Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 8

The world is made up of two types of people: people who like snakes and people who do not like snakes. This first class of people see snakes as captivating, multi-colored animals that serve as a good friend, ready to curl around your fingers as soon as your familiar, loving hand draws near to their equally loving reptilian bodies. On the other side, the latter class of people are repelled at even a pixelated image of a snake living hundreds of miles away, seeing these cold-blooded reptiles as just the device through which Satan tricked Eve. And unfortunately, if you happen to belong to this latter class of people, there is some bad news: rare sea snakes have continued to wash up unexpectedly on the beaches of California. Moreover, the range of the uncommon yellow-bellied sea snake (Pelamus platurus) is beginning to expand.

So, what is a sea snake? And, further, what is a yellow-bellied sea snake? These reptiles are exactly what they sound like: they are snakes that live in the sea. In fact, their bodies are not suitable for living and slithering on land. Spending their lives in the tropical warmth of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, sea snakes feed on small fish and drink rainwater that collects on the surface of the ocean. Sea snakes also are very venomous. Possessing a neurotoxin that stops communication between muscles and nerve cells, the bite of a sea snake can cause respiratory, heart, or nerve failure. But don’t worry too much because Greg Pauly, herpetological curator at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, says, “Their fangs are tiny, and they can barely open their mouths wide enough to bite a person.” And until recently, sea snakes lived far, far away from humans.

Since 1972, five sea snakes have washed up in California, hundreds of miles north of their typical range. Why? Until the most recent sea snake washed up on southern California’s Newport Beach, all the snakes had arrived during El Nino years. Because sea snakes tend to follow where the currents lead them, it was strange to see sea snakes in California, but the presence of El Nino made it make sense that these snakes would be so far outside their range. However, on January 10, 2018, when the fifth sea snake arrived, El Nino could not be blamed.

University of Florida biologist and sea snake expert Harvey B. Lillywhite suspects the mysterious arrival of the snakes has to do with the Davidson Current. Rising toward the surface from October through February, the Davidson Current may pick up sea snakes floating near Baja and take them places like Newport Beach. But, historically, not many sea snakes dwell near Baja. Thus, both Pauly and Lillywhite state that warming waters may have something to do with the expanding of sea snakes’ range. However, Pauly admits, “This is all speculation.”

The yellow-bellied sea snake that arrived this past week in California did not survive the colder waters of California. But her death may not be in vain: herpetologists like Lillywhite and Pauly are using her tissue samples and other data to hopefully determine how these sea snakes came to be in California. But until then, California may be seeing a few more sea snakes in their future.

 

Sources:

Goldman, Jason G. “Venomous Sea Snake Found Off California-How did it Get There?” National Geographic. National Geographic, 17 January 2018. Web. 19 January 2018.

Kaplan, Sarah. “Rare venomous sea snakes keep washing up on California beaches.” Washington Post. Washington Post, 14 January 2016. Web. 19 January 2018.

Ritchie, Erika I. “Discovery of rare, venomous sea snake in California could mean trouble for sea lions.” Mercury News. Mercury News, 11 January 2018. Web. 19 January 2018.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 6

On January 1^st, the Chinese government instituted a ban on imported recycled plastic and paper materials, throwing the global recycling market into turmoil.Since the 1990’s, China has been the number one consumer of raw recycled materials, receiving a full half of the world’s waste plastic, metal and paper as cheap fodder for its rapid urban-industrial expansion. In 2016, China purchased 7.3 million tons of “solid waste” worth about $18 billion, leaving a gaping hole in global demand after the ban that experts fear will not easily be filled.

The ban prohibits the import of 24 different types of commonly recycled waste products, including low-grade polyethylene terephthalate found in plastic bottles and unsorted paper. It also requires that all non-banned imported recyclables contain no more than 0.5% contamination, a threshold stricter than any European or American standard on recyclables.

“Large amounts of dirty wastes or even hazardous wastes are mixed in the solid waste that can be used as raw materials,” Beijing wrote to the World Trade Organization explaining the logic behind the new ban. “This polluted China’s environment seriously.”

While Chinese officials were initially willing to ignore the environmental costs of importing contaminated scrap materials, such as soil and water pollution, the country’s explosive economic growth affords it the option of sourcing newer, cleaner plastics for its domestic needs over recycled ones.

“What’s happened is that the final link in the supply chain has turned around and said: ‘No, we’re not going to take this poor quality stuff anymore. Keep it for yourself,’” said Simon Ellin, chief executive of the British Recycling Association. “The rest of the world is thinking, ‘What can we do?’ It’s hard times.”

This decision is having profound impacts on the capacity of Western nations to handle their recycling, most of whom sent their waste to China and thus do not have the infrastructure to process recyclables themselves.

Some countries, such as the United Kingdom, are resorting to either incinerating or burying their plastics in landfills as a short-term solution to the crisis, though both options are environmentally damaging. Other countries, such as the United States, are attempting to find markets in countries like Myanmar, India, and Vietnam for their recycling, though switching supply chains so abruptly is a challenge.

“There may be alternative markets but they’re not ready today,” said Emmanuel Katrakis of the Brussels based European Recycling Industries Confederation. In the meantime, the United States, which annually sends over 1.42 million tons of scrap plastic and 13.2 million tons of scrap paper to China, will be forced to either spend taxpayer money on upgrading recycling processing facilities domestically or, like the UK, divert the excess to landfills according to Adam Minter, author of “Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Trade.” “Without China, there will be less recycling in the United States, and it will cost more,” the author said.

The United States initially relied upon China to recycle its plastic waste due to market incentives; it was simply cheaper to send recyclables overseas than it was to expand recycling capacities at home. With the shifting of incentives caused by China’s tightening regulations over recent years culminating in the most recent ban, it is costing the U.S. $2,100 per shipping container to return recyclables by ship from Chinese ports back to California.

“The public doesn’t realize this, but recycling is made possible by technology and markets – they think its just a matter of technology,” an expert on China’s waste management reported to Quartz. “And we don’t have strong enough markets in the U.S.”

While this market change will almost certainly harm the U.S.’s environment in the short term as recycling friendly states like Oregon and Washington divert their recycling to landfills, in the long term it could be beneficial as American states become incentivized to build their own recycling facilities.

Sources

1. De Freytas-Tamura, Kimiko. “Plastics Pile Up as China Refuses to Take the West’s Recycling.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 January 2018. Web. 16 January 2018.
2. Guilford, Gwynn. “China doesn’t want your trash anymore – and that could spell big trouble for American cities.” Quartz. Quartz Media LLC, 8 May 2013. Web. 27 January 2018.
3. Guilford, Gwynn. “US states banned from exporting their trash to China are drowning in plastic.” Quartz. Quartz Media LLC, 21 August 2013. Web. 27 January 2018.
4. Ives, Mike. “China Limits Waste. ‘Cardboard Grannies’ and Texas Recyclers Scramble.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 November 2017. Web. 16 January 2018.
5. Kaskey, Jack and Ann Koh. “China’s Blow to Recycling Boosts U.S.’s $185 Billion Plastic Bet.” Bloomberg. Climate Changed, 6 December 2017. Web. 16 January 2018.
6. Staub, Colin. “Exporter response to China: ‘We are changing our whole strategy.'” Plastics Recycling Update. A Resource Recycling, Inc. Publication, 4 January 2018. Web. 16 January 2018.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 4

Look outside right now. More than likely, some sort of bird crossed your line of sight. Maybe it was a cardinal or a robin scouring the earth for something to eat. Maybe it was a vulture souring through the sky. Or maybe you did not see the bird, but you could hear it chattering away in its own foreign language. Regardless, birds are everywhere, so everyone can appreciate a piece of legislation passed now 100 years ago that allowed for the conservation of birds to be better recognized: the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In 1916, the United States and Canada battled the dwindling numbers of waterfowl and game species by signing the Migratory Bird Treaty. By establishing hunting seasons for game birds and eliminating hunting of insectivorous birds, both countries officially recognized the importance of these creatures who were being adversely affected by unregulated hunting. After the loss of the Labrador duck (Camptorhynchus labradorius), Carolina parakeet (Conuropsis carolinensis), and passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius), the need for these actions was more than relevant. Moreover, it seemed many other species would soon be following in the footsteps of these once common species. Flash forward two years, and this treaty became law. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, migratory birds no longer could be harmed, killed, or sold, and this included their nests and eggs. Additionally, the first federal hunting seasons were established, as well as federal authority to manage migratory birds.

Now, this new act was met with opposition. In those days, scientists studied birds by shooting them and then studying them without thinking how this might upset population or ecosystem dynamics. How would scientists study birds if they could not kill them first? Additionally, hunting was a popular sport across America (as it still is today), and designating times of the year when people were and were not allowed to hunt certain species did not only seem absurd, but it also seemed to be just another example of government intrusion on Americans’ lives.

But the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was a necessary act to preserve the birds of America, and although passed now 100 years ago, the Act is far from archaic. Today, the Act continues to positively influence bird populations. For example, the Act has helped preserve endangered puffins by designating a habitat for them south of Cape Cod as Maine’s puffins face habitat destruction. Additionally, 1.8 million acres of Californian desert was set aside under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to preserve over 250 species of birds, including the Elf Owl and Least Bell’s Vireo.

But what is the point? Why is it so important for Americans to celebrate such an act? Further, why are birds so important? Why should we go the extra mile to protect the cardinal or the hawk outside your window right now?

Most simply, birds are a crucial part of our ecosystems, of our food webs. As birds are eliminated from the food web, any insects or other small animals that they eat will increase dramatically in biomass. Additionally, anything that eats a bird will be wiped out. Without birds, our ecosystem will have no stability, as they form all parts of food webs, from higher level consumers like hawks and owls to decomposers like vultures.

Perhaps an even more tragic result of losing birds would be the loss of such beautiful details in our world. A sky without a bird is like a voice without words. Birds are inimitable creatures from their specialized beaks that Darwin found so fascinating to their vast array of plumage colors.

Many institutions, such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society, are deeming 2018 the “Year of the Bird,” but perhaps the true year of the bird was 100 years ago when lawmakers decided birds truly are worth protecting.

 

Sources:

Franzen, Jonathan. “Why Birds Matter and are Worth Protecting.” National Geographic. National Geographic, January 2018. Web. 9 January 2018.

Imbler, Sabrina. “A Hundred Year Legacy: The Modern Role of the Migratory Bird Treaty.” Audubon. Audubon, 16 August 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

Mehlman, David. “Safe Flight: 100 Years of Protecting Birds.” Nature Conservancy. Nature Conservancy, December 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

Ronis, Emily. “Migratory Bird Treaty Turns 100 Today.” Wildlife Society. Wildlife Society, 16 August 2016. Web. 9 January 2018.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18, Issue 2

Over 230,000 square acres and upwards of 1,000 structures in urban southern California have been burned in what is now recognized as one of the worst wildfires in California state history. At least 200,000 residents from the towns of Ventura, Ojai, and Montecito, all to the northwest of Los Angeles, have been evacuated as the flames continue to be driven west by the desiccating Santa Ana winds, annual gusts that blow from the southwest deserts over the Santa Ana mountain range and into coastal California in the winter. “It’s not like someone-pointing-a-gun-at-you scared,” said Montecito resident Charles McCaleb referencing the approaching wildfire. “Its more of a controlled fright where you know what’s happening.”

Numerous factors are contributing to these intense wildfires, not least of which includes the fact that this summer and fall have been both the hottest and driest on record for California. “The [relative] humidities right now along the coast are much drier than what you’d normally see in the interior desert in the summertime,” said Daniel Swain, a UCLA climate scientist. “Once you get down to 1% or 2%, you’re down almost as low as is physically possible.” After a historically wet winter last year that allowed more grass and underbrush to grow throughout the state than normal, the extreme heat and dryness of summer and fall killed off the majority of this vegetation, building up an excess of natural dry tinder that the current wildfire has been able to continuously feed off of. Even though California’s wet season was supposed to begin in October, precipitation has been below the historical average, further exacerbating the wildfires. “Normally if we had a little bit of rain, there’s some moisture in the soil to recover,” Swain said. “But there is no rain in sight, about as far as I can possibly say about the weather.”

While it is too early to determine, human-induced climate change is thought to be a culprit in contributing to California’s extreme weather conditions, with studies showing that climate change contributed strongly to the state’s drought in 2012. In accordance with climate change models, annual variations of precipitation and temperature, like the kind California has seen in the past decade, are expected to increase, exaggerating the differences between wet and dry years and increasing the risk of wildfires.“ This is looking like the type of year that might occur more often in the future,” said A. Parker Williams, a climate scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, who led one of the studies investigating climate change’s impact on California’s drought.

Some meteorologists argue that climate change may not be to blame, citing a ridge of air over the Pacific Northwest influenced by the naturally occurring La Niña cycle as the reason for southern California’s abnormal weather. Yet according to Dr. Williams, due to the warming effect of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, “whatever happens, it’s all superimposed on a warmer world.”

Sources:

1. Fountain, Henry. “In a Warming California, a Future of More Fire.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 7 December 2017. Web. 10 December 2017.
2. Lai, K.K Rebecca, Derek Watkins and Tim Wallace. “Where the Fires are Spreading in Southern California,” The New York Times. The New York Times, 8 December 2017. Web. 10 December 2017.
3. Serna, Joseph. “For some, Thomas fire triggers ‘controlled fright.'” The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times, 11 December 2017. Web. 11 December 2017.
4. Serna, Joseph. “Why is Southern California burning in December? A climate scientist’s answer.” The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times, 7 December 2017. Web. 11 December 2017.

Swamp Stomp

Volume 17, Issue 51

All is not lost regarding the American honeybee population. A step in the right direction regarding the resurgence of their population occurred when winter losses were the lowest in more than a decade, according to a U.S. survey of beekeepers released May 25, 2017.

The annual Bee Informed Partnership survey found that the beekeepers lost 21 percent of their colonies over last winter. Though this number is still too high, it is the lowest winter loss percentage since the survey started in 2006 and an improvement from nearly 27 percent the winter before.

The ultimate goal of the U.S. government is to keep losses under 15 percent in the winter.

“It’s good news in that the numbers are down, but it’s certainly not a good picture,” said survey director Dennis vanEngelsdorp. “It’s gone from horrible to bad.”

vanEngelsdorp, a University of Maryland entomologist, believes that the lower percentage can be attributed to the reduction in varroa mites, a lethal parasite. According to him, a new product to combat the mite and better weather for pesticide use is the reason for the decrease in the parasite.

The average over a 10-year span for winter losses is 28.4 percent.

“We would of course all love it if the trend continues, but there are so many factors playing a role in colony health,” said bee expert Elina Lastro Nino at the University of California Davis, who wasn’t part of the survey. “I am glad to see this, but wouldn’t celebrate too much yet.”

There has been a steadily increasing decline in bees and other pollinators over more than ten years. Scientists blame the decline on a mix of parasites, disease, pesticides and poor nutrition.

Though the largest losses to bee colonies occur during the winter, these losses happen year round. Another good sign is that the survey found that the yearly losses were also down, but not to record lows. The survey found that around one third of the honey bee colonies that were around in April 2016 did not survive the year. This is improvement to last year when the yearly loss rate was higher than 40 percent.

The survey was started by the U.S. government but is now run by a nonprofit. The survey collects its data from nearly 5,000 beekeepers who manage more than 360,000 colonies. University of Montana’s Jerry Bromenshenk believes that the study gives too much weight to backyard beekeepers rather than commercial beekeepers.

Source: Borenstein, Seth. “Survey Finds US Honeybee Losses Improve from Horrible to Bad.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 25 May 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.