Dead Zones and Bio-fuel

Bio-fuel, a great alternative to petrol based fuels, is unfortunately contributing to the Gulf Deadzone. In an interesting article found on gulfhypoxia.net I learned that the incentives for ethanol (corn) based fuels and subsequent increase in farmland used for the corn is creating an influx of even more fertilizer to the Gulf.  Changes to the legislation must be considered if the fertilizer input is to decrease.

One proposed option is to forgo corn based fuel altogether instead opting for a cellulose ethonal.  This cellulose based ethanol has a more complex refining process however uses markedly less fertilizer and produces more net energy. 

Who knew that energy policies could have such an impact on Dead Zones?

Source- http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/news/default.asp?XMLFilename=200710220941.xml

Case Study- The Black Sea

The Black Sea is a historically important one when it comes to deadzones.  At its worse during the 1970’s-80’s the black sea ecosystem collapsed.  The collapse was due to several factors, the most major being massive amounts of nitrogen (in the form of fertilizer) being injected into the system, leading to the collapse.  From that collapse an estimated 60millon tons of organisms were lost, 5 million of which were fish.  Resulting economic impacts were huge, losses in the fishing and tourism industries totaling near 2.5 billon. 

Then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it huge reduction in fertilizers.  Recently because of the complete turnaround in environmental strains the black sea deadzone is almost nonexistent.

The Black Sea’s history is a poignant one, highlighting the direct relation between farming practices, environmental degradation, and subsequent recovery.  Hopefully, with this historical example, places like the Gulf of Mexico, or the Mediterranean Sea, history will not repeat itself, and the environments/people will not have to go through such wrenching calamity.

Source-http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENVMAT/Resources/3011340-1238620444756/5980735-1238620476358/13ECA.pdf

Surviving

The Good News

Dead zones are a large scale global issue, coming up on the verge of catastrophe. There are no economically viable solutions currently in practice, knowledge concerning them is fairly limited and the long term impact is still under intense debate. There are a range of highly negative ecologic, economic, societal and political ramifications from these developing areas, and most accounts see the situation getting worse for the foreseeable future.

With all that said, there may just be a silver lining, the zones appear to be reversible almost totally. While there may be long term impacts that have not been accounted for, the success story in the Black Sea shows that the theory that the situation is reversible is not only a theory, but actually a (somewhat challenging) practice. That situation was somewhat unique as rather than being driven by economic stimulus, it was driven by economic decline, which completely removed the wide spread use of artificial fertilizer, rather than trying to find some solution, however this was caused by total economic collapse of the region.

From this we can see a real possibility of repairing the damage, something not always feasible with ecologic disasters, oftentimes "slowing down the pace of the damage" is all that is feasible. Several solutions have been provided concerning the methods of controlling notogen runoff, and with enough voices and enough economic and socio-political pressure, this problem could not only be stopped from spreading,  but actually cured.

We are not alone

I am delighted to share some of my findings with you.  While blogs and sites like this one do an excellent job of raising awareness it is heartening to see some tangible powers that be, made aware of the situation.  The team over at Ocean Champions are doing an awesome job as advocates for our earth’s oceans. They have been instrumental in getting a bill, directly related to the Dead Zones around the US, in front of the US Congress.  The bill addresses harmful algae blooms, or HAB’s which one of the main contributors to dead zones.

To read more or get involved, go to http://www.oceanchampions.org/index.php

It’s good to know we are not alone in this fight isn’t it?

Helping Out Around the House

Getting kids involved in around the house is a great way to show them their actions can make a difference.  You don’t have to live near a dead zone to help out, it is important to keep all of our water ways clean and healthy.  There are many things children and families can do to minimize the amount of pollutants that enter your local rivers and streams. 

In your yard

Go easy on the chemicals: always follow the directions on the label and never pour excess chemical down storm drains.  

Don’t over water: too much water can carry chemicals or nutrients into ground water or storm drains.

 Try using compost instead of chemical fertilizer.  A worm bin can speed up the process plus children can help build the bin.  

photo from watershedactivities.com

Cars

Go to the car wash: washing your car at home might save a few bucks but the water flows into the storm drain.  Unlike the pluming in your house, storm drain water is not treated and flows directly into water ways.  Going through the car wash is also pretty fun.  If you are going to wash at home be sure to us biodegradable soap. 

Fix leaks as soon as you notice them: anything leaked onto the pavement will end up getting washed away by rain and end up in river and streams.

Pets

Pick it up: left outside rain carries bacteria and excess nutrients and possible parasites into water ways.  Yuck!  Make you always bring a bag when you take your dog for a walk.

Looking for more ways to help?

Volunteer to help clean up rivers, plant a vegetable garden or help out on a local organic farm.

Sources: pugetsoundstartshere.org, state.nj.us, americanrivers.org, wwoof.org, watershedactivities.com

Economics

The economic impact of dead zones

The fishing industry is a major food source, particularly in certain regions. Food in general, as one of the necessities of human survival, tends to be a fairly large business. In the case of the dead zone of the southern coast of the US, there is a shrimping industry that has an annual income of in excess of half a billion dollars. This has formed some economic incentive to start researching the issue, however other regions where either the fishing hasn't been affected yet, or are not attached to a first world country do not seem to be under extensive research. 

In the case of the US the situation has conistently appeared to be run off as the cause of the dead zones, however the solution to this and other possible causes are still relatively poorly understood. Without funding the global fish population could suffer, which would have a negative impact starting with the fishing industry, and rippling throughout the entire food industry potentially. This is one of the reasons why some groups are trying to push forward solutions to farmers that are economically viable, but the long term impact of these solutions is still poorly understood.

The bottom line is that there is still too little research to adequately understand the full long term ramifications of the dead zones in the world. While work is being done to remedy that, the economic impact is looking increasingly gloomy, particularly when the positive impact of the disappearance of the dead zone in the Black Sea is factored in. If you consider the fact that the industry should have been there all along and wasn't, it's reasonable to assume the tough times may be ahead for certain groups in the US.

More on Artificial Fertilizers

Money money money(and life...)

So why is it so difficult to ban artificial fertilizers? The simple answer to that is population. The more complex answer is population and economics. Currently the human population is heavily sustained by the use of artificial fertilizers, in fact it is estimated that 40-60% of the current crop yields are due to artificial fertilizers and that is expected to increase. That means that a large portion of the human population is sustained via the use of these additives. From this it can be seen that without some replacement, or a massive depopulation(unlikely and unethical) artificial fertilizers are here to stay.

As for replacement, there aren't many options that are feasible. Artificial fertilizers rely heavily on fossil fuels in their production in the form of natural gas (which is non-renewable, but that's yet another issue to be dealt with), and there aren't many other substances that can offer that level of potential energy. Manure based fertilizers, such as chicken litter are sold at a premium for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's more effective, but also because it's more rare. There is a similar situation with other forms of manure.

This gets even more tricky when the issue is brought to light that organic fertilizer doesn't solve the problem. In some senses, even "organic" fertilizer is still artificial...it is still trucked in, it is still added to the dirt, it is still an artificial runoff. It is also effective and has some unusual properties, most notably controlled release, which makes it more desirable than synthetic fertilizer for certain applications. However it will still runoff into waterways where it will facilitate the growth of plants, leading to dead zones. Any additive to the earth that can run off will face this problem which is why the situation gets so complicated.

The primary solution proposed for this is to control runoff. This is, however, expensive...and corporations that control the food supply dislike seeing cuts in their profits. Without a clear economic incentive to control waste water runoff it is unlikely to be possible to reduce the outflow into the rivers, and therefore control the algal growth.