6 ms·

Huge 'Dead Zone' Predicted in Gulf of Mexico

87 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

zxcdw 13y ago
Is something like this an accepted tradeoff when using fertilizers for farming?
- mayneack 13y ago
  Accepted by who?
- ValG 13y ago
  Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
  - joonix 13y ago
    Now fishermen will suffer so farmers can pull a profit. It's kind of the most simple form of unfairness. The kind that small children easily identify and question.
    - dsuth 13y ago
      It's confusing that the only externality considered in the article or in the HN comments so far is "effect on fisheries". Coastal regions are (typically) teaming with life of all kinds. I can live without people getting fresh fish quite as often as they're used to. I can't swallow destroying entire ecosystems out of wilful ignorance quite so easily.
- masklinn 13y ago
  It's accepted by those who benefit and don't get (directly) harmed and those who do get harmed don't get a say. See negative externalities and tragedy of the commons.
  - mynewwork 13y ago
    Your hyperbole here is incorrect and unwarranted. Agricultural chemicals in the US are highly regulated. Many types of fertilizers and pesticides have been banned, others have restrictions on the volume and timing of their use. The EPA has a 10 Billion dollar budget, which it uses to do massive amounts of research to help control and mitigate negative externalities. Fines and penalties for violating EPA rules are severe.
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Sorry, but the EPA isn't nearly as formidable or effective as you make it out to mb. As recently noted in the NYT: "The Environmental Protection Agency is obliged under the Clean Water Act to monitor America’s waterways and shield them from the toxic runoff from factory farms. But the growth of that industry, and its courtroom tenacity, has far outstripped the E.P.A.’s efforts to restrict runoff from manure lagoons and feedlots. Last year, the agency meekly withdrew two proposed rules. One would have gathered basic information from all factory farms. The other proposed rule would have expanded the number of such farms required to have a national pollution discharge permit. Fewer than 60 percent do now. Then, last week, in yet another retreat, the agency announced that promised new regulations governing feedlot discharges nationally would not be forthcoming." This is an op-ed, and leads to advocacy for a particular response. But the facts it's based on are not in question, and they seriously undermine any assertions that the EPA is as effective as it needs to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-on-factory-farms.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-...
- Shivetya 13y ago
  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS Interesting data in the above about fertilizer consumption in agriculture. The link was found at http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overuses-fertilizers-who-underuses-them/ http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overu... Farmers don't like to fertilize, it costs money. I remember long ago it being used to plant crops in fields that normally were off rotation because that crop was very profitable that year. That was ages ago so I don't know if it applies still.
mmagin 13y ago
This article doesn't mention it, but I've heard the suggestion that far more of the runoff is from over-fertilized suburban lawns than from agriculture. At least commercial agriculture tends to be a bit more concerned about wasteful inputs, etc. (At least where subsidies haven't distorted it too much.) But I see some incredibly excessively perfectly green lawns which are such a waste of resources unless you're playing golf or lawn bowling.
- minikites 13y ago
  Lawns in general are goddamn stupid idea. The most common irrigated crop in the United States? Turf grass. They're a huge waste of water and a huge waste of fertilizer and both of those have very negative impacts on our immediate environment.
  - wmeredith 13y ago
    By definition, a well manicured lawn is wasteful. Lawns began as a way for nobility to signal that they could afford to take care of land, but not have it _produce_ anything. I mow my lawn and I seed in the fall to keep erosion problems at bay, but that's about it. One of my neighbors has a putting-green like lawn with an in ground sprinkler system. It's amazing. It's the envy of the neighborhood, and it just makes me shake my head when I actually take the time to think about it.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Lawns in general? Damn stupid idea. Lawns in Arizona? Maybe the stupidest idea.
  - viggity 13y ago
    Excuse me, but a huge portion of the US population lives in places that do not have water scarcity problems. I live in Iowa, we have more water than we know what to do with. Irrigating my lawn doesn't hurt the environment or any of my neighbors. Not everyone in the US lives in the southwest.
    - minikites 13y ago
ynniv 13y ago
You actually wanted: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130618_deadzone.html http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130618_deadzone.h... http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?XMLFilename=201306191312.xml http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?XMLFilename=2013...
mjn 13y ago
Some sources of more information, for those interested: Summary of the mechanisms behind hypoxia (site also includes data sets and other information): http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Overview/ http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Overview/ NOAA Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Watch: http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/ http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/ Interactive map of eutropic and hypoxic zones worldwide, w/ data set from 2011: http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/map http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/map
benjamincburns 13y ago
It's easy to create a market for exploiting the environment, especially when the individual contribution to the whole of the exploitation is small. Sadly it's very difficult to create a market for preservation, especially when the individual impact is just as small. I ask this non-rhetorically: how the hell does anyone turn that on its head, especially without government involvement? The Ocean Research and Conservation Association is a nonprofit that's trying to promote the visibility of this problem (hypoxia caused by harmful blooms). They're doing this through the use of very low cost in situ sensor networks [1] and broad spectrum toxicology assays [2]. It's headed by Dr. Edie Widder [3], the scientist who got the first footage of the giant squid on last year's Discovery Channel cruise. In combination with measuring physical/chemical parameters, they can automatically measure biological parameters of the environment. They've done this by miniaturizing and cost-reducing bathyphotometer [4] technology. To the best of my very limited knowledge nobody else is looking at the problem this way. Everybody else measures physical/chemical parameters, and either infer what's happening to the biology, or they do point or small area biological sampling on an infrequent basis. And because it's so damn expensive there's always a big tradeoff between temporal and spatial resolution. With techniques like that everything is aggregate and there's little ability to tie specific action to specific consequences, let alone enforce any kind of feedback loop. One of ORCA's biggest goals is to create a realtime water health gradient map that's promoted to and accessible by the general public. In a perfect world this would be used on the news right alongside the weather report. I hate to cast a light of negativity but frankly I doubt they'll ever pull this off. Not because of lack of technical ability or people with the passion to do the work, but because of lack of stable funding. What's crazy is their technology is downright cheap, especially compared to the magnitude of the problem. If they could ever pull together the funding to engineer for manufacturability and do a full volume run, it'd be orders of magnitude less expensive. I freely admit that I suck at marketing, so the best I can offer is a shameless plea. If this problem is important to you do something to solve it. Read up on nutrient limiting and how it impacts hypoxia. Find a polite way to tell your neighbor that their super green lawn might be sucking the life out of the waterways. Spend a bit more to buy your meat and produce from farms that limit runoff. If you have loose change, donate to organizations like ORCA or perhaps to someone more local to you. 1: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/kilroy_technical.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/kilroy_technical.cfm 2: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/fast.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/fast.cfm 3: http://www.ted.com/speakers/edith_widder.html http://www.ted.com/speakers/edith_widder.html 4: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/biolum_study.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/biolum_study.cfm Disclosure: I'm a former ORCA employee, but otherwise I'm no longer affiliated. Edit: Bathyphotometer link [4] refers to a larger, more expensive model Edie designed for the US Navy. See edited [1] for reference to smaller cost-reduced version.
tobykier 13y ago
so will the farmers get the shit sued out of them like BP did?
epoxyhockey 13y ago
I'm curious if the dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 may have been a contributing factor in addition to fertilizers and agricultural runoff? Or should I consider the Deepwater Horizon aftereffects water under the bridge by now?
- clarky07 13y ago
  FTA: "Last year's dead zone was smaller than average" I'm guessing that means that the oil spill isn't a contributing factor, and it's just the excess rain and subsequent runoff this year.
  - benjamincburns 13y ago
    Hypoxic regions are caused by an influx of various nutrient-limited organisms (hence why fertilizer is bad) which trigger a feeding cycle that destabilizes and ultimately kills off the oxygen-producing organisms in the impacted region. Once they're gone, carnivorous inverts which survive well in low oxygen environments move in and stabilize the environment to its newly-barren state. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that the chemical dispersants actually contributed to the reduction of hypoxia, since it introduced a new limiting factor for the organisms which start the cycle. That said, I'm sure dispersants aren't biased in what they poison, so it's important to note that this is probably a positive-looking indicator masking devastatingly negative phenomenon.
NatCrodo 13y ago
Now we know how things affect the environment, I'm curious on what people will do about it.

87 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

zxcdw 13y ago

Is something like this an accepted tradeoff when using fertilizers for farming?

mayneack 13y ago
Accepted by who?
ValG 13y ago
Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- joonix 13y ago
  Now fishermen will suffer so farmers can pull a profit. It's kind of the most simple form of unfairness. The kind that small children easily identify and question.
  - dsuth 13y ago
    It's confusing that the only externality considered in the article or in the HN comments so far is "effect on fisheries". Coastal regions are (typically) teaming with life of all kinds. I can live without people getting fresh fish quite as often as they're used to. I can't swallow destroying entire ecosystems out of wilful ignorance quite so easily.
masklinn 13y ago
It's accepted by those who benefit and don't get (directly) harmed and those who do get harmed don't get a say. See negative externalities and tragedy of the commons.
- mynewwork 13y ago
  Your hyperbole here is incorrect and unwarranted. Agricultural chemicals in the US are highly regulated. Many types of fertilizers and pesticides have been banned, others have restrictions on the volume and timing of their use. The EPA has a 10 Billion dollar budget, which it uses to do massive amounts of research to help control and mitigate negative externalities. Fines and penalties for violating EPA rules are severe.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Sorry, but the EPA isn't nearly as formidable or effective as you make it out to mb. As recently noted in the NYT: "The Environmental Protection Agency is obliged under the Clean Water Act to monitor America’s waterways and shield them from the toxic runoff from factory farms. But the growth of that industry, and its courtroom tenacity, has far outstripped the E.P.A.’s efforts to restrict runoff from manure lagoons and feedlots. Last year, the agency meekly withdrew two proposed rules. One would have gathered basic information from all factory farms. The other proposed rule would have expanded the number of such farms required to have a national pollution discharge permit. Fewer than 60 percent do now. Then, last week, in yet another retreat, the agency announced that promised new regulations governing feedlot discharges nationally would not be forthcoming." This is an op-ed, and leads to advocacy for a particular response. But the facts it's based on are not in question, and they seriously undermine any assertions that the EPA is as effective as it needs to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-on-factory-farms.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-...
Shivetya 13y ago
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS Interesting data in the above about fertilizer consumption in agriculture. The link was found at http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overuses-fertilizers-who-underuses-them/ http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overu... Farmers don't like to fertilize, it costs money. I remember long ago it being used to plant crops in fields that normally were off rotation because that crop was very profitable that year. That was ages ago so I don't know if it applies still.

mmagin 13y ago

This article doesn't mention it, but I've heard the suggestion that far more of the runoff is from over-fertilized suburban lawns than from agriculture. At least commercial agriculture tends to be a bit more concerned about wasteful inputs, etc. (At least where subsidies haven't distorted it too much.) But I see some incredibly excessively perfectly green lawns which are such a waste of resources unless you're playing golf or lawn bowling.

minikites 13y ago
Lawns in general are goddamn stupid idea. The most common irrigated crop in the United States? Turf grass. They're a huge waste of water and a huge waste of fertilizer and both of those have very negative impacts on our immediate environment.
- wmeredith 13y ago
  By definition, a well manicured lawn is wasteful. Lawns began as a way for nobility to signal that they could afford to take care of land, but not have it _produce_ anything. I mow my lawn and I seed in the fall to keep erosion problems at bay, but that's about it. One of my neighbors has a putting-green like lawn with an in ground sprinkler system. It's amazing. It's the envy of the neighborhood, and it just makes me shake my head when I actually take the time to think about it.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Lawns in general? Damn stupid idea. Lawns in Arizona? Maybe the stupidest idea.
- viggity 13y ago
  Excuse me, but a huge portion of the US population lives in places that do not have water scarcity problems. I live in Iowa, we have more water than we know what to do with. Irrigating my lawn doesn't hurt the environment or any of my neighbors. Not everyone in the US lives in the southwest.
  - minikites 13y ago

ynniv 13y ago

You actually wanted: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130618_deadzone.html http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130618_deadzone.h... http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?XMLFilename=201306191312.xml http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/News/default.asp?XMLFilename=2013...

mjn 13y ago

Some sources of more information, for those interested: Summary of the mechanisms behind hypoxia (site also includes data sets and other information): http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Overview/ http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Overview/ NOAA Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Watch: http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/ http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/hypoxia/ Interactive map of eutropic and hypoxic zones worldwide, w/ data set from 2011: http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/map http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/map

benjamincburns 13y ago

It's easy to create a market for exploiting the environment, especially when the individual contribution to the whole of the exploitation is small. Sadly it's very difficult to create a market for preservation, especially when the individual impact is just as small. I ask this non-rhetorically: how the hell does anyone turn that on its head, especially without government involvement? The Ocean Research and Conservation Association is a nonprofit that's trying to promote the visibility of this problem (hypoxia caused by harmful blooms). They're doing this through the use of very low cost in situ sensor networks [1] and broad spectrum toxicology assays [2]. It's headed by Dr. Edie Widder [3], the scientist who got the first footage of the giant squid on last year's Discovery Channel cruise. In combination with measuring physical/chemical parameters, they can automatically measure biological parameters of the environment. They've done this by miniaturizing and cost-reducing bathyphotometer [4] technology. To the best of my very limited knowledge nobody else is looking at the problem this way. Everybody else measures physical/chemical parameters, and either infer what's happening to the biology, or they do point or small area biological sampling on an infrequent basis. And because it's so damn expensive there's always a big tradeoff between temporal and spatial resolution. With techniques like that everything is aggregate and there's little ability to tie specific action to specific consequences, let alone enforce any kind of feedback loop. One of ORCA's biggest goals is to create a realtime water health gradient map that's promoted to and accessible by the general public. In a perfect world this would be used on the news right alongside the weather report. I hate to cast a light of negativity but frankly I doubt they'll ever pull this off. Not because of lack of technical ability or people with the passion to do the work, but because of lack of stable funding. What's crazy is their technology is downright cheap, especially compared to the magnitude of the problem. If they could ever pull together the funding to engineer for manufacturability and do a full volume run, it'd be orders of magnitude less expensive. I freely admit that I suck at marketing, so the best I can offer is a shameless plea. If this problem is important to you do something to solve it. Read up on nutrient limiting and how it impacts hypoxia. Find a polite way to tell your neighbor that their super green lawn might be sucking the life out of the waterways. Spend a bit more to buy your meat and produce from farms that limit runoff. If you have loose change, donate to organizations like ORCA or perhaps to someone more local to you. 1: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/kilroy_technical.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/kilroy_technical.cfm 2: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/fast.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/fast.cfm 3: http://www.ted.com/speakers/edith_widder.html http://www.ted.com/speakers/edith_widder.html 4: http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/biolum_study.cfm http://www.teamorca.org/cfiles/biolum_study.cfm Disclosure: I'm a former ORCA employee, but otherwise I'm no longer affiliated. Edit: Bathyphotometer link [4] refers to a larger, more expensive model Edie designed for the US Navy. See edited [1] for reference to smaller cost-reduced version.

tobykier 13y ago

so will the farmers get the shit sued out of them like BP did?

epoxyhockey 13y ago

I'm curious if the dispersants used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 may have been a contributing factor in addition to fertilizers and agricultural runoff? Or should I consider the Deepwater Horizon aftereffects water under the bridge by now?

clarky07 13y ago
FTA: "Last year's dead zone was smaller than average" I'm guessing that means that the oil spill isn't a contributing factor, and it's just the excess rain and subsequent runoff this year.
- benjamincburns 13y ago
  Hypoxic regions are caused by an influx of various nutrient-limited organisms (hence why fertilizer is bad) which trigger a feeding cycle that destabilizes and ultimately kills off the oxygen-producing organisms in the impacted region. Once they're gone, carnivorous inverts which survive well in low oxygen environments move in and stabilize the environment to its newly-barren state. I don't know for certain, but I'd guess that the chemical dispersants actually contributed to the reduction of hypoxia, since it introduced a new limiting factor for the organisms which start the cycle. That said, I'm sure dispersants aren't biased in what they poison, so it's important to note that this is probably a positive-looking indicator masking devastatingly negative phenomenon.

NatCrodo 13y ago

Now we know how things affect the environment, I'm curious on what people will do about it.