Full Text Of News Articles

Whale-boat incidents largely go unreported
By Jan TenBruggencate, Honolulu Advertiser Science Writer
Sunday, January 11, 2004

When you start telling whale stories among Hawai'i boaters, the stories just keep coming — unless you're one of the federal officials charged with protecting endangered humpback whales. Then it seems that many folks avoid telling you about their encounters.

That's a source of frustration for the officials, because they fear the lack of documented whale-boat collisions gives them an incomplete picture of how such interactions occur, and how they might be prevented.

"We know there are a lot of interactions that we just don't hear about," said Margaret Akamine, head of the protected species program of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The sanctuary has been studying the issue of whale-vessel collisions, and last September it held a three-day workshop on it, but the agency feels hampered by lack of information.

"Many incidents go unreported. People need to know who to call, but many of them may be unwilling to call a federal agency," said sanctuary manager Naomi McIntosh.

The issue gained new urgency after two recent whale-vessel encounters that resulted in a death and serious injury, which has rarely happened in Hawai'i.

Three-year-old Ryker Hamilton of Norfolk, Va., died after hitting his head on a rail during a Christmas Day whale-watch cruise off O'ahu. There are conflicting reports whether the Dream Cruises Hawai'i boat hit the whale.

Then, last week, Maui firefighter Sandy Parker, 27, was knocked unconscious when his 18-foot fishing boat struck a whale as he was heading from East Moloka'i to Maui's Kahului Harbor. He suffered serious head injuries and bruises.

An estimated 5,000 humpbacks visit Hawai'i annually, migrating from their summer feeding grounds off Alaska to socialize, mate and calve in the Islands' warmer coastal waters.

It is illegal for boats to approach within 100 yards of whales in sanctuary waters. Boaters and federal officials agree that most encounters are accidental, given the whales' unpredictable nature and the difficulty in spotting them.

Federal agencies are investigating the two recent incidents, but there are so many more, and they don't only involve speeding boats.

Champion outrigger canoe paddler Mike Judd said he was in a race off Hawai'i Kai about three years ago when a whale surfaced directly under his one-man canoe, lifting him and his canoe out of the water.

"I put my feet down on both sides of the canoe (standing on the whale's back). I looked down and it was a baby whale. Its mother was directly under it," Judd said.

Eventually, the whale submerged and Judd was able to continue the race without further incident.

Even stationary boats can be involved in whale incidents, as in a case off Kaua'i in 2001 in which a young whale leaped out of the water and landed on the back of a stopped whale-watch boat. A visitor aboard suffered a broken knee when the whale landed in her lap before sliding back into the ocean.

Hawai'i boaters commonly take evasive action to avoid hitting surfacing whales. Kaua'i accountant Patrick Ibbs recalled being in a sailboat off O'ahu's Ala Wai Small Boat Harbor and having a mature whale surface just feet ahead of the boat, which was under power at the time.

"We stopped the boat and had to reverse to keep from hitting it," Ibbs said.

But for all the anecdotal reports and the lack of complete data, Hawai'i wildlife officials do not feel that whale-vessel interactions are a serious threat to the animals or to humans, McIntosh said.

"We're concerned about the risk to whales and the risks to passengers," but there are not really any firm guidelines on how to avoid interactions.

"These animals are unpredictable. Their behavior can be sudden. Generally, we need to be more attentive on the water."

McIntosh said her agency has looked into technologies such as forward-looking sonar that might warn boaters of whales near the surface, but added that it doesn't seem ready for prime time yet.

Both she and Akamine said many Hawai'i boaters seem to be wary of reporting cases to federal officials, for fear of being cited for improper behavior, or for fear of the establishment of regulations that will limit their on-water activities.

Neither has a good sense of how to reassure boaters, but both said they need more data to better understand the problem.

Two ferries to be built for interisland service
By Mike Leidemann. Honolulu Advertiser Transportation Writer
Tuesday, January 13, 2004

A Hawai'i firm planning to start an interisland ferry service within three years has signed an agreement to buy two newly built 900-passenger, 280-vehicle vessels for the service, officials said yesterday.

Hawaii Superferry said yesterday it hopes to have the first of the four-story high, 340-foot-long catamarans carrying passengers, vehicles and freight between O'ahu, Kaua'i, Maui and the Big Island beginning in 2006.

The high-speed ferries, costing about $75 million each, would be built in Alabama in a joint venture with an Australian firm that specializes in designing and constructing ocean-going vessels that have enough speed and stability to ensure passenger comfort, Superferry officials said.

If successful, the plan has the potential to revolutionize interisland travel, providing a new way to move cargo from one island to another and offering tourists and local residents a chance to island hop without getting on an airplane or renting a car.

Like other ferries operating around the world, the company would include two classes of passenger service, airline-style seating, restaurants, retail shops, entertainment, a video arcade and a play area for children, said John Garibaldi, a partner in Hawaii Superferry. "The best way to describe it is like a cruise-line type atmosphere," he said.

Several companies have made efforts to start interisland ferry service in the past but been hampered by a lack of adequate port facilities and rough open-water passages that can make the travel uncomfortable.

Changes in ocean-going ferry technology in the past decade, however, make the success of the new venture more likely, Hawaii Superferry officials said.

"Our specialized catamarans combine a proven hull form with an advanced computerized ride control system, ensuring a high level of passenger comfort," said Tim Dick, Hawaii Superferry founder and chairman. "Bringing this capability to Hawai'i will boost interisland travel by residents and visitors alike at half the cost of air transportation."

The Hawai'i ships will be specifically designed and built for Hawai'i sea conditions, travel at speeds of up to 45 mph and be able to make the trip from Honolulu to Maui or Kaua'i in three hours.

The company plans to use a federal maritime loan guarantee program to help pay for the ships, Garibaldi said. The first new vessel is expected to be finished in 2006; the second should arrive in 2008.

Hawaii Superferry has quietly been laying the groundwork for an interisland ferry system for the past three years and went public with its plan last year. It is a Honolulu-based company formed by several veterans of airline, maritime and other businesses in the state.

Similar ferries developed over the past 15 years are in use in the English Channel, the Canary Islands, New Zealand, and the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, said officials of Austal, the Australian company that developed the new technology.

The most likely base for an interisland ferry system in Honolulu would be Pier 19, where the state last year completed construction of a $5 million new terminal that offers ticketing counters, passenger waiting and baggage handling areas. The company is still negotiating with the state for landing facilities on other islands.

Drink Honu Beer — and save a turtle, too
By James Gonser, Honolulu Advertiser Urban Honolulu Writer
Monday, January 12, 2004

Your old college roommate was right: Drinking beer can make the world a better place.

The makers of Honu Beer, newly created and named after the endangered green sea turtle, are trying to do just that by donating 20 percent of their profits to the World Turtle Trust, a local nonprofit group that helps pay for projects to protect turtles around the world.

As the beer finds its way to liquor stores on O'ahu this week, its makers hope consumers love the creatures as much as they do and will think of sea turtles and conservation work as a good reason to pick up a six-pack of the golden ale.

The idea came to Brett Porter, Honu Brewing's head brewer, in 1999 during a Maui vacation after his father insisted that he snorkel out and look at the turtles living offshore from the family condo.

"The moment you see a sea turtle face to face is the moment you commit yourself to their preservation," said Porter. "I returned from my Hawaiian vacation knowing I had to do something. And since I'm a brewer, I figured I could make the greatest impact through beer."

John Lindelow, spokesman for the World Turtle Trust, said the Honu Beer donation will go directly to sea turtle conservation efforts around the world. The trust, founded in 1990, is financing four projects — in Hawai'i, the Caribbean, Costa Rica and India — and Lindelow said the goal is to pay for work on 12 projects around the globe.

"We act as a funding conduit to a bunch of grass-roots, small organizations around the world who are doing sea turtle conservation on a local level," Lindelow said.

He said that no one at the trust takes a salary and that all the money generated through beer sales, except some minor administrative costs, will go directly to turtle conservation. He hopes that Hawai'i's love of turtles and a desire to protect them will help sell the product.

"There is so much love in the Islands for the honu," Lindelow said. "People identify with them and like being around them in the water. They are such gentle creatures."

University of Hawai'i marketing professor Dana Alden said donating a portion of a company's profits not only sends a good corporate message but also can be an effective marketing technique.

"It helps them break through the clutter and it shows corporate responsibility," Alden said. "It adds a very nice dimension to our society. It's a friendly side of capitalism and I like to see it out there for that reason."

Alden said the charity work by the Ronald McDonald House, financed by McDonald's restaurants, and Ben & Jerry's ice cream environmental donations are well-established corporate efforts that have been marketed successfully.

"The key is identifying an issue that really matters to the target market," Alden said. "It's one thing to have corporate objectives that the CEO or shareholders are interested in, and that is fine, but in terms of promoting the brand, obviously it has to resonate with the target market or it's not going to motivate purchasing."

Twenty percent of the profits from Honu Beer will be donated to the World Turtle Trust.
Honu Beer is made in Portland, Ore., by Honu Brewing, a subsidiary of Portland Brewing. The company also makes MacTarnahan's Amber Ale.

The first shipment of Honu Beer arrived last week. Paradise Beverages is distributing the beer and is also a partner in the conservation project, donating part of its profits to the cause.

In all, the World Turtle Trust will receive 50 cents per case of beer sold, which could total $700 if just the initial shipment sells out.

Paradise Beverages is looking into the prospects of placing the beer in several grocery stores, restaurants and bars as well as mom-and-pop markets.

Foodland has ordered Honu Beer and expects to have it in all of its O'ahu stores by the third week of the month and on the Neighbor Islands by the end of the month.

The Liquor Collection at Ward Warehouse has also ordered the beer. "We will get Honu Beer as soon as we can," said George O'Hanlon, Liquor Collection general manager.

Porter said the initial shipment of Honu Beer was 1,400 cases.

The beer is golden ale, made with 100 percent malted barley, he said, describing it as an easy-drinking beer. It comes in a clear bottle that shows a swimming sea turtle and fish on a Hawaiian reef.

"It's great beer, a great package and a good cause," Porter said. "We didn't want it to be a token gesture. We wanted it to be a real chunk of our profits, not just a nod to a charity. We want this to do some good work."

Albatross population increases at Midway
Only couples count, so bachelor birds might mean even higher figures
Associated Press

The population of gooney birds at Midway Island has increased by more than half since 2001, federal wildlife officials said this month.

In the most recent survey, volunteers counted 441,178 nesting pairs of Laysan albatrosses, known as gooney birds, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which operates the Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge. That is 53.9 percent higher than the number counted in 2001.

Volunteers counted 20,393 black-footed albatross nests -- up 7.2 percent since 2001.

Since the male and female albatrosses take turns incubating their eggs, all active nests are counted, and the population count is stated in terms of the number of breeding pairs, the wildlife service said.

Nonbreeding individual birds are much more difficult to count and are not included, so actual albatross numbers on Midway could be far higher than reported.

Beth Flint, a wildlife biologist with the agency's Honolulu office, said the reported increase is encouraging "because overall declines had been observed over the last 10 years or so."

However, biologists said breeding can vary from year to year.

"We just don't know enough yet about albatross population dynamics to conclude that their total numbers are increasing," Flint said. "It could be that numbers have been down in recent years because of climate conditions, lack of available food, human impacts or any of a number of other reasons."

Biologists said the reported increase could be due to a variety of factors, including habitat improvements at Midway, more experienced breeders, favorable oceanographic conditions or other environmental factors.

The 2003 count was conducted in December by a team of 21 volunteers from Hawaii, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Fiji.

Midway has 75 percent of the world's breeding population of Laysan albatrosses and 35 percent of the world's black-footed albatross population. Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge also is nesting ground for 14 other species of migratory seabirds and the endangered Hawaiian monk seal.

The albatrosses were nicknamed gooney birds by sailors who observed their odd behavior that was the result of spending years at sea before returning to land to breed.

Midway, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, is about 1,200 miles northwest of the main Hawaiian islands.

Judge permits testing of whale sonar off California
TERENCE CHEA, Associated Press Writer
Friday, January 16, 2004

A federal judge decided Friday to allow a team of marine biologists to keep testing a new sonar system designed to detect whales deep in the Pacific Ocean, rejecting a request by some environmentalists for a permanent injunction against the experiment.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti heard arguments from the New Hampshire firm that designed the system, the government agency that approved the testing and environmental groups that claimed the radar would harm marine mammals.

Scientific Solutions Inc. of Nashua, N.H., resumed testing of the sonar last week off the coast of Central California after receiving a permit from the National Marine Fisheries Service. The judge said Friday that the permit was issued properly.

A coalition of environmental groups including Australians for Animals and Sea Sanctuary sought an injunction, arguing the high-frequency sonar could distress and disorient whales, drive them from their habitat and separate calves from their mothers.

Scientific Solutions says the system has not harmed the whales since testing began and will ultimately help protect them from ship collisions, testing of military equipment and underwater explosions.

Last year, environmentalists successfully blocked research on the system after they filed a lawsuit, contending that an environmental assessment should have been conducted before research began.

After obtaining such an assessment, Scientific Solutions received a new permit to test its sonar in late December and began testing in Pacific waters near San Luis Obispo on Jan. 6. They plan to conduct 20 days of testing each year for five years during the annual winter migration of gray whales.

On Thursday, the environmental groups argued that research should be stopped again because the company and the government failed to consider the sonar's impact on a species known as the harbor porpoise, which is particularly sensitive to noise and might be scared away from their feeding grounds.

"They took the most sensitive species and buried it in paperwork," said Lanny Sinkin, an attorney representing the environmental groups. "The agency prepared environmental documentation designed to allow the experiment to proceed, despite the environmental impact."

Attorneys representing the company and the government said the environmental assessment was conducted properly, and that there's been no evidence of harm done to marine mammals since testing started last week.

"The system is safe, and it was adequately reviewed before the permit was issued," said James Arnold, an attorney representing Scientific Solutions. "The goal is to develop a badly needed technology to protect marine mammals, particularly whales, from injury or even death."

The case is Australians for Animals vs. National Marine Fisheries Service, C040086.

Technology Aims to Reduce Turtle Catches
Associated Press, Mon, Jan. 05, 2004

WASHINGTON - A change in fishing technology - including hooks and bait - could sharply reduce the accidental catch of sea turtles, the National Marine Fisheries Service said Monday.

The agency said a three-year study has shown that using the new system can cut the catch of endangered loggerhead and leatherback turtles by between 65 percent and 90 percent.

Fisheries Service Director William Hogarth said the new system was developed with the cooperation of the longline fisheries industry and he called on other fishing nations to evaluate it for their use.

Longline fishing boats deploy long cables lined with baited hooks to attract popular such as swordfish, tuna and mahi mahi. The cables are periodically reeled in and the fish removed.

But the sea turtles also get caught on the lines, often drowning before they can be recovered and released.

If fishermen decide to use the new system they not only benefit the turtles, agency officials said, but they have an economic incentive because they see an increase in the catch of intended fish, and they reduce the chance that areas where turtles congregate will be declared closed to fishing, such as the productive Grand Banks off Newfoundland.

"These new approaches we are announcing today are the answer we've all been waiting for," Nelson Beideman, executive director of Bluewater Fisherman's Association, a commercial longline group with 13 vessels participating in the project, said in a statement. "We are pleased to announce to the fishing world that we have successfully documented practical ways for pelagic longline fishermen to overwhelmingly reduce sea turtle interactions and also to substantially reduce harm from any remaining sea turtle interactions."

The major change recommended by the fisheries service is to switch from the common J-shaped hook to a so-called circle hook, which is rounder, with a smaller opening, and to change from squid to mackerel for bait.

Agency researchers also developed new de-hooking and release techniques to increase survival rates for turtles that are captured. Dehookers and dipnets allow fishermen to remove hooks from turtles with minimal additional trauma. A device used as a turtle elevator, the "leatherback lift," was crafted to allow fishermen to bring larger turtles on board for de-hooking.

The findings were also endorsed by the World Wildlife Fund.

American fishing fleets are responsible for about 5 percent of overall sea turtle deaths, according to the fisheries service's a part of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

More warnings on seafood mercury requested
By Bob Condor, Chicago Tribune
Wednesday, January 14, 2004

The fish stories continue at the Food and Drug Administration. So does the confusion about whether pregnant women and kids should be eating canned tuna.

"The FDA advisory (on seafood consumption) doesn't tell people how to eat seafood safely," said Jane Houlihan, vice president of research at the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy organization. "The fact is, a pregnant woman who eats one (six-ounce) can of albacore tuna each week could be exceeding a safe dose of mercury by 30 percent on average."

That's because new test results from the FDA indicate albacore or white canned tuna can contain up to three times more mercury than less-expensive tuna does.

"It's new information for a lot of Americans," said Houlihan, who stopped eating canned tuna several years ago after EWG conducted its first analysis of FDA data regarding tuna and other seafood. "But the FDA first conducted research (in 1993) showing albacore tuna is higher in mercury."

The Environmental Working Group filed a legal challenge last week to force the FDA to be explicit in all warnings about the potential dangers of eating tuna. The agency has 60 days to respond.

Although tuna is a fish high in healthful omega-3 fats, it is hard to argue with the logic of looking to other seafood high in omegas but low in potential mercury risk. Salmon is a popular alternative, fresh or canned. It makes a nutritious and safe protein source for your dinner-size salad.

In 2001, the FDA put out a mercury advisory for pregnant women and small children to avoid eating shark, swordfish, king mackerel and tilefish. Eating 12 ounces of any other fish (two six-ounce servings) each week was within safe limits, according to the FDA.

Toxicity activists such as Houlihan argued that not distinguishing the potential high amounts of mercury in tuna was a mistake. Mercury can damage growing brains of fetuses and small children.

The FDA responded by suggesting the 12 ounces of fish should come from a variety of species, not just the inexpensive, convenient can of tuna. The federal agency also has cautioned that albacore "generally" contains more mercury than light tuna does.

Here are some suggestions, extracted from two days of hearings before an FDA panel:

* Create a consumer-friendly list of fish and seafood, to inform pregnant women of both high-risk fish and fish that are safe options. The list could include low, moderate and high risk levels.
* Move albacore tuna to the high-caution list, while light tuna could remain where canned tuna has resided in recent years, on the low-caution list (no more than one meal per week).

Tuna steaks, red snapper, halibut, orange roughy and lobster are all on the moderate-caution list (one meal or less per month), while cod, mahi mahi and crab joined canned light tuna on the low-caution list.

Varieties of seafood with the lowest level of mercury (more than one meal per week) include salmon, shrimp, farm-raised catfish and trout, flounder, sole, perch and scallops.

Another suggestion: Develop more straightforward advice about how much mercury to allow in children, by breaking down serving size by body weight. One of the biggest concerns about mercury among scientists is how it might do more harm in developing bodies.

Some also have called on the government to be more demanding about the source of the seafood, including information about where it was caught and the weight of the fish (larger fish can store mercury more readily than smaller fish can).

FDA officials said at the hearing that the agency hopes to issue revised mercury and fish warnings by spring.

"The panel raised many 'what about the rest of us?' issues," said Houlihan. "There is some research showing people with cardiovascular risk might be adversely affected by eating tuna (and other seafood) with mercury content. It makes a lot of sense to know as much as we can, and for the government to be clear about it."

Farmed salmon loaded with chemicals, study confirms
Friday, January 09, 2004
By Maggie Fox, Reuters

WASHINGTON — Farmed salmon contains far more toxic chemicals than wild salmon — high enough to suggest that fish-eaters limit how much they eat, U.S. researchers said Thursday.

The culprit is "salmon chow" — the feed given to the captive fish, the researchers report in this week's issue of the journal Science.

Many health experts urge people to eat fish such as salmon because it contains healthy fats, especially the omega-3 fatty acids that can lower the risk of heart disease and perhaps have other health benefits, too.

But the researchers, as well as environmental groups, said the findings in Science indicate that people should choose their fish carefully. They should also demand that salmon be clearly labeled to indicate whether it is farmed or wild so they can make informed choices about which fish to eat.

The team at Indiana University, University at Albany, Cornell University, and elsewhere analyzed toxic contaminants in 700 farmed and wild salmon taken from markets in 16 cities in Europe and North America.

"We think it's important for people who eat salmon to know that farmed salmon have higher levels of toxins than wild salmon from the open ocean," environmental affairs professor Ronald Hites of Albany, who led the study, said in a statement.

They looked for 13 different chemicals known to build up in the flesh of fish, including polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, heptachlor epoxide, cis-nonachlor, trans-nonachlor, gamma-chlordane, alpha-chlordane, Mirex, endrin, and DDT.

Some are pesticides, others are industrial by-products, and many are known or suspected cancer-causing agents.

Eat once a month or less

Farmed salmon taken from markets in Frankfurt, Edinburgh, Paris, London, Oslo, Boston, San Francisco, and Toronto had the highest levels, and the researchers said consumers should eat no more than one-half to one meal of salmon per month. A meal was eight ounces of uncooked meat.

Farmed salmon from supermarkets in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Chicago, New York, and Vancouver had toxins high enough to suggest that people eat no more than two salmon meals a month, based on Environmental Protection Agency standards.

In contrast, it would be safe to eat up to eight meals a month of wild salmon, they said. Other groups note that walnuts, flaxseeds, and other non-fish sources are rich in omega-3s.

Many chemicals can build up in the body, staying for years or even a lifetime. But the body also processes some out, so experts can figure out a safe or acceptable level of intake.

The study fits in with other research on chemicals in salmon. Two studies published in the journal Chemosphere last year found elevated levels of PCBs, certain pesticides, and flame retardants in farmed salmon.

And last year the Environmental Working Group said it found elevated PCB levels in farmed salmon filets taken from 10 U.S. grocery stores.

"This unquestionably large, new study strongly confirms earlier research, and it leaves little room for the farmed fish industry to argue away the problems of polluted farmed seafood," the Environmental Working Group's Jane Houlihan said.

But Charles Santerre, a food and nutrition expert at Indiana's Purdue University, said the study in fact showed that farmed salmon is safe.

"The study demonstrates that farmed salmon is very low in contaminants and meets or exceeds standards established by the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization," Santerre said in a statement.

Warming May Threaten 37% of Species by 2050
By Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 8, 2004

In the first study of its kind, researchers in a range of habitats including northern Britain, the wet tropics of northeastern Australia and the Mexican desert said yesterday that global warming at currently predicted rates will drive 15 to 37 percent of living species toward extinction by mid-century.

Dismayed by their results, the researchers called for "rapid implementation of technologies" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and warned that the scale of extinctions could climb much higher because of mutually reinforcing interactions between climate change and habitat destruction caused by agriculture, invasive species and other factors.

"The midrange estimate is that 24 percent of plants and animals will be committed to extinction by 2050," said ecologist Chris Thomas of Britain's University of Leeds. "We're not talking about the occasional extinction -- we're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number."

The study marks the first time scientists have produced a global analysis with concrete estimates of the effect of climate change on habitat. Previous work -- much of it by the same researchers -- focused on smaller regions or limited numbers of species.

Thomas led a 19-member international team that surveyed habitat decline for 1,103 plant and animal species in five regions: Europe; Queensland, Australia; Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert; the Brazilian Amazon; and the Cape Floristic Region at South Africa's southern tip. The study is being published today in the journal Nature.

The five regions encompass 20 percent of Earth's surface and "include a fair range of terrestrial environments," Thomas said in a telephone interview from Leeds. "Obviously, it would be valuable to expand the scope, but there's no reason to think that doing so would change our results tremendously."

Researchers said the wide geographical scope also overcame outside factors that might affect a single region only. "A prolonged drought might cause one instance of a dieback" but be offset by changes elsewhere, acknowledged climate change biologist Lee Hannah, who worked in South Africa. "When you see the broader context, the regional blips drop out."

Although there is little dispute that Earth's temperature is rising, debate over the reasons and speed of change remains contentious. Still, most scientists accept that much of the warming is caused by the cumulative effects of human-produced emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" -- from power plants and other industries -- that trap and hold heat in the atmosphere.

One skeptic, William O'Keefe, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative science policy organization, criticized the Nature study, saying that the research "ignored species' ability to adapt to higher temperatures" and assumed that technologies will not arise to reduce emissions.

Climatologists have developed models that describe the temperature changes that specific regions have undergone over periods of as long as 30,000 years. The Nature study used U.N. projections that world average temperatures will rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.

The trick for the study, Thomas said, was to marry the maps of projected climate change in particular regions with maps describing the habitat -- especially the climate needs -- of plants and animals in the same area.

For this, "we needed to get the people together who knew where the species lived," Thomas said. These were the conservationists on the research team -- ecological experts who study extinctions by looking at traditional culprits: destruction of habitat through agriculture, industry or human settlement; invasive species shoving aside native plants and animals; and hunting and extermination of pests.

"Obviously, plants and animals depend on climate for survival, but we figured that if we protect them in place, they would be all right," Hannah said in a telephone interview from his home in California. "But now we realize that we have to take care of them not only where they are now, but where they might have to go."

The team calculated the effects of climate change on extinctions by using what ecologists J. Alan Pounds and Robert Puschendorf, in an article accompanying the study, called "one of ecology's few ironclad laws" -- that shrinking habitat supports fewer species.

The study considered a range of possibilities based on the ability of each species to move to a more congenial habitat to escape warming. If all species were able to move, or "disperse," the study said, only 15 percent would be irrevocably headed for extinction by 2050. If no species were able to disperse, the extinction rate could rise as high as 37 percent.

"Reality, of course, will fall somewhere in between," Thomas said.

As an example, he cited Britain's comma butterfly, a robust flier that hopscotched 160 miles north from 1982 to 1997, feeding all the way -- in its caterpillar phase -- on stinging nettles. By contrast, the silver-studded blue butterfly needs to move north but cannot, because it needs lowland heath to survive, and the gaps between patches of habitat are too large for this weak-winged flier to overcome. As a result, "it has continued to decline," Thomas said.

Pounds, speaking by telephone from his office in Costa Rica's Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, called the study's results "ironclad" and "if anything, too conservative." The adverse effects of natural roadblocks would be compounded by "interaction with other changes" such as agriculture, human settlement or invasive species, he said.

"There are different ways you can lose area," Pounds said. "One is to have the habitat directly destroyed. Climate change does the same thing."

Key West is cracking down on cruise ships
Friday, January 09, 2004
By Associated Press

KEY WEST, Florida — Key West's city commission has asked cruise ships that dock in this island to pump their wastewater into the local sewage system instead of dumping it offshore.

Mayor Jimmy Weekley said water quality is critical to the sensitive ecosystem around the Florida Keys, home to the United States' only tropical marine preserve.

"The U.S. Navy is willing to pump out and cruise ships need to pump out," Weekley said during a meeting earlier this week. "If cruise ships can't do that, maybe they should go somewhere else. It's a detriment to the environment."

Cruise ships dump thousands of gallons of wastewater into the ocean during a voyage. Under requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, cruise ships can dump when they are at least three miles offshore. Locally, cruise ship companies pump out at least 12 miles offshore, cruise ship representatives have said.

Michael Crye, president of the International Council of Cruise Lines, an industry group, said many cruise ships use treatment systems that produce water clean enough for people to drink, so it doesn't make sense to put it into the municipal wastewater system.

Ships without those advanced treatment systems still exceed the requirements of the Clean Water Act and studies have shown that dumping under the act's guidelines has little or no impact on ocean water quality, Crye said Thursday.

"There is little if any environmental gain" from Key West's proposal, he said.

The proposal calls for ships docking in Key West to pay 5 cents a gallon to pump into the sewage system. But it could be difficult to order cruise ships to refrain from releasing wastewater between a prior port and Key West, Port Director Raymond Archer said.

"The intent is admirable and we support it, but there are a lot of unknowns right now," Archer said. "We need to create and adopt a policy and way of enacting it."

Also, only one of the city's three cruise ship piers has a pumping station. Weekley said it could take up to a year to have all the piers ready for cruise ship pumping. He asked City Manager Julio Avael to negotiate the proposal with cruise lines.

The proposal was made during a successful vote to raise passenger fees from $8 to $10.63 for each person who disembarks in Key West.