Hello everyone! This blog post is dedicated to discussing the podcast that my group recorded for our final project. I personally felt like this aspect of our research was the most engaging, and I have never recorded a podcast before, so it was a completely new experience for me! Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the process of producing a podcast episode and speaking with our guest to learn more about our project...if you would like to take a listen, check it out here! For our podcast, we invited Dr. Wilson Laney, an adjunct assistant professor in the Department of Applied Ecology at North Carolina State University, to speak with us about his research with the Atlantic striped bass. Dr. Laney is extremely accomplished as he serves on the Board of Directors of the North Carolina Wildlife Federation and was chosen as Conservationist of the Year by the Governor’s Conservation Achievement Awards. Dr. Laney’s research focuses on the management of the Atlantic striped bass by tagging and tracking the population’s migration and mortality. This process relies on commercial fisherman and recreational anglers who catch the tagged striped bass and report where those bass were found as well as how much the bass grew from the time they were tagged to the time of their recapture. His research found that the striped bass were indeed migrating northward. A higher percentage of recaptures were found offshore, and what was particularly concerning to me was that Dr. Laney informed us that he and his team found that there has not been a striped bass caught in a commercial fishery in North Carolina since 2011. It must be scary to see firsthand how the species in the oceans are changing as a result of human interactions with the environment. Dr. Laney and his team did not find conclusive evidence as to what exactly it is that is causing the species to shift northwards, however they hypothesize that it could be a result of changing temperatures and/or changes in prey distributions. This conclusion would match the research our group did for our paper that the prey species is also shifting possibly due to changes in climate. Even though there has not been extensive research done on how changing ocean temperatures have affected the striped bass populations, it is a solid hypothesis as we know that there have been adjustments to reproductive cycles and habitat as a results of temperature change and unsustainable human practices (refer to our paper). Having dialogue and communication with a professional in the field of research our project focused on made the content much more approachable and personable. Speaking with Dr. Laney, who had so many unique stories and experiences in his research experience, made me give much more thought and feeling to the fact that human interactions can have such a big impact on even just a single species of fish. Now, I cannot imagine how we are still remaining stagnant on these issues when so much of the ocean is still undiscovered and there could be millions of species impacted. Even though this is a fact that many people may know from academic sources, hearing firsthand stories about it makes the issue seem much more real and pressing. I feel very lucky that I was able to hear Dr. Laney speak about his research, and I hope that universities around the country can continue to make conversations with professionals about climate research more accessible.
0 Comments
The effects of climate change are wide ranging and varied, and many of the long-lasting impacts are still unknown. When it comes to oceans, they are extremely important to mitigating climate change and serve as a large heat and carbon sinks. However, the ocean is also extremely vulnerable to unsustainable human practices such as overfishing and excessive greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most notable effects on the oceans are changing ocean water temperatures, habitat loss, fluctuating weather patterns, and species endangerment. For the final research project, our group studied the effect of human caused threats on the Atlantic striped bass located in the Chesapeake Bay. We also looked at policy that could potentially be implemented to mitigate the effects on the species and ecosystems as a whole. The management and sustainability of striped bass has been a hot topic in recent years with fluctuations in the population of the species especially in the Chesapeake Bay area. For our group final project, we explored the sustainability and migration patterns of the striped bass (Morone saxatilis). Specifically, we looked at the potential impacts of overfishing and climate change on population abundance and patterns of the fish species in the Chesapeake Bay area. Our final paper was split into sections discussing the taxonomy and history of the striped, managements and threats to population, research done by Dr. Wilson Laney, an adjunct assistant professor at North Carolina State University, predator-prey dynamics in the striped bass ecosystem, fisheries management, and sustainability and policy regarding striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay area. The striped bass species has sat on the cusp of extinction in the past, and overfishing as well as impacts of climate change have once again caused the species to be in a critical position. As a result, several policies, such as a size requirement on catching and keeping a striped bass, have been enforced on fisheries and anglers to ensure that the population does not deplete to levels below the threshold. Climate change could potentially further strains management and success of the fish because migration patterns are affected by changing weather patterns and potentially warming ocean temperatures. It is easy to lose meaning in buzzwords and scientific jargon, but we must keep in mind the real-world urgency and importance of mitigating climate change and unsustainable human practices like overfishing. At the end of the day, we as humans exist as one species among millions, and we must recognize that our convenience is not worth the steady destruction of nature. Striped bass are not just filets and packaged goods waiting to be trawled; they’re a crucial part of the Atlantic Ocean food web. The hubris to continue these unsustainable practices driving climate change will consume nature and natural processes until there is nothing left to consume. "Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth.” Thunberg’s infamous “we will not forgive you” may sound strange at a cursory listen, but it rings true; Mother Nature can only forgive human transgressions so many times before the damage is irreparable. As a moderator for the Mock UN Negotiation simulation in my ENVS 326 class, I was able to gain a unique perspective as an outside observer of policy. The negotiations were centered around 5 key factors: Emission Peak Year, Reductions Begin Year, Annual Reduction Rate, Rate of Deforestation Prevention, Rate of Afforestation Promotion. Each region worked together in order to reach a resolution to lower the rate global warming below 2° C, however in the end, the regions failed to collectively do so. Reflecting on the policies presented, the US presented no change in policy which was one of the main areas that could have improved the warming conditions. Not only did they initially fail to present a policy change, even after further negotiations, they still continued with the business as usual approach (no change). If I were to adjust one portion of the trial, I would have changed the US policy to commit to an annual emission reduction rate of at least 2%. Going into the negotiations, I had no expectations as I was not aware of what the delegates would be bringing to the table. From the simulation, the process of negotiations seemed to lack many aspects of the SUCCES framework. In order for the negotiations to successfully proceed, there should have been more persuasive/emotive language. Targeting emotions and utilizing stories would have been beneficial in persuading regions to strive for lower emission standards as well as greater rates of deforestation prevention and afforestation promotion. Also, by using language that evokes emotion, this could help push the regions to target a faster peak and reduction year as the urgency would be more apparent. Often times, simply using credible and concrete facts is not enough to push for great change as humans are mostly run by emotions. Overall, the importance of achieving strong resolutions is greatly tied to the ethics of reducing emissions and stopping global warming. There must be a reason why we care to even think about our environment and the state of our future. Many question if we even “Have a Moral Obligation to Take Action to Protect the Future of a Planet in Peril?” The simple answer is yes. As humans, we have an obligation to fix the damage we have created. Not only this, but for the sake of our generations as well as future generations of both humans and all organisms that are impacted by climate change. As the Introduction to Climate Science Chapter on Ethics states, “If severe planetary change threatens to undermine the foundations of human thriving, and if human thriving is a fundamental value, then we have an obligation to avert the degradations that threaten us.” One of the biggest philosophical questions is with regards to the intrinsic value of humans as well as other organisms. In order for us to save our planet, we have to care about others rather than ourselves by giving value to all beings. At the end of the day, our compassions towards ourselves, others, and future generations will define who we are and how we can adapt to save the planet. At this point in time, almost the entire world is aware of the worsening effects of our climates due to human activity. In order to combat the intensifying effects of global climate change, collaboration between nations is not just recommended but instead necessary. While this realization may seem like common sense, it seems that, in reality, implementing a global solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is extremely difficult. Every year, the Conference of the Parties (COP), consisting of the five recognized UN regions, meets in order to reevaluate the progress made by the Parties in achieving the ultimate goal set by the United Nations Framework Convention to Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC strives to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” With the goal of uniting all nations under a common objective and accelerating the process of combatting climate change, at COP 21 in Paris, the Paris Climate Agreement was formed. To halt the consistent temperature increase we have seen over the past decades, the Paris Climate Agreement maintains the goal to keep “a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.” Currently, the Paris Agreement and goals surrounding the Agreement are being used to hold governments accountable for their greenhouse gas emission rates. As part of my Climate Change and Society course this semester, I will be facilitating a Mock UN Conference that is completely student led. The debate will be “held” through En-ROADS, a virtual Climate Action Simulation, that will feature students representing China, The European Union, India, The United States, Other Developing Countries, US Cities and States, Climate Activists, and Fossil Fuel Activists. The goal of the simulator is to have all of the entities participating in the global summit work together in order to test solutions and propose new strategies to addressing climate change. It follows the same goals as the Paris Climate Agreement. As a facilitator it is my goal to maintain a respectful environment for all stakeholders by allowing for equal speaking time and utilizing zoom features. It is also my goal to make sure that all the stakeholders completely understand the simulation model and are clear on the objectives of the simulation by giving ample background information and details. It will also be necessary for me and my fellow moderator to keep track of time because of the short 75 minutes we have to run the simulation. In order to do so, I will limit the time for each “step.” I will follow the following steps during our Climate Action Simulation:
Overall, I am excited to see what the participants from different regions and organizations around the world will come up with. It will be a very mind opening experience with lots of opportunity to learn from each other and gain new perspectives. References:
https://unfccc.int/resource/bigpicture/index.html#content-the-paris-agreemen https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-cop https://docs.climateinteractive.org/projects/en-roads/en/latest/guide/about.html https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=2.7.29 “Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change” ![]() https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/happennowarcticseaice/ The title of the article written by Nathanial Rich demands us to acknowledge our inaction that turned deadly. In this detailed account, Rich describes how the failure of the United States government to act on novel information about increasing global temperatures resulted in the irreversible dire situation the world is in today. The visuals by George Steinmetz further emphasis the harsh reality of environmental disasters occurring worldwide as a result of this inaction. Rafe Pomerance, a political lobbyist, and Jim Hansen, and atmospheric scientist, catalyzed the climate movement during the 1980s. But even these two esteemed members of society along with other highly influential people were unable to successfully avert the world from impending doom. Oil companies, scientists, politicians, and countless others were made aware of the magnitude of the climate crisis, so why couldn’t they stop it? The answer is simple: humans are selfish. Companies like Exxon and the American Petroleum Institute cared more about the liability they would have for releasing carbon emissions rather than the state of the environment itself. It is because of this reason that they failed to rectify their unsustainable practices after being released of accountability for their actions. The article raises the question, “Why should they act when almost nobody within the United States government — nor, for that matter, within the environmental movement — seemed worried?” Large companies who benefit from polluting the environment would surely not be the first to stop, especially when nobody else is. No one else was worried because everyone saw global warming as a problem of the future, not relevant to the problems at the present. That brings me to my second point: no change will occur unless it is forced upon or heavily influenced by a high enough authority. Even Pomerance knew that, “the United States wouldn’t act unless a strong leader persuaded it to do so — someone who would speak with authority about the science, demand action from those in power and risk everything in pursuit of justice.” But that leader never quite came. Instead, when Ronald Reagan came into power, he backtracked decades of environmental progress, and thus further exacerbating the damages. There is an emphasis on political action being necessary in order for change to occur, and no amount of scientific research can avert the climate crisis. The article makes it clear that consistently relying on “new technologies” to save the world and delaying action to the future is no longer an option. We are currently in the “future” that was described in the 1980s. Everyone is to blame, because it was the result of actions from both Democrats and Republicans that led us to where we are today.
It depressing to think that we were so close to avoiding the crisis we are currently in, but failure to reach consensus and to stay accountable for our promises led us down a path to destruction instead. I was surprised to learn how long the climate crisis has been relevant for with no real action being taken. One thing is clear: we are now being held accountable for failing to pay back the debts we have accumulated from mother nature over the last centuries. |