CU Boulder Today

Current marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean need to be at least doubled to adequately safeguard the biodiversity of the Antarctic, according to a new CU Boulder study published today, Earth Day, in the journal PLOS ONE. 

Proposals under consideration by an international council this year would significantly improve the variety of habitats protected, sustain fish populations and enhance the region’s resilience to the effects of climate change, the authors say. 

“Compared to the rest of the world’s oceans, we have some of the healthiest marine systems left in the world in Antarctica,” said Cassandra Brooks, author of the new paper and assistant professor in the Environmental Studies Program. “But there are vast areas of the Southern Ocean that are left completely unprotected.” 

Many international targets suggest that 10 to 30 percent of the world’s combined oceans should be protected. The Southern Ocean, which surrounds Antarctica, comprises about 10 percent of the world’s oceans, and its protection can play a large role in accomplishing this goal. 

At present, almost 12 percent of the Southern Ocean is designated as part of marine protected areas, or MPAs. MPAs – especially “no-take” MPAs, or marine reserves which do not allow any fishing – have been shown to support the abundance and diversity of species. 

“But percentages aren’t enough,” said Brooks. “You want protected areas to be representative of all the different life that’s in the Southern Ocean.” 

The Antarctic region is home to as many as 10,000 species – including whales, seals, penguins, fish, corals and giant Antarctic sea spiders – many of which are found nowhere else in the world. And as far as scientists know, none of them have yet gone extinct from climate change or other human actions. 

If additional marine protected areas currently under negotiation by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) are implemented, they would encompass almost 22 percent of the Southern Ocean and achieve at least 10 percent representation of its over 40 unique habitats. 

“As marine scientists, it’s important we have places left that we can actually study as healthy systems that are undergoing climate stress,” said Brooks. 

But the Southern Ocean supports international commercial fisheries for Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish, sold as Chilean sea bass, as well as krill, which is farmed for fish meal and omega-3 fatty acid pills. Less than 5 percent of the Southern Ocean’s protection bans fishing. 

Pressure on these fisheries has increased in recent years and is likely to continue, due to the popularity of omega-3 pills and demand for fish meal – which is fed to pigs, chickens, and other farmed fish. At the same time, climate change pressures on Southern Ocean ecosystems are also increasing. 

To help boost the resilience of these ecosystems, “we really need large areas that are off limits to extraction,” said Brooks. “Antarctica is a global commons that belongs to all of us.” 

A system in flux

The importance of the Antarctic cannot be understated. The Southern Ocean stores 90 percent of the world’s freshwater, drives global ocean circulation and regulates our entire climate.

“At its most basic level, all Earth’s systems depend on the Southern Ocean,” said Brooks. “And Antarctica is one of the fastest changing places in the whole world due to climate change. It is impacting the entire ecosystem in ways that we really don’t understand yet.” 

Populations of phytoplankton communities and krill – at the bottom of the food chain – to penguins and toothfish – at the very top – are changing. The whole system is in flux.

Most of these animals cannot migrate or relocate. They’re already as far south as they can go. 

Building on work from previous studies, Brooks and her co-authors wanted to know: Are we protecting the right areas that actually will conserve biodiversity?

So they looked at the variety of Antarctic ocean habitats, from the seafloor to the open water, and examined what percentage of them rest within existing and proposed protected areas and which ones do not. 

They found that for protections to be fully representative of the biodiversity in the Southern Ocean, and better protect many ocean birds and mammals, they would need to be increased even more than protections currently proposed by CCAMLR. This international treaty group of 26 member states is next scheduled to meet in October of 2020.

Adopting these protections would be an important milestone in the right direction, said Brooks. 

Additional coauthors on the new study include Zephyr Sylvester and Christa Torrens of CU Boulder; Steven L. Chown of Monash University; Lucinda Douglass of the Centre for Conservation Geography at The University of Queensland, Brisbane, and University of Queensland, Queensland; Justine Shaw of The University of Queensland, Queensland; and Ben Raymond of the Australian Antarctic Division.

Columbia Journalism Review
by Eva Holland

In late summer 2015, I stood on the deck of a small cruise ship in the Canadian Arctic and saw a polar bear. It was my first time encountering one up close. The bear was lonely and beautiful, adrift on a snow-covered slab of ice in the open sea. The water beyond the floe was cold and dark, but around the bear, where a hidden mass of ice below the surface captured light, there was turquoise.

I had seen other bears on this trip, some just vanilla ice cream scoops on red-brown tundra in the far distance. A few were distinct: one scaled a cliff to rob nesting seabirds of their eggs; another swam by as passengers crammed into the small inflatable boats we used for shore landings, its ears and snout barely visible above the water. But this sighting was different. The ship’s PA system had crackled in the dining hall as we all sat eating our lunch; a crew member announced that there was a polar bear ahead. We’d abandoned our soup bowls and stampeded to our cabins to grab puffy down jackets and cameras; the captain had slowed the ship to a crawl and then brought it to a full stop, coming to rest with the gentlest bump against the berg that held the bear.

Now a hundred tourists packed the deck in near-perfect silence, our only sounds the artificial clicks of digital cameras and the occasional sigh. The bear glanced up at us briefly, sniffed, and then dismissed us, returning his attention to a disemboweled seal that lay bloody on the snow beside him. He worked at the carcass, tearing off dark strips of tough blubber with his long yellow teeth, ignoring a handful of gulls that hovered eagerly nearby. We stood and watched the bear butcher that seal for more than an hour. We were close enough to hear the scrape of his claws on the ice, close enough to see that the seal’s eyeballs had popped out of their sockets and now dangled in the snow on long tendrils of nerve tissue.

As I observed the scene, I realized that I was witnessing a kind of reversal: the real animal behind the iconography—that is, the image of a solitary bear on a dwindling ice throne. In the age of climate change, the polar bear has become the mascot for a planetary crisis. With its crucial habitat, Arctic sea ice, in inexorable and well-documented retreat, it seems a useful—and, to those who haven’t seen one maul anything, adorable—symbol for an otherwise abstract warming process.

The polar bear as climate change symbol is ubiquitous. A Google search yields links to countless stories from CNN, the BBC, CBC, and many more outlets, alongside search suggestions for “starving,” “global warming,” “sad,” “skinny,” and “dying.” A notable example came in 2006, with the big-eyed cartoon polar bear swimming hopelessly in search of vanished sea ice in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. The appeal of polar bears has been attributed to the “identifiable-victim effect.” As Kate Manzo, a geographer at Newcastle University, writes in a 2010 paper, “The basic idea is that numbers (or ‘dry statistics’) fail to either spark emotion or motivate action in the same way as images do.”

Bears, in other words, are more compelling than bar graphs. Manzo charts the rise of the polar bear as an embodiment of climate change in connection with a few near-simultaneous events in the mid-2000s. One was a viral image of two Alaskan polar bears that seemed to be “howling against injustice” as ice crumbled around them. (The image was shot in 2004 but received its widest circulation when the Canadian Ice Service released it alongside a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.) Another was the sudden global celebrity of Knut, the Berlin Zoo’s baby polar bear, born in 2006. As a cub, he was not only photographed and relentlessly documented by webcam but also trademarked, televised, and commemorated in everything from ringtones to stamps to credit cards. Knut even posed for Annie Leibovitz, landing the cover of Vanity Fair.

With polar bears, journalists had stumbled on a shorthand for climate change—something specific, with emotional heft, that could be used to stand in for a slow-moving and almost invisible crisis. For millions of people who would never lay eyes on one in real life, let alone on a shrinking shard of ice, the polar bear would signify a looming disaster that otherwise felt distant, even irrelevant. But the polar bear, hungry and paddling on, couldn’t tell the whole story.

f the polar bear capped the modern age of climate journalism, we can trace the beginnings of that era to the summer of 1988. It was unusually hot. Since the early years of the twentieth century, scientists had discussed the possibility that the planet would eventually be warmed by an excess of carbon dioxide trapped in the atmosphere. By the fifties, the first long-term data-gathering projects to document the increase in CO₂ had been launched. But public awareness was limited, and news outlets had given the threat only occasional notice. The New York Times published its first reference to a terrestrial “greenhouse effect” on August 2, 1970, reporting that “its future consequences are unknown.” (A story from 1961 had referred to the same effect on Venus.) Through the sixties and seventies and into the eighties, global warming was “a prediction about something that might happen,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University who specializes in the story of climate change. “Most people think it’s still pretty far away and they don’t want to put a date on it.”

But a hearing on June 23, 1988, changed that. Dr. James Hansen, the director of nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, appeared before the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Capitol Hill. Forty-seven years old, with a thinning brown comb-over, he wore a tan suit and a dark reddish tie. Seated before the committee, he pulled a pair of microphones in close, leaned forward, and explained his findings. He offered three key conclusions: First, that in all recorded history the earth had never been hotter than it was in 1988. Second, that the planet’s warming could now be attributed “with a high degree of confidence” to the greenhouse gas effect. And third, that the effect was already pronounced enough that it might explain the incidence of extreme weather events. “The greenhouse effect has been detected,” Hansen said, “and it is changing our climate now.” In a highly visible forum, with reach beyond the scientific community, the climate discussion had turned abruptly from speculation to something concrete.

Hansen’s role was to share his research on global temperature patterns, not to prescribe policy. The presiding senator on the committee, Timothy Wirth of Colorado, picked up where the scientist left off: “The global climate is changing as the earth’s atmosphere gets warmer,” he said after Hansen had testified. “Now the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.” The next day, the front page of the New York Times was topped by the headline “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate.”

A few months later, Discover made global warming its cover story. Andrew Revkin, the author of the piece, used Hansen’s testimony as the jumping-off point for a wider look at climate science. The magazine’s eye-catching front depicted Earth glowing white-hot and melting into a puddle, overlaid with the lines “The Greenhouse Effect: This Summer Was Merely a Warm-Up.” The next year, 1989, Bill McKibben published The End of Nature, which would become known as the first mainstream book on climate change. It seemed as though something was changing, that attention was being paid.

And then came the backlash. Hansen’s testimony triggered a rapid public relations response from the fossil fuel industry and other interested parties; that reaction and its fallout were the subject of Oreskes’s 2010 book Merchants of Doubt. “Sadly, that’s when the ‘both sides’ false equivalence kicks in,” she told me. “Because journalists don’t realize what’s happening. They don’t get it. They don’t understand that this is a disinformation campaign. And frankly, most of the scientists don’t understand it either. So the scientists don’t call it out.” That old journalistic touchstone of “balance” provided an ideal platform for companies like Exxon and BP to distort the science of the greenhouse gas effect. In a 2008 paper on televised news coverage of climate change between 1995 and 2004, Maxwell Boykoff, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, found that 70 percent of American news segments dealing with climate offered the kind of “balanced” coverage that ultimately obscured the scientific consensus.

In 2001, the George W. Bush administration announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 treaty that had offered a road map for emissions reductions and emphasized the contributions of industrialized nations. Kendra Pierre-Louis, who is now a reporter on the climate change desk at the New York Times, was in college at Cornell at the time. She remembers a series of campus protests and sit-ins where students spoke out against Bush’s decision and called for the university to implement Kyoto even if the federal government would not. Pierre-Louis read The End of Nature and was shocked to realize that it had been published so many years earlier. “I don’t want to call it a blackout rage moment,” she said. “But I was just very confused. Everyone seemed to have known about this for over a decade and there didn’t seem to be a lot of traction.” By the mid-aughts, that’s where things stood: scientists were largely in agreement, the public was largely unengaged, and journalists were struggling to connect the two. Enter the polar bear.

“I’ve been trying to tell this story for a long time,” Gore says in the opening minutes of An Inconvenient Truth, “and I feel as if I’ve failed to get the message across.” Back in college, Gore had studied under one of those early CO₂ data gatherers, Roger Revelle. So after Gore’s loss in the 2000 election, he returned to a project he had put aside during his vice presidency: giving public presentations about global warming. A touring slideshow led to the documentary, an Academy Award, a Nobel Peace Prize (awarded jointly to Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and a critical milestone in the public’s awareness of climate change. I remember the image he put on-screen: the animated polar bear, stranded on a shrinking iceberg, the open ocean menacing all around. As Gore’s voice-over describes polar bears “swimming long distances…to find the ice,” he transfers the bear’s sense of crisis to the viewer. The image cemented my awareness of the polar bear trope.

Journalism’s wide embrace of the polar bear was logical, to a point. It “leaned on the language of conservation,” Pierre-Louis said. The polar-bear-on-sea-ice image was similar to save-the-whales campaigns and dolphin-safe tuna can labeling and the World Wildlife Fund’s panda logo. The overwhelming problems of the environment could be channeled through friendly megafauna.

But that focus also had limitations. For one thing, it led to several news cycles, over the years, of wrangling about the precise connections between viral images—of a sad-looking bear, for instance, that was most likely dying of starvation or injury at the moment the photojournalist’s camera snapped—and the effects of climate change. “I do think, in retrospect, there were some problems with it,” said Boykoff, whose recent book, Creative (Climate) Communication, is about effective ways to engage the public in environmental science. The polar bear, so far from most people, made it appear that climate change was “something that was distant from us,” Boykoff added. “And so there is an argument that could be made that it did have this kind of stifling impact on engagement. Whereas if we really talked about how it’s affecting urban centers, how it’s affecting our daily lives, how it’s really an intersectional set of challenges, not just a single issue, and it permeates everything from land-use decision-making to immigration policy in the United States—that livens up all kinds of discussions that I think people find relevant.” Read more …

You’ve Been Warmed

Max Boykoff – Director of CSTPR at CU Boulder – joins the show to discuss how to communicate successfully on climate change, the different types of strategies that can reach different audiences in different contexts and combining authenticity, accuracy and humor.

Episode Notes

Today’s You’ve Been Warmed episode features Max Boykoff – The Director of the Center For Science & Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Max also researches & teaches science-policy & society at the same University and he is the author of ‘Creative (Climate) Communications’ – a book that examines what mix of communication strategies can be effective in inspiring people to take action on climate change in an effort to recapture a common ground on the topic within the public arena.

Throughout the episode Max impressed me with very thoughtful and well articulated answers that give a balanced view on climate communication while not offering a silver bullet that can solve everything. Instead he advocates for a ‘silver buckshot’ approach where a number of strategies reach different audiences in different contexts.

We spoke at large about the role the media plays and how it covers the effects of climate change – in fact one of the projects Max leads, called the ‘Media and Climate Change Observatory’ analyses this quantitatively and qualitative, which uniquely positions him to give an informed observation on the topic.

We dove into why authenticity and accuracy when it comes to communicating the effects of climate change is extremely important, but why we also have to combine that with inspiring visions & stories that can get people to take action rather than make them feel lonely and hopeless. We also spoke about the role that humor plays in climate communication and how it can erase some of the partisan issues that might arise from approaching the subject.

I probably cannot do this episode justice by trying to summarise the points more here, so I invite you to have a listen to our chat!