisms would have
to take variability into account," he says.
*
Legal hurdles
Even if EPA redefines its pH criterion, the
agency may not have the authority under CWA to
compel states to enforce new programs for curbing
the CO2 emissions that are responsible for
decreased pH, says Holly Doremus, a professor of
environmental law at the University of California
Berkeley. "Also, where the science is uncertain,
states can deviate from EPA criteria if they can
make plausible arguments to do so." Furthermore,
she points out, "Nonpoint pollution sources don't
require discharge permits under CWA, so there's
no easy hook for addressing enforcement. And
atmospheric CO2 is the ultimate nonpoint
pollution source."
However, Sakashita contends, "EPA has created
regional pollution-reduction targets for mercury,
another pollutant deposited from dispersed
atmospheric sources, including international
ones. We have the tools to do this for CO2 also
under the CWA."
It remains to be seen whether the Center's
lawsuit succeeds in enlisting CWA to play a role
in addressing one of the most ominous aspects of
climate change. Meanwhile, EPA is winning kudos
for its willingness to revisit its marine pH
standard. "It's very appropriate that we do this
now," says marine biologist Vicky Fabry of
California State University San Marcos, who has
lobbied long for more ocean monitoring. "It's
essential information for a better understanding
of ocean acidification and its effects on marine
ecosystems," she says.
Sakashita is also encouraged. "It's the first
time EPA has acknowledged the reach of CWA to
ocean acidification, and we hope it will provide
states with new standards based on the best
science available," she says.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
