Yet efforts to build wind turbines in South Korea have met fierce opposition, even among environmentalists, due to the lack of open land in the densely populated country. Only about 100 megawatts (MW) of wind power are installed nationwide despite plentiful wind resources and government price controls that keep renewable power competitive with traditional energy sources.

The solution might be found off the Korean peninsula's shores, and South Korea is not alone. As more countries seek to increase their renewable energy ratios, many consider off-shore wind a potential solution to provide clean energy without affecting local landscapes and communities.

Off-shore wind has so far taken a back seat to on-shore wind farms during the current boom in wind energy development. Off-shore turbines are more difficult to maintain, and they cost $.08-$0.12 per kilowatt-hour, compared to $.05-$.08 for on-shore wind.

But off-shore wind farms offer several benefits over their land-based counterparts. Strong ocean winds allow one off-shore turbine to generate substantially more power than one on-shore turbine. Also, if an off-shore wind farm is located near a coastal city, clean energy would be available without dedicating land to new transmission lines.

Denmark installed the first off-shore wind farm in 1991. Since then, slightly more than 1 gigawatt  (GW) has been installed worldwide, mostly in the North Sea, according to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). An additional 3.8 GW is expected in the next four years, forecasts British energy firm Douglas-Westwood, Ltd. Based on their estimates, annual installations are set to increase from 419 MW in 2008 to 1,238 MW in 2012, with the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and China leading the way.

In Europe, about 80 percent of the off-shore wind market will be concentrated in Denmark and the United Kingdom by the end of this year, with 1 GW planned by the two countries combined, EWEA said in a policy recommendation report. The association predicts that 50 GW of off-shore wind will be operating in Europe by 2020.

In Asia, China installed its first off-shore wind farm in November. The country plans to add more than 1.5 GW of off-shore projects. Feasibility studies are under way in South Korea and Japan.

Along North America's coasts, a handful of projects are moving forward, and several more are tied down in local site disputes. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, more than 900 GW of off-shore wind power could potentially be tapped from U.S. shores, mostly along the northeastern and southeastern seaboards. The United States is expected to finalize its leasing rules for off-shore wind farms this year.

Similar to concerns that on-shore wind farms threaten bat and bird populations, off-shore wind farms could disrupt marine ecosystems. The initial construction may kill organisms on the seafloor, and transmission cables create magnetic and electric fields that may disrupt fish orientation.

But researchers are still unsure what damage might occur, and several studies suggest that turbine construction and operation would pose minimal threats. Some experts suggest the turbines would benefit marine life by creating artificial reefs.

Weather may also be a limiting factor. Harsh winds often prevent construction during winter months, slowing development. Turbines are designed to sustain winds as strong as 200 miles per hour, but so far few have experienced intense hurricanes. 

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be contacted at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

The collaboration brings together two industry leaders with significant investments in U.S. renewable energy. Their focus on electricity infrastructure may stimulate improvements in transmission efficiency and utility access to clean energy sources, industry observers said.

The companies' early messages indicate support for more national leadership. "The current regulatory and economic model is failing to drive the innovation and investment we need in today's electric grid," a joint statement said [PDF]. "We will work to overcome regulatory and institutional barriers, and advocate for appropriate incentives."

The U.S. government acknowledges costly updates are necessary to meet electricity demands, connect a burgeoning renewable energy sector with markets nationwide, and implement plug-in hybrid vehicles on a large-scale. But states and the federal government are divided about who should pay.

The companies' main request is for federal leadership on digital "smart" grids, a technology that provides utilities with greater control over power source selection. With smart grids, utilities can tap an energy source when it is most reliable-a solar power plant during a sunny day, for instance. The advances are expected to accelerate renewable energy development and prevent blackouts, regardless of the power source.

Smart grids also provide consumers with advanced information about their electricity usage, which encourages energy efficiency. "We make the gadgets, smart meters, and people like Google could make the software," said GE chief executive officer Jeff Immelt at a Google technology conference where the partnership was announced.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that wind power could supply 20 percent of the country's energy needs if efficient transmission lines are built across the country.  Large amounts of renewable energy sources are currently located too far off-the-grid to be tapped, such as the windy mountains of South Dakota or the geothermal hot beds of Nevada's deserts. The department estimates the additional transmission capacity would cost $60 billion, spread out between now and 2030.

Immelt said the system is a realistic goal, but federal funding is crucial for its development. "Clean energy is imminently doable, imminently solvable," he said. "[But] there's no such thing as perfect free markets-it's a market that needs a catalyst (from the government) to say this is what we'd like to see done, and then the entrepreneurial dollars will flow freely."

A more difficult challenge, however, may be overcoming current regulations. States and private utilities have little incentive to approve long transmission lines that benefit the nation as a whole. The 2005 Energy Policy Act gave the federal government permission to approve transmission if states were unwilling, but several U.S. senators have complained that such action is too aggressive.

Mike Taylor, research director at Solar Electric Power Association, a utility consultant group, said the partnership could be most influential with on-going developments of regional renewable energy zones - prioritized areas for siting transmission lines and power generation - and an intercontinental transmission system that could deploy renewable energy more efficiently. "I would hope GE and Google scan that horizon of what's already happening and reach-out their hands rather than march on their own," Taylor said.

GE often leads the pack among U.S. corporate lobbyists, due to its control of a diversity of industries-from jet engines to TV studios to wind turbines. This year alone, GE spent nearly $2.2 billion on campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Renewable energy legislation, including a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, has been a company priority since GE launched its Ecomagination initiative three years ago, which promotes clean energy technologies.

Google's philanthropic branch has several renewable energy ventures of its own. Last month it invested $10 million in advanced geothermal energy development as part of its Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal initiative. 

At a Senate energy committee hearing last week [PDF], Google's director of climate change and energy initiatives, Dan Reicher, called for federal energy efficiency and renewable energy standards

"Our vision is a 21st century U.S. electricity system featuring hundreds of thousands of megawatts of renewable power, millions of plug-in vehicles, and tens of millions of energy efficient homes and businesses," Reicher said. "The biggest impediment to achieving this vision is not technology or finance; it's policy, particularly on the national level."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg announced a laundry list of flaws with the European Union's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in a statement released last week. "In its current form, the CFP does not encourage responsible behavior by either fishermen or politicians," Borg said.

In response, the Commission authorized an immediate review of its ten-year policy. The current fisheries policy has been in effect since 2002.

A reassessment of Europe's fishing regulations could have sweeping implications for dwindling fish populations. About two-thirds of Europe's fisheries are estimated to be exploited at a rate that exceeds sustainable levels, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [PDF].

The Commission is expected to reduce the European fishing fleet as one measure to address the exploited fish stocks. Borg said the current number of vessels can catch between two and three times the government-authorized, maximum sustainable yield.

European countries have been shrinking their fleet capacity since the 2002 policy required a "stable and enduring balance" between capacity and resources. Fleet capacity is based on a vessel's size (tonnage) and power (kilo-watts). Between 2003 and 2005, size was reduced about 6 percent, and power decreased about 7 percent, according to a World Wildlife Fund analysis [PDF].

The fisheries policy has been hotly debated by the fishing industry and environmentalists since its inception. But recently, a series of uncomplimentary news reports have put the policy under heightened scrutiny.

In August, a British fishing vessel was caught on film dumping more than 5.5 tons of cod, which amounted to 80 percent of its catch. EU quotas limit the amount of fish that ships can bring back to port, but vessels are not limited on the amount they can catch. The unfortunate result is that 40-60 percent of all fish caught by trawlers in the North Sea are discarded, the EU estimates.

Several environmentalists and fisheries researchers have advocated more dramatic policy changes than what the Commission has so far suggested. For instance, more marine protected areas are being requested. Researchers suggest that at least 20-30 percent of the world's ocean habitats be included in a network of marine reserves - the current level is estimated at 1 percent - to ensure long-term protection of exploited fish stocks, according to the 2007 Worldwatch report Oceans in Peril.

A second alternative approach that has recently gained popularity and scientific support is known as an individual transferable quota (ITQ). Instead of fishermen competing against each other to obtain the greatest share of the total allowable catch set by government scientists each year, individual fishermen are provided a share of the catch, which eliminates the incentive to overfish. Independent observers, and sometimes cameras, ensure that when the harvest is low, everyone brings in a low catch, and when the harvest is high, their catch subsequently increases.

"By doing this, it provides fishermen an incentive to take a long-term view into account. Essentially they make an investment in their future," said Chris Costello, the lead author of a study published in the journal Science last week that found that ITQs implemented in Alaska, Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia reduced the chance of fisheries collapse by 13.7 percent.

Unsustainable management of fisheries is not just a problem in Europe. Increased seafood consumption and more efficient fishing technologies have led to the depletion of fish stocks globally in recent years. If current trends continue, the world's fish stocks risk collapse by 2048, according to a 2006 study in the journal Science. 

"Every fishery in the world could benefit from some form of incentive-based management system," said Costello, a resources economics professor at University of California in Santa Barbra. "The critical feature is to design those incentive-based schemes for the biology of the species, the culture of the communities, and the economies of the fisheries."

While the number of ITQs remains low - about 1 percent of global fisheries - Costello predicts they will double in number within the next ten years. Some European fisheries have already switched to the incentive-based system, such as a few small fisheries in the Netherlands.

Ben Block is a reporter with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

If industrialized countries are allowed to purchase the carbon rights of forests, groups from the Americas, Africa, and Asia fear their ancestral lands may be taken away. They worry that the benefactors of the carbon market will be governments or wealthy landholders, and not them.

At a time when their concerns should be at the forefront of debates, the venues for indigenous peoples to express themselves have so far been limited. They are granted observer status at United Nations climate negotiations, but they do not have voting rights - leading many to demand a stronger voice in the process.

"When you don't have recognized status, you're not existent. You're not at the table," said Kanyinke Sena, the Indigenous People of Africa Coordinating Committee's Eastern Africa representative.

Forests were not considered as carbon sinks in the Kyoto Protocol, but realization that deforestation accounts for almost 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions has led to their reconsideration. Industrialized nations may be allowed to offset their emissions by paying developing nations to protect their forests, known as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD).

Several indigenous groups initially opposed REDD due to their suspicion that it would be another form of Western land-grabbing. But climate negotiators say a solution would ideally benefit the traditional stewards of the world's forests through some sort of financial compensation. As awareness grows about the potential benefits for forest peoples, some indigenous leaders are shifting towards wary support. But they still emphasize that without official land rights for indigenous peoples, REDD will likely lead to further suffering.

"This is the first time indigenous and non-indigenous groups are meeting at this type of forum," said Parshuram Tamang, the International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of Tropical Forests' climate negotiations representative and a member of the Tamang ethnic group of Nepal. "This is very important for indigenous people."

The presence of indigenous groups at the dialogues' meetings has helped shape a consensus, which although it has yet to be finalized, stresses the "fundamental importance of the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples, small forest owners, and local communities."

Participation in the dialogue meetings, held last week at the World Bank, has also provided indigenous leaders with access to a network of influential forestry officials. Leaders of the Amazon Alliance, representatives of indigenous organizations and NGOs from nine South American countries, hand-delivered a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick that demanded the Bank "cease its exclusion of indigenous peoples and the violation of our rights." Zoellick told them that the bank will try to work on these issues.

The alliance's letter also accused the bank of ignoring indigenous people in a REDD pilot program that was launched in July with 14 tropical nations. "I am trying to show the World Bank that indigenous people are well organized," said Juan Carlos Jintiach, the alliance's executive co-director and a member of the Shuar tribe of Ecuador. "I don't want them to ever forget us. There are not just trees there; there are human begins there now."

Despite the criticisms, the presence of indigenous peoples at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings has increased recently, according to Steve Schwartman, co-director of the Environmental Defense Fund's international program. "More indigenous leaders are there participating as observers," he said. "There is much more discussion going on about it. Issues are slowly gaining visibility."

Also, the World Bank has held several workshops with indigenous leaders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America this year to inform them about the REDD negotiations. And the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues made climate change awareness a theme of its annual meeting in April. 

But for leaders such as Tamang, being informed is not enough. "[The U.N.] should give indigenous people specialty status... because we are affected by the decision," he said. "We are the victims of climate change and we are the impact of a solution to climate change."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

In a harsh review of U.S. hazardous waste laws, independent government investigators highlighted the need for improved regulation of electronic waste in a new report.

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on Wednesday said a "substantial quantity" of discarded electronics, such as computers, televisions, and cell phones, are sent to the developing world where they are dismantled in conditions unsafe to workers and dangerous to the environment.

"The United States' regulatory coverage of exported, used electronics is among the narrowest in the industrialized world and the little regulation that does exist has been enforced to only a minor degree," the report said.

The international shipping of electronic waste, or "e-waste," is regulated by the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The agreement, ratified by 170 countries, requires signatories to notify developing nations of incoming hazardous waste shipments. The United States is the only industrialized country not to ratify the convention.

U.S. residents removed more than 300 million electronic devices from their households in 2006, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At least 80 percent of the e-waste is sent to domestic landfills. The rest is frequently sold to brokers who ship it to the developing world, mainly Asia and West Africa, where workers dismantle the products and often burn the remains in the open air or dump it into nearby water bodies.

Products with cathode-ray tubes (CRTs), such as televisions and computer monitors, are the only exported e-waste that the EPA regulates. Exporters must obtain EPA consent before exporting the products, which contain harmful levels of copper and lead.

The report recommends that the EPA take stronger action to enforce its hazardous waste laws. While it is not the role of the GAO to lobby Congressional action, the report also suggests that the EPA foster debate in Congress "to compel ratification of the Basel Convention."

In the EPA's comments on the report, administrators wrote, "EPA is well aware of the numerous challenges in appropriately controlling the management of e-waste, both domestically and internationally. However, we are not convinced that developing a regulatory scheme to address these issues is the most appropriate course of action." The response instead advocates voluntary measures.

The GAO responded that voluntary measures are often ineffective because "the agency has no enforcement recourse against reluctant participants."

The United States is not the only contributor to the world's growing e-waste problem. As more consumers discard their used electronics, 20-50 million metric tons of e-waste is generated worldwide each year, the United Nations Environment Programme estimates.

Some companies are improving the recyclable content of their products to reduce the amount of e-waste generated. According to Greenpeace's "Greener Electronics Guide," cell phone manufacturer Nokia leads the competition. 

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Before

 

After

In the Appalachian mountains of the United States, growing numbers of fish farmers are raising trout, catfish, and even salmon throughout the valleys of the state of West Virginia. What they'd rather not tell you, however, is that the source of their water is deserted coal mines.

Worry not, seafood lovers. According to independent experts from within West Virginia and outside the state, the farmers' claims of  using "clean, clear water" are true. The fish that are being raised in the mine waters are not only safe, but they may also be healthier than fish grown in conventional aquaculture operations.

"The focus is less the mine water - we know it works, we know the fish are safe - and more of marketing," said Ken Semmens, a West Virginia University aquaculture researcher who is promoting the mine-water operations.

Many abandoned coal mines in Appalachia are polluted with toxic metals. But some have been spared, and the water sources that accumulate are considered clean enough to raise fish. Pipes carry the water directly to the aquaculture operations without any treatment.

At the more polluted sites, coal companies are required to build treatment facilities that return the water to health. These purified water sources are abundant and growing in number [PDF] as the region's once-plentiful coal supplies are emptied.

By channeling water from the mines or adapting treatment facilities into farms, some dozen potential mine sites could supply water for large-scale fish farming - enough for about 45 tons (100,000 pounds) of fish per year, Semmens said. Hundreds of smaller streams are also being assessed to raise fish for recreational purposes.

"Buy Local" Applies to Fish, Too

"As there is an increased concern for sustainable seafood production - [about] the carbon footprint of shipping fish halfway around the world - maybe fish grown locally will get a preferred place in the marketplace," said Joe Hankins, director of the Freshwater Institute, the field office of the Virginia-based Conservation Fund. "It may make the opportunity [of mine water-raised fish] more viable."

But in West Virginia, fish farming is relatively new. The state's industry is ranked only 35th in value nationwide [PDF] and is geared mostly toward recreational fishers rather than the larger market of consumers along the East Coast.

Efforts to repurpose the abandoned coal mines began in 1994 when the state invested in a venture group called Minaqua (mining plus aquaculture) that it hoped would create 300 jobs from as many as 20 farms raising arctic char and rainbow trout. Those plans ended following a series of unfortunate incidents: a fish disease outbreak, a fire, and the death of the project's architect in a helicopter accident.

But the idea persisted, influenced by ideal aquaculture conditions. The water flows out of the coal mines at roughly 13 degrees Celsius (56 degrees Fahrenheit) year round, and unlike facilities that rely upon local streams, the water does not need to be pumped or diverted if it runs downhill naturally. Farms have been launched at four mine sites in the past eight years, and these are expanding.

"We plan to put a new farm online every year or two years. We see 10 years down the road between 1 and 2 million pounds of production. The water supply is that good in the state of West Virginia," said Tom Ort, manager of Mountaineer Trout Farm in Princewick, near the state's southern border.

West Virginia University researchers are running demonstration farms as well, in the hopes of encouraging further investment. One farm captures water that flows from a treatment facility reservoir. A second has converted a former treatment plant into a fishing park. "I started to think this is a wonderful resource we could have," said Dan Miller, a research associate at WVU. "Otherwise we would have to tear down the whole facility and blow up the concrete."  

The fish farms provide new opportunities for post-mining landscapes that are often of little use otherwise. But the operations can be applied only to deep mining locations, not to places damaged by surface mining activities such as mountaintop removal.

At Some Locations, Mine Water Is Safe

Aquaculture is not suited to all post-mining sites. Pyrite, a mineral better known as "fool's gold," is found throughout the coalfields of northern West Virginia. Pyrite contains high levels of sulfur and iron, which pollute the water that fills abandoned mines and raise its acidity beyond levels that many freshwater species tolerate.

At sites rich in pyrite, treatment facilities are required to balance the water's acidity. Even after treatment, minerals such as iron, aluminum, and magnesium remain at higher levels than are suggested for raising many fish species. But unlike mercury and many other toxins, these minerals do not accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish and endanger human health. "The reality is it's really good," Hankins said. "And it's a resource that really should be looked at."

The treatment reservoirs change temperature with the seasons, affecting fish growth during the colder months. As a result, most of West Virginia's mine-water farms are located farther south. Here, pyrite is not mixed in the coal, so treatment is unnecessary because the acidity and level of harmful metals are naturally within ranges suited for aquaculture, researchers said.

These fish farms also benefit from the fact that their water source is relatively isolated from exterior pollutants. Farmed fish often require antibiotics to ward off waterborne pathogens. Diseases are still a possibility in West Virginia, but the mine water is less likely to contain the dangerous pathogens. Also, water from within a coal mine is less likely to contain airborne mercury - a heavy metal that pollutes waterways after being released, ironically, from coal-fired power plants. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can accumulate in seafood.

One of the most serious environmental problems with aquaculture operations has been the run-off of fish waste into waterways, creating oxygen-free "dead zones" where few species can survive. Blue Ridge Aquaculture owns a facility near Man, West Virginia, that plans to raise salmon in a closed system. The company says the operation will re-circulate the mine water and filter the waste, which could be sold as fertilizer.  

State law, however, considers the aquaculture byproduct to be "industrial" waste, so the fertilizer cannot be applied to agricultural farms and must instead be burned. "West Virginia is behind in the legal structure," WVU's Miller said. "Farmers are screaming about the cost of nutrients going up. Here it is-we have fish poop."

Supporters envision these farms providing income in a state where 16.9 percent of people live below the poverty line, the second highest poverty rate in the United States [PDF] But even the larger aquaculture operations do not create significant employment opportunities. Based on Miller's estimates, only six full-time jobs are created for every 450 tons (1 million pounds) of fish raised.

Still, with wild fish stocks plummeting and freshwater supplies dwindling worldwide, West Virginia's coal-mine fish farms could provide a much-needed resource. "As long as rain falls on the state, the water will be there," Hankins said. "If we manage it properly, a lot of the former mined area...makes for a sustainable business opportunity."

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

Washington, D.C.-Nearly half of the seafood we eat today is farmed. And while aquaculture is often equated with pollution, habitat degradation, and health risks, this explosive growth in fish farming may in fact be the most hopeful trend in the world's increasingly troubled food system, according to a new report by Worldwatch Institute.

In Farming Fish for the Future, Senior Researcher Brian Halweil illustrates how, if properly guided, fish farming can not only help feed an expanding global population, but also play a role in healing marine ecosystems battered by overfishing.

"In a world where fresh water and grain supplies are increasingly scarce, raising seafood like oysters, clams, catfish, and tilapia is many times more efficient than factory-farmed chicken or beef," says Halweil. "Farmed fish can be a critical way to add to the global diet to hedge against potential crop losses or shortages in the supply of meat."

"But not all fish farming is created equal," Halweil notes. Carnivorous species like salmon and shrimp, while increasingly popular, consume several times their weight in fish feed-derived from other, typically smaller, fish-as they provide in edible seafood. "It generally requires 20 kilograms of feed to produce just 1 kilogram of tuna," Halweil says. "So even as we depend more on farmed fish, a growing scarcity of fish feed may jeopardize future expansion of the industry."

Poorly run fish farms can generate coastal pollution in the form of excess feed and manure, and escaped fish and disease originating on farms can devastate wild fisheries. For example, a fish farm with 200,000 salmon releases nutrients and fecal matter roughly equivalent to the raw sewage generated by 20,000 to 60,000 people. Scotland's salmon aquaculture industry is estimated to produce the same amount of nitrogen waste as the untreated sewage of 3.2 million people-just over half the country's population.

Cramped facilities can also create ill health for fish, costing producers millions of dollars in disease prevention and foregone revenues. In recent years, shrimp farmers in China have lost $120 million to bacterial fish diseases and $420 million to shrimp diseases.

Fish farming has expanded to meet the soaring global demand for seafood. On average, each person on the planet is eating four times as much seafood as was consumed in 1950. The average per-capita consumption of farmed seafood has increased nearly 1,000 percent since 1970, in contrast to per-capita meat consumption, which grew just 60 percent.

In 2006, fish farmers raised nearly 70 million tons of seafood worth more than $80 billion-nearly double the volume of a decade earlier. Experts predict that farmed seafood will grow an additional 70 percent by 2030.

How can fish farming be made more sustainable? Innovative industry practices are key, but a shift toward sustainable fish farming will also require a fundamental change in public attitudes. This includes a willingness to prioritize fish that are lower on the food chain, such as shellfish and tilapia. But can consumers today be mobilized to shift the aquaculture industry in the same way they pressured tuna fleets to adopt more dolphin-friendly practices in the 1980s?

The need for more sustainable fish farming is critical, according to the report. Farmed seafood provides 42 percent of the world's seafood supply, and is on target to exceed half in the next decade, yet there are no widely accepted standards for what constitutes "good" fish farming. By comparison, the organic food industry has strong international and national standards, even though it constitutes just 3 to 5 percent of the world's food supply.

This points to a greater role for aquaculture certification and standards in the coming years, Halweil says. Efforts currently under way seek to model the effective labeling systems that exist in other areas of agriculture, such as for wild-caught fish, heritage breeds of livestock, and organic and local foods.

-END-

Farming Fish for the Future: Innovations

In Farming Fish for the Future, a new Worldwatch Institute Report, Senior Researcher Brian Halweil describes how farmed seafood has certain advantages over wild-caught fish in meeting modern seafood demand. Yet even as we depend more on farmed fish, Halweil notes, several crises loom that may jeopardize future expansion of this industry. These include a growing scarcity of fish feed and rising concern about the social and ecological fallout from industrial aquaculture.

Fortunately, not all fish farming is created equal. Rather than contributing to environmental degradation, fish farming can be a critical way to add to the global diet. Below are some of the innovations that have led Halweil to conclude that, properly guided, the explosive growth in fish farming may in fact be the most hopeful trend in the world food system.

Ecological Aquaculture

Ecological aquaculture, or "integrated multitrophic aquaculture," involves designing farms to function more like healthy aquatic ecosystems. Generally, fish farms produce waste and pollute surrounding waters because of the high concentration and limited mobility of the fish. These factors also leave the fish more susceptible to disease. However, farms that integrate complementary species can greatly reduce pollution and disease levels. Cooke Aquaculture's salmon farm in Back Bay, Canada, takes advantage of a natural ecosystem cleansing service provided by blue mussels and kelp. The shellfish filter excess waste from the fish cages, while the seaweed thrives on dissolved nutrients in the water.

Farming in the Warehouse

At the Center for Marine Biotechnology in Baltimore, Maryland, researchers are using city-supplied water and a complex filtration system to raise a few hundred fish completely indoors. Raising fish in a closed pen, either in a warehouse or floating on the ocean, avoids the common pitfalls of modern fish farming: net pens pollute coastal environments with waste and antibiotics, fish escapes threaten the diversity of wild populations, and diseases can spread easily. The Center's operation is the first indoor marine aquaculture system that can re-circulate nearly all of its water and expel zero waste.

Cleaning Wastewater

If managed correctly, fish farms can go beyond addressing the problems caused by the industry itself and provide a net positive impact on the environment. Traditional ponds outside of Calcutta, India, called bheris, produce some 13,000 tons of fish a year for the city's 12 million inhabitants, and serve as critical bird habitat. But the bigger environmental service they provide is that the fish feed on the 600 million liters of raw sewage that spews from Calcutta daily, turning a health risk into a key urban crop.

Restoring Habitats

Fish farming can help to restore degraded coral reefs and wetlands. The metal cages that hold farmed shellfish often function as artificial reefs around which striped bass, shad, and other marine species congregate. In the Caribbean, the Caicos Conch Farm raises King conch not just to sell to restaurants around the world, but to help re-seed coral reefs with this keystone species.

Eating Local Seafood

People who eat from their local waters have a natural reason to be concerned about what goes into them. The Southold Program in Aquaculture Training (SPAT) on Long Island, New York, helps volunteers raise baby shellfish in floating cages to restore the local scallop economy. Participants receive training in algae growth, marine ecology, and shellfish dynamics, and also get to eat half their harvest of fresh, mature shellfish. In turn, they report changing their daily habits that affect water quality, such as shunning chemical fertilizers, upgrading home septic systems, and using nontoxic paint on their boats.

Eating Little Fish to Save Big Ones

In Peru, massive schools of the tiny Peruvian anchovy are netted each year. Although the fish is chock-full of the same beneficial fatty acids that have made tuna, salmon, and other big fish famous for warding off heart disease and boosting brain development, nearly all of the anchovy catch is turned into fishmeal and fish oil, used to fatten pigs and chickens on factory farms worldwide. To address this problem, students at the University of Lima have launched a campaign to change the image of the anchoveta from something that only poor people eat into a tasty dish for well-heeled sophisticates.

Among the vice presidential candidates, however, the choices offer significant contrasts in ideology and policy. Democrat Joe Biden supports action that reflects the stance taken by Senator Obama. Meanwhile, Republican nominee Sarah Palin has stated that she does not believe global warming to be human-caused - a stark difference from her running mate Senator McCain.

As the country's second-in-command and president of the Senate, the next U.S. vice president could become a crucial player in attempts to pass a sweeping climate change bill through the Congress and reach a diplomatic solution on a new international climate change agreement. During her two years as Alaska's governor, Palin has moved forward efforts to assess the impact of climate change on her state, yet reports indicate that she has resisted, and at times subverted, scientific evidence that would support increased environmental protection in response to climate change.

Palin's stance on climate change is summarized in an August interview with conservative magazine Newsmax. In response to a question about her "take on global warming," Palin said, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made." Neither Palin's communications director nor the McCain campaign responded to requests for clarity on her views of whether recent climate change is human-caused - a trend that has been affirmed by international scientific consensus.

Despite her reported questioning of the human hand behind climate change, Palin did establish a Climate Change Subcabinet last year to review potential adaptation and mitigation strategies for Alaska. "Some scientists tell us to expect more changes in the future. We must begin to prepare for those changes now," Palin said when establishing the subcabinet.  

While Alaska has passed no legislation to reduce its emissions, Palin has authorized $13 million to relocate or improve erosion control for six indigenous communities in areas most vulnerable to coastal erosion caused by melting permafrost and rising sea levels. Erosion and flooding affect about 86 percent of 213 Alaska Native villages, according to a 2003 U.S. Government Accountability Office report [PDF].

Michael Black, co-chair of the subcabinet and deputy commissioner for Alaska's commerce department, said Palin's personal views have not influenced the activities of the subcabinet. "I never heard her address that issue in front of any of these gatherings," he said. "Whether [climate change] is related to carbon emissions or a natural phenomenon is less relevant than what its impacts are."

Larry Hartig serves as Alaska's environmental conservation commissioner and oversees the subcabinet. He previously worked as a lawyer securing environmental permits for industry groups, including his former employer Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. He was unavailable for comment.

Palin's most controversial environmental action as governor has been her opposition to listing the polar bear on the U.S. Endangered Species list. Officially designating the polar bear as "threatened" would create significant legal hurdles for oil and gas development in Arctic Alaska and could restrict Native subsistence hunting. Alaska's budget is supported largely by revenues from energy development in the state.

Last month, the Palin administration sued the U.S. Department of Interior to overturn its May preliminary ruling to list the species as threatened. In response to nine U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies [PDF] predicting that two-thirds of the world's polar bear species - and all of Alaska's - will disappear by mid-century due to ice loss, Palin described the studies as "highly speculative and questionable" and insisted that U.S. polar bear populations are stable. In a January New York Times op-ed, she wrote, "My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts."  

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's lead biologist for marine mammals, Robert Small, and two other state biologists also reviewed the USGS studies. Their analysis differed significantly from the Palin administration's. "Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information supports the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these nine reports," Small wrote in an e-mail.

The e-mail was uncovered by University of Alaska marine conservation professor Rick Steiner through a federal Freedom of Information request. Steiner says the message reveals that Palin opposed the polar bear listing even before she reviewed the science. "She came into office and a few days later she opposed federal listing of the polar bears. Obviously they want to protect oil and gas revenues in the state budget," Steiner said. "I think that bodes pretty poorly about how science will be reviewed if the McCain/Palin ticket were to prevail."

Since Palin entered the presidential campaign last month, she has contributed to Republican calls for additional drilling in the Arctic Ocean and in the Alaska-based Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). McCain has long opposed drilling in ANWR, and his selection of Palin has led some commentators to suggest he may change his mind.

But on issues from climate change to drilling, campaign energy advisor James Woolsey insists McCain will not budge. "On a number of issues, such as climate change, John McCain has had well developed views over the years... I see no reason why that would be departed from," said Woolsey, the former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

Other climate change-related measures by the Palin administration have included joining the Western Climate Initiative, a regional cap-and-trade program, as an observer, and opposing a multi-state lawsuit against the Bush administration that sought to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.

The U.S. bottled water market is slowing down after years of steady growth, suggesting that international awareness campaigns may be curbing consumer demand.

While bottled water continues to expand in global popularity, the U.S. market is expected to grow 6.7 percent this year, the smallest increase this decade, according to data collected by the Beverage Marketing Corporation.

The United States is the largest consumer of bottled water, but opposition is growing. In the past year, several restaurants, municipalities, natural food stores, and schools have decided to "buy local" - choosing tap water rather than packaged products - for economic, environmental, or social justice reasons.

Bottled water sold in most industrialized countries costs between $500 and $1,000 per cubic meter, compared to $0.50 for municipal water in states such as California, according to Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick. Meanwhile, more than 40 percent of water bottled in the United States comes from public water supplies, and studies suggest that bottled water is not always cleaner than tap water. The bottled products also demand significant amounts of energy to be produced, packaged, stored, and transported.

While cities recycle about 23 percent of their plastic bottles, some 2 million tons of the bottles are sent to landfills each year, the Worldwatch Institute reported in 2007. Corporate Accountability International estimates that the annual cost of disposing of water bottles is $70 million.

These concerns are beginning to cause a shift in consumer choices. Following the lead of U.S. cities such as San Francisco and Salt Lake City, the majority of the 250 mayors at the annual U.S. Conference of Mayors in June voted to phase out government use of bottled water when possible. Bans on selling bottled water at city functions are also being considered across Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, according to Deborah Lapidus, the national organizer for Corporate Accountability International's Think Outside the Bottle Campaign.

"Certainly the bottled water industry's growth is slowing down," Lapidus said. "The consumer market is being affected by the fact that cities are doing these visible water bottle cancellations."

The U.S. bottled water industry's growth has declined for four years in a row. But Tom Lauria, vice president of communications for the International Bottled Water Association, said the advocacy campaigns are not the cause. "We have enjoyed meteoric growth in the past, but that's bound to level off," he said.

Since its bottle campaign began in 2006, Corporate Accountability International estimates that at least 60 cities have phased out or reduced spending on bottled water, and at least 60 U.S. restaurants have committed to serving tap water in place of bottled water, according to Mark Hays, the campaign's senior researcher.

The beverage industry is responding with increased lobbying efforts. When the U.S. Conference of Mayors began to consider discontinuing its bottled water contracts last year, the American Beverage Association and International Bottled Water Association joined the Mayors Business Council, according to the council's website. The paid membership grants industry representatives access to the conferences. "It's testament to our campaign and the bottled water movement... because the mayors have held firm and have not been influenced by this lobbying," Lapidus said.

The U.K.-based Children's Food Campaign is accusing the British Softdrinks Association of perpetuating myths that tap water is unsafe. According to the campaign, schoolchildren have received educational materials that claim refilling empty water bottles from the tap is "unsafe" and "can lead to contamination." Lauria said the industry does not contend that tap water poses health risks. Rather, the leaflets likely referred to unhealthy bacteria that often accumulate inside water bottles if the vessels are improperly cleaned, he said.

Corporate Accountability International has also been pressuring beverage companies Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestle to disclose the sources and quality of their water. Last year, Pepsi announced that the label on its water product, Aquafina, would reveal that it originates mostly from purified, public water sources.   

Global consumption of bottled water reached nearly 189 billion liters last year alone - a 7.6 percent increase from 2002 - led by growing demand in China. The United Arab Emirates, Mexico, and Italy lead the world in per capita consumption, according to the beverage marketing data.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org