Carbon Emissions Amplify Underwater Noise Pollution, Experiments Show

By R. C. Anderson, on October 9th, 2008

As seen in a previous article, ocean acidification has become a true cause of concern for ocean life, especially in the future. It is estimated that 22 million tons of carbon dioxide is being absorbed daily by our oceans. This has altered their natural pH, causing them to become 30% more acidic than they were in the early 1900s. In fact, Richard Feeley, an oceanographer with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) has stated that the ocean will be more acidic in 2100 than it has been in the last 20 million years. While some are concerned that this increased acidity will dissolve the shells of the lucrative oysters and clams which depend on them, others have become cognizant of a new threat: reduced sound absorption. While this may seem trivial, whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions and a majority of fish use sound to locate food, communicate and hide from predators1,2. If this is altered, so too could be their behavior and survival.

According to an October 3 issue of Science, ocean pH has dropped 0.12 units since the Industrial Revolution, which has led to an almost 15% drop in the ocean’s sound absorption. If carbon dioxide absorption continues, it is expected that the ocean pH will drop another 0.3 units by 2050. If calculations are correct, this would lead to a reduction in sound absorption of 40%3. This means the volume level for everyday sounds would not only increase, but the sound would also travel further, creating a louder environment over a greater area for all aquatic creatures3.

Man-Made Noises

One of the more problematic consequences of this is the increased volume of man-made noise, such as sonar or ships. Whales and dolphins would find this especially annoying since they are easily stressed by such foreign noises. It has been known for more than 30 years that a drop in ocean pH means an increase in acidity and, as a result, a decrease in sound absorption. It is believed this is due to the reduction in availability of pH-dependent ion pairs that occur in the ocean, such as carbonate, bicarbonate, borate and boric acid. These ions naturally absorb sound. Unfortunately, increased acidity tends to reduce the concentration of these ions3.

Dr. Keith Hester, an ocean chemist with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in California, wanted to test if indeed the falling oceanic pH was affecting sound. By using the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s estimates for oceanic pH levels by 2050, Hester tested sound conductivity at varying pH levels. According to Hester, if the estimates from the UN are correct, sound will travel 70% further in 2050 than it does today3. This could lead to a problem when one realizes that whale behavior can be altered by sonar from over 500 kilometers away, and a reduction in the ocean’s ability to absorb sound waves will only increase this.

Effects Already Felt

It isn’t necessary to wait until 2050 to note the acoustical differences in the ocean. Changes have already been documented to have occurred off the Californian coast. Here, noise levels have increased by nine decibels over the last 50 years4. Considering an increase of 10 decibels roughly doubles how loud a sound is5, sounds in the ocean could be said to be almost twice as loud as they were in the 1960s. The full scope of how this could affect sea-life, fisheries and our oceans in general, however, is not yet known.

This is such a cause for concern that NOAA has become involved over the last several years. In 2004, they hosted a National Educational Lecture Series at points across the U.S. informing people of the consequences of increased sound volume on marine life6. They are also working to define Noise Exposure Criteria for sea life while funding research in this same area. In May 2007, there was even a symposium regarding technology to reduce the noise generated by commercial ships. Here, the problem of interference was discussed. It is thought that since the noise generated by ships is roughly the same frequency as the sound produced by marine life, ship noise will interfere, or mask, the marine sounds. The ability of aquatic life to find solution to the problems created by increased background noises is yet to be seen. It is hoped that with a concerted effort, these noises can be reduced in volume to become almost silent, disturbing ocean life as little as possible.

References:

1. Berardelli, Phil (30 Sept 2008), “Acidic Oceans Getting Noisy, Too,” Science, ScienceNOW Daily News.

2. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. 2007 International Symposium.

3. Hester, K. C., E. T. Peltzer, W. J. Kirkwood, and P. G. Brewer (30 Aug 2008), “Unanticipated consequences of ocean acidification: A noisier ocean at lower pH,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L19601, doi:10.1029/2008GL034913.

4. Ball, Philip. (3 Oct 2008), “Identifying the dripping taps of climate change,” Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2008.1148.

5. U. S. Department of Energy. Ask a Scientist; Environmental Earth Science Archive. 15 Sept. 2004.

6. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources. Ocean Acoustics Program.



Leave a comment   Science and Technology   , ,  

AIG, Wall Street Bailouts: Is the Federal Reserve’s Independence at Risk?

By G.L.C., on October 9th, 2008

The Federal Reserve was created 95 years ago to prevent banking crises as an independent agency whose Washington-based governors are appointed by the president of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Its officials usually steer clear of the most heated political debates in a bid to protect their freedom to make the tough decisions required to keep inflation under control. There’s a good reason for giving the Federal Reserve so much independence. Decisions about the stability of the financial system often require quick decisions in times of crisis.

Ever since the credit crisis started in August 2007, the Federal Reserve has been engaged in a few political actions involving tax payer risks: asking Congress to approve Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s $700 billion bailout plan, agreeing to lend $85 billion to American International Group, taking on $30 billion in illiquid Bear Stearns assets to facilitate its take over by J.P.Morgan Chase, and helping engineer the federal takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which could cost the Treasury over $200 billion.

The political role being played by the Federal Reserve is setting a dangerous precedent: unelected officials deciding, without congressional votes, which companies and industries should be aided by its nearly $1 trillion balance sheet and which should be left hanging. The Federal Reserve is committing so much taxpayer money on its own rather than having Congress or the executive branch commit it. Its new roles of overseeing Wall Street investment banks and the AIG loan portfolio, among them, may bring it into conflict with the job of managing monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve has been using government funds and its credibility in its attempts to end the credit crisis. This increasing political role of the Federal Reserve could put its hard won independence at risk. Its independence is crucial to setting the interest rates that guide the economy.

The Federal Reserve probably did not want to be seen in a political role, but it had no choice – charged with maintaining the stability of the financial system and the economy, it had little choice but to take aggressive action in the face of a potentially devastating crisis. It was watching a falling knife and had to grab it before it landed on somebody’s chest.

Any proposals to change the Federal Reserve’s role would face fierce opposition. Because of the actions it has taken so far in trying to save Wall Street firms, if it comes under attack, Wall Street will be among its main supporters. It will also have the support of an army of loyal bankers around the country.

Everything depends on how the economy emerges from the present credit crisis. If it stages a steady recovery, it will increase the credibility of the Federal Reserve and there will be less concern about its political role.



One comment   Citizen Economists   , , , , ,  

Fannie Mae Rewards 90-Year-Old Woman’s Suicide Attempt

By J.D. Seagraves, on October 9th, 2008

On October 1, 90-year-old Addie Polk, distraught over her home’s impending foreclosure, shot herself twice in an attempted suicide.

Fortunately, Ms. Polk’s attempt was unsuccessful. Even better for her, Fannie Mae – which had taken possession of her mortgage after numerous missed payments – forgave Ms. Polk’s debt and signed the house over to her, free and clear.

What part of this story makes any sense? A woman shoots herself after falling behind on payments she agreed to make, and, as a reward, she gets a free house? Since when did Fannie Mae, now essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. government, get into the Extreme Makeover: Home Edition business?

In 2004, Ms. Polk took out a 30-year mortgage for $45,620 at 6.375% interest. That same day, she also took out a line of credit for $11,380. Four years later, her inability to make her payments had reached the point of foreclosure. Police had made 30 attempts to evict her before the October 1 shooting incident.

Now, you can feel sorry for Ms. Polk all you want. But the fact of the matter is that she took money and agreed to pay it back, and she didn’t. Yes, the lenders may have “taken advantage of her” – only because they knew the government would step in and bail them out if Ms. Polk and others like her couldn’t pay – and yes, the Federal Reserve System creates money and credit out of thin air, which is “predatory” by its very nature. But these were the rules of the game when Ms. Polk took out her loans, and if she didn’t know them, she had no business playing.

What message does Fannie Mae’s forgiveness of this loan send to other people facing foreclosure? Attempt suicide, and if you’re lucky enough to survive, you get a free house? This story is a fitting microcosm for a corrupt system in which lenders are criticized for making loans to people who couldn’t repay them and then are rewarded with a $700 billion bailout as “punishment.”

Under a free market, interest rates would be set by savings and investment. No entity would have the power to create money and credit out of thin air and, as a result, no “predatory” lending could take place. When companies made bad loans, they’d suffer the consequences, and when people took secured loans they couldn’t repay, they’d lose the underlying properties.

The free market is self-correcting. But what we have in America is far from a free market. As one Republican congressman put it, we have “capitalism on the way up, and socialism on the way down.” In order to maximize utility and respect individual rights, we must return to a more laissez-faire form of capitalism where the people who take bad risks – both mortgagor and mortgagee – are made to bear the consequences of their actions.



3 comments   Citizen Economists   , , , ,