Back in April, a well-known fisheries biologist named Ray Hillborn published an op-ed in the New York Times that was titled (by the editors, not Hillborn) "Let Us Eat Fish." The gist of it was: our fisheries are doing great, so chow down on seafood with a clear conscience!

Squid are often considered to be one of the more sustainable seafood choices. Squid grow like weeds, right? They have short life cycles, make tons of babies, and adapt easily to changing environments. It's like eating dandelions.

Only not.

When it comes to environmental safeguarding, governments and public authorities spend most of their time in developing large programs. However by doing so, they often do not take into consideration minor concrete solutions that, if systematically taken, would reduce pollution emissions.

The locavore movement, which was born on the US West Coast, may have convinced more people to shop at their local farmers' markets and participate in community-supported agriculture--but it's been a challenge to make similar progress toward eating local fish.

The main commercial catch off our local [Southern California] coast are sardines and squid, but many Americans prefer to stick with the greatest hits (a.k.a. shrimp, salmon, and tuna.) So the primary market for our catch is overseas.

Arctic Ice May 2011 - Update #1

Even if it leaves you too tired to come back and read my own humble offerings - but I hope you do come back  -  there are two very topical blog posts that I want to recommend to you:

Tell good stories that entertain and are relevant. It is so easy to say “use simple everyday life language”, but for a scientist who are trained to do the exact opposite it hurts. Almost physically.

Beginning in the 1970s, we were taught to keep homes cooler if we want to save energy and therefore both money and the planet.   But systems don't really work that way, as most knew, and a report commissioned by Friends of the Earth and written by Professor Sir Michael Marmot points out that cold homes cost lives and harm the environment in the long run. 

In science, you need a theory, an approach, and a way to measure the results.  In politics, you only need an opinion and a microphone.  Therefore, it is interesting that a major Green advocate -- promoting sensible environmental solutions -- took the stand to criticize past Green efforts.

George Monbiot (winner of a UN Global award, among others) recently scribed Let's Face it, none of our environmental fixes break the planet-wrecking problem.  There was immediate outcry and, as usual, the pundits somehow claiming this is proof that Green=Bad are missing the point on this.

The Mississippi Floods

Arctic Ice May 2011

The great thing about the scientific method is that we can figure out what will happen if we do something before we do it.  Scientists figured out long ago that burning fossil fuels and putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a great rate would affect the planet's climate systems.  Which it has.  One of the predictions about the effect of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere was that the Arctic would be affected most.  Which it has been.  Scientists predicted an Arctic acceleration or amplification: a process where positive feedbacks become ever stronger with ever less Arctic ice.  Ice loss is accelerating.