Those categories, the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, were introduced by the National Hurricane Center in the 1970s. Originally the scale was meant to convey both wind and water destruction but was simplified in 2010 to focus solely on wind hazards, while storm surge and precipitation risks are now communicated separately.

The scale is open-ended with Category 5 storms being the top with sustained winds greater than 157 miles per hour (70 m/s).  This open-endedness originated from the belief that the cumulative impact of wind, surge, and rainfall in a Category 5 event could utterly destroy any structure. But Category 5 may no longer be enough.

A new study suggest that we need a Category 6 that categorizes storms greater than 192 miles per hour (86 m/s).  Numerous storms have already reached wind speeds comparable to those in in the Category 6 range. In the past nine years, five storms have surpassed the hypothetical Category 6 threshold. Notably, the most intense of these, Hurricane Patricia, struck Jalisco, Mexico while the others occurred in the Western Pacific, including Haiyan and Goni which hit heavily populated areas of the Philippines. Haiyan, considered by some as deserving of a Category 6 designation, caused extensive damage and casualties in the Philippines. Another storm, Meranti, caused damage in the Philippines and Taiwan before making landfall in eastern China, resulting in severe flooding.

In addition, increases in Emanuel’s Potential Intensity (PI) index indicate that human influence on the climate system has elevated the risk of such storms reaching Category 6 levels. You can think of hurricane as engine that transport that energy, i.e. heat, from the ocean surface to an outflow at the boundary between the troposphere from the stratosphere.  The PI measures the strength of this hurricane engine. Looking at data from 1979 to 2018, the authors found that the likelihood of storms reaching Category 6 strength has increased significantly due to global warming. Comparing the periods from 1999 to 2018 and 1979 to 1998, almost three times more instances of storms exceeding the Category 6 threshold occurred. The authors note, “Overall, the chances of PI exceeding the category 6 threshold have more than doubled since 1979.”

Additionally, climate model simulations conducted by the authors predict further increases of these Category 6 hurricanes. The authors demonstrate that when they run long-term simulations using three advanced global climate models, they all predict the greater occurrence of Category 6 storms in conditions hotter than what we have today. Even if we manage to meet the relatively modest global warming goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, these simulations still show a significant rise in the likelihood of Category 6 storms happening.

The post The Rise of Category 6 Storms in a Warming World first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The post 2023: More Days at Highest Temperatures first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Nearly two miles below the ocean’s surface, we are building new worlds. You might be surprised that these ecospheres are wooden—little log cabins hosting a cornucopia of sea life.  By controlling the size of these wooden homes, we can begin to answer fundamental questions about how the oceans will adapt to climate change. In our most recent, paper we are beginning to grasp the extent that food controls biodiversity, biological novelty, and the competition among species.

On the seafloor, chunks of wood—we call them wood falls—play host to a variety of invertebrate species often not found anywhere else in the ocean.  These species live their entire lives on waterlogged timber; settling out of the water column as larvae to consume wood, or to prey upon other species that do.  Once on a wood fall, these organisms can never leave, their dispersal limited to the beginning of their lives as plankton. And for all of these reasons, the island communities created by wood falls serve as the perfect experiment.

Because of humans, the oceans are radically changing.  They’re becoming warmer, more acidic, and less oxygenated.  But an even more disturbing trend has been uncovered; the oceans may be becoming less productive, providing less food and carbon for its denizens.  Scientists do not really have a handle on how life in the oceans will react to this finding. What will happen to individual species and whole communities of species?  This is an intractable question in many ways because it is hard to test. We cannot easily experimentally adjust how much food a swath of ocean gets. Or can we? In a wood-fall experiment we can change the amount of food the community receives by simply adjusting the size of the log. These species cannot leave to look for better meals once they arrive.  They are wholly dependent on the log we’ve provided in an otherwise barren patch of the deep ocean floor.

In 2006, Jim Barry (MBARI) and I placed 16 logs with a remote operated vehicle (ROV) over 2 miles down on the deep-sea floor off the California coast. We left them there for five years and then remotely and robotically harvested them.  After sorting, identifying, and analyzing, these wood falls are revealing yet another fundamental insight.

How does more food, or more specifically more carbon, allow for more species?  To explain the science, let’s visit a donut shop. At this donut shop, there are three types of donuts: chocolate, plain glazed, and raspberry filled. I ask the donut maker to make three new donuts and provide extra ingredients for them to do so.  

In Scenario A, the donut maker produces chocolate, plain glazed, and raspberry filled along with a dark chocolate, a plain glazed with sprinkles, and a blueberry filled.  The donut shop is still just serving three basic types of donuts: chocolate, plain glazed, and fruit filled. These new donuts are just slight deviations. We will call this Scenario A donut packing.  The donut maker is just packing the menu with variants of the original donuts.

Much like donuts in a shop, we can think of species in a community the same way.  As food increases and the number of species increase, are we getting slight deviations (donut packing) or something truly novel (donut expansion)?  In the ecological sense, are niches, i.e. the full set of characteristics that describe a species and their requirements, being packed into the community or are we expanding the overall niche diversity.

And so for our wood-fall species, we put numbers to each of their niches describing their feeding habits, how well and even if they move, as well as their preference for space on the wood fall. We found that as you increase the wood-fall size, and the amount of wood, you do not get truly novel species, rather you pack these species into the community.  They are just slight deviations. This suggest that increased food reduces competition among animals allowing them to coexist peacefully. Species do not have to be completely novel to join the community.

In the end this means that decreases of productivity in the oceans, will limit diversity by not allowing species to coexist.  Species will be vying for the same spots and in the end many may lose.

McClain, C.R., C.L. Nunnally, A. Chapman, and J. Barry. (2018) Energetic Increases Lead to Niche Packing in Deep-Sea Wood Falls. Biology Letters 

The post Wooden Homes on the Seafloor Yield Insights Into the Impacts of Climate Change first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Ocean science and conservation, like any human enterprise, is subject to its fair share of internal messiness from time to time.  As someone whose expertise and experience intersects several discrete domains (coral reefs, sharks, marine protected areas, and policy), I’ve witnessed plenty of dust-ups, arguments, and spats over the years.  And this week’s flurry of discussion instigated by a New York Times editorial on ocean protected areas is just the latest kerfuffle. In his op-ed, Bigger Is Not Better for Conservation, coral reef scientist and California Academy of Sciences curator, Dr Luiz Rocha, argues that large-scale, remote marine reserves are a disservice to ocean conservation.  It’s Dr Rocha’s perspectives, however, that seem more damaging.

Rocha’s argument hinges on four key points:

1. The current tally of big, remote marine reserves is in low-conflict, easy to protect (ie, low-hanging fruit) areas of the ocean where human reliance upon them is negligible and therefore government willingness to protect is strong;
2. There’s nothing worth protecting in these big, remote areas;
3. More important, smaller, near-shore ocean areas with high levels of human use are in dire need of protection;
4. Marine protected areas should be science-based (eg, protected zones should be guided by “sustainable catch limits” of commercially targeted species).

Let’s go one-by-one to see if any of these points hold water. [Note: For the sake of brevity, I’ll be using the acronym MPA frequently in this piece for “marine protected area,” but it will also serve as shorthand for “marine reserve,” “protected area,” “locally managed marine area,” or “marine managed area.”  I recognize that an MPA may not be managed or enforced, but let’s forego that technicality for the moment.]

POINT 1: “Big MPAs are easy and less consequential.”
As of today, there are approximately 20 large-scale protected areas across the ocean (ranging from tens-of-thousands to millions of square kilometers in protected area).  This includes a range from the Marianas Marine National Monument’s 16,400 square kilometers to the 1.15 million square kilometers of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai’i.  These MPAs may consist of fully-protected, no-take (no fishing/extraction) designation to protection that still allows multiple uses.  According to the folks at MPA Atlas, there are approximately 15,000 small, coastal MPAs around the world.  Some of these, like Cordelia Banks off the island of Roatan in the Bay of Honduras, encompass only 17 square kilometers.  Many are even smaller.  Totaling all of the massive/remote and small/near-shore MPAs together gets us to approximately 2% of the ocean under some form of protection.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress, held in Hawai’i in September 2016, called for member nations to set aside “30% of each marine habitat” in “highly protected MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures” by 2030, with the ultimate aim being ”a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no extractive activities.”

For rhetorical effect, I’ll reiterate that as of March 23, 2018, only 2% of our global oceans is protected, and 2030 is only twelve years away.

As someone in the MPA biz, I can testify that there are at present a small handful of big, deep-pocketed, international NGOs working on big international MPAs: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Conservation International, Oceana, and National Geographic. These folks have the gravitas, influence, and resources to capture heads of state attention and convene forums necessary to get things done.  You can bitch all you want about the pros and cons, but this is the reality.  Alongside the big NGOs, there are tens-to-hundreds of small to medium-sized NGOs that are working simultaneously on everything from big/remote MPAs to smaller/near-shore MPAs.  Sometimes the big NGOs work in concert with the smaller ones.  Sometime not.  It’s all site dependent.

Having worked on everything from massive MPAs to tiny MPAs over my career, I can say that none of them were “easy wins.”  So-called “low hanging fruit” may represent a unique opportunity in time.  You may have a receptive government or local community that welcomes the process.  It’s always easier to work with the willing than the resistant.  But every MPA effort in which I’ve participated involved strategy, identifying champions, public consultations, negotiations, community organizing, building political will, battling nefarious characters, rebooting strategy, sweating-out votes, and of course finding funds to support all of this.  If there are “easy wins” out there, big or small, I sure would appreciate someone pointing me in that direction.

Protecting big/remote areas or smaller/near-shore areas is not an either/or game.  This is not a binary proposition of doing one or the other.  It’s a yes/also.  We need to protect small, not so small, medium, larger, big, bigger, and massive tracts of the ocean.  We need to protect what is easy to protect, and what is harder to protect.  We must gather every bit of low-hanging fruit, and plan to reach the currently out-of-reach fruit.  MPAs occupy a spectrum or continuum, and we need to be prepared to work with everything along that spectrum.  Some NGOs will have a mandate (and talent) for pursuing big swaths of ocean.  Others are more tuned to work on local needs.  But there is a lot of real estate between the biggest and smallest MPAs for organizations, individuals, and yes, even FUNDERS to find their niche.

POINT 2: “There’s nothing worth protecting.”
This is just wholesale wrong.  What is Rocha considering as “worth” protection?  Certainly, there are species whose entire life cycle may be captured by the boundaries of an MPA.  Other species may only spend a portion of their lives within the boundaries of protection.  Protected areas are designed to factor in these variables.  But not all MPAs are envisioned around biological significance alone.  The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary in North Carolina, the very first marine national monument designated by the United States in 1975, honors the historic significance of the shipwreck of the famed Civil War ironclad, USS Monitor.  Similarly, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and the entire Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including the 110 seamounts, open waters, and all life in that area are considered biocultural resources and linked to the Hawaiian people through environmental kinship.

The ocean as a cultural seascape is vital to Hawaiian identity, their being, and essential dimension to their cognitive understanding of the world.  The ocean waters in Papahānaumokuākea were an ancient pathway for a voyaging sphere that occurred between this region and the main Hawaiian islands for over 400-500 years (ca. AD 1300-1800).  The practice of traditional wayfinding and voyaging—recently popularized in the film Moana and which is one of the most unique living traditions of the world—requires protection of the entire marine environment and open waters, not just the islands and reefs, because it relies on biological signs and natural phenomenon, such as winds, waves, currents, and the presence of marine life and birds at key moments and locations.

At the same time as Papahānaumokuākea was successfully expanded in 2016 by President Obama, the State of Hawai’i also supporting the establishment of small, coastal community-managed makai areas, driven by and for the community.  Yes, both can happen at the same time and using the same human capital, as many of the same people fought for both the small makai areas and the big Papahānaumokuākea effort.

POINT 3: “There are more important, smaller places to protect.”
Importance is relative and subjective.  It is place-driven and context-heavy.  What is important to someone in Brazil, might be less so to someone in Hawai’i.  So instead of casting stones at our neighbors, perhaps we should recognize that there are seriously limited resources, conservation bandwidth, and political will, and try to triage our priorities.  I recognize that the reality is that not all NGOs/organizations like to play-well together.  Furthermore, some places and approaches are simply not tenable due to practical considerations and political and social realities.  Again, this is a reality of modern conservation.  But as I mention above, effective MPAs do not occupy one half of a binary state.  It’s not either small or large.  Remote or near-shore.  Fully managed/enforced or paper parks/un-enforced.  Every single MPA in existence occupies a position somewhere along a continuum of effectiveness.  Even an un-managed, unfunded, and unenforced MPA is a work in progress along that continuum.

POINT 4: “They’re not science-based.”
Science should help inform MPA zoning and designation.  No questions or arguments here.  But the science needed may at times be incomplete or lacking.  Many decisions around the world, particularly in developing nations, on “sustainable catch limits” are not acted upon because data is deficient.  Should we be expected to wait for the science to be decided and settled (whatever that might mean) before action/conservation measures can be activated?  And science is but one arrow in our quiver that we should use to scope, establish, and manage MPAs.  The social sciences and economics are also driving MPA priorities and planning.

Finally…
I find an editorial like Rocha’s to be, quite frankly, dangerous.  Staking-out a claim on one side of a false dichotomy or constructing straw man arguments is the purview of graduate school.  I get it… Rocha would like to see more love shown to near shore/coral reef areas (including where he has worked in Brazil).  But what is the benefit to conservation as a whole to publish these half-baked propositions that large, remote MPAs are a waste of time in the pages of The New York Times and under the banner of an august and internationally recognized organization like the California Academy of Sciences?  We are not currently living in normal times, and this sort of rhetoric plays right into the hands of those keen to see less ocean protection, not more.

For the first time in US history, an administration is rolling back protections on national monuments, both land and sea.  Australia just this week has announced the possibility of cutting in half the protections for the Coral Seas MPA.  Conservation in one place in the ocean is not the enemy of conservation in another place.  And MPAs are not a binary switch of either big or small…  Local or remote…  Fully protected or not.  If we are going to get to the IUCN recommended target of 30% of our oceans under strong protection by 2030, we need to ramp up protections everywhere along the MPA continuum.  Yes/Also should become our mantra!  We must embrace a process of continuous improvement in our MPA work, not display a reflex of undercutting other conservation efforts.  And we need to keep our focus and attention on the real threats to a healthy ocean: over-fishing, illegal fishing, pollution, climate change, and lack of political will for action.

The post Embracing Yes/Also: Marine Protected Areas Are Not An Either/Or Proposition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The post Drawing Connections first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The Bakken Sea was unlike any ecosystem that exists today. Now, instead of the dry plains of North Dakota, imagine floating on the surface of this sea about 380 million years ago. The evening air is moist and musty, the sinking sun is dipping low, the sunset a wash of muted colors gleaming off crumpled black waves. Algae near the surface collect the last rays of sunlight, combining light with water and carbon dioxide to make organic matter. A strange collection of prehistoric animals feed on these algae (and each other) here at the sea’s surface, but to truly understand the Bakken, we must go underneath.

Standing underwater, on the Bakken seabed, there is no visible life. There is almost no oxygen in the water around you, transforming the seabed into a “dead zone.” You are at the bottom of a large basin—a bowl in the ocean floor nearly 400 miles wide . As the struggles of life play out in the waters above, the old, sick and defeated sink to their graves on the seabed. But without oxygen, they do not fully decompose, and nothing ventures this deep to scavenge upon their carcasses. Instead, billions upon billions of bodies–mostly algae but some larger creatures, too–slowly amass on the seafloor, forming a layer of organic matter known as the ‘lower Bakken.’

Fast forward through geologic time several million of years into the future: the sea level rapidly drops, and the basin becomes shallow with quick-moving currents. Sediment tumbles in from the surrounding mountain ranges. A layer of sandy, porous rock that covers and buries the layer of bodies. This sandy layer is knows as the ‘middle Bakken.’ Fast forward one more time: the sea rises again, and the first stage repeats, blanketing the seabed once more in dead remains, this is the ‘upper Bakken.’

These three layers—the lower, middle and upper Bakken—are then covered by sand and rock, compressed, and heated in a perfect combination of conditions that geologists refer to as an ‘Oil Kitchen.’ Slowly, this kitchen converts the Bakken carcasses into a diverse collection of gases and complex molecules called hydrocarbons–the fossils that make our fuel [2].

The lower and upper Bakken layers are sludgy and dense, difficult to drill into. But as the remains in these layers liquify, their old resting places crack open under the extreme weight and pressure . The bodies of these ancient dead sea creatures, long immobilized in their graves, now move again: the liquids of the lower and upper Bakken layers seep into the spongy middle Bakken layer. It is from this middle layer that, millions of years later, that they will be exhumed.

To harvest fossil fuels from the Bakken reserve, we drill wells thousands of feet down into the middle layer, and then extend them an additional two miles horizontally, maximizing the amount of oil we can harvest (Continental Resources, PDF). A high pressure mix of sand and water, called ‘proppant,’ is pumped in, fracturing the rock and opening small pockets of oil, which ooze through the cracks and are captured in the well.

Before the beginning of this month, this ‘crude oil’ was pumped into trucks or trains, destined for refineries. But as of June 1st, it instead enters the Dakota Access Pipeline–traversing multiple states, eventually destined for national or international refineries. At refineries, the ancient ocean remains of the Bakken Sea will be processed into the oil in your car, gas in your tank, and plastic lid on your morning coffee cup. Transporting oil via pipeline will potentially reduce the risks and costs associated with overland transport. But the 1,172  miles of pipeline raise a suite of new humanitarian and environmental concerns, including possible spills at important water sources like Lake Oahe, and destruction of sacred sites associated with the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. Protesters tried to stop the pipe’s construction, or have it move it to a new location. Just today, a federal judge ruled that proper environmental procedures were not followed before the pipeline was approved. But for now at least, this long stretch of pipe will be the primary way these remains march across the plains.

Back in in Williston, North Dakota, business is booming; this small community is undergoing an oil-fueled renaissance. After one last look around at the dry grassy expanse, you get back in your car, turn the key–the gas ignites, the combustion moves the oily gears, and drive away.

Additional information

[1] Depositional Facies And Petrophysical Analysis Of The Bakken Formation, Parshall Field, Mountrail County, North Dakota (http://geology.mines.edu/Bakken/NETL_DOE/DOE-Student_theses/Andrea_Simenson_THESIS.pdf)

[2] http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Terms/o/oil_kitchen.aspx

The post The Ancient Ocean of the Dakota Access Pipeline first appeared on Deep Sea News.

As a result of anthropogenic climate change, sea level has risen approximate 7 inches in the past 100 years. With the combination of melting land ice and expansion of warmer seas, scientists conservatively predict a 1-4 foot rise by the year 2100. Effectively, sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the economy and environment of coastal regions.

To reinforce the urgency of this situation, New York based artist Eve Mosher, started to walk the line. Literally. Using a baseball field chalk marker, Mosher laid a 70 mile white line of chalk in 2007 across Manhattan and Brooklyn. The HighWaterLine as it was called, demarcated the areas that would be severely impacted by increased mega floods if climate change continued. The power of this public installment truly hit home ironically in 2012 when the flooding brought on by Hurricane Sandy surpassed the proverbial “chalk line.”

“Walking the line with the participants and hearing of their stories after the event provides concrete evidence of the power of transformation of HighWaterLine…I hope that in every instance, HighWaterLine is just the beginning of these communities working together to build resilience and transform their cities.” says Mosher.

Since the first exhibition of the HighWaterLine, the project has debuted in five different cities from Bristol to Miami, the most climate vulnerable U.S. city. Along with the art piece, the project is also accompanied by interactive workshops to get the community more involved in the climate conversation and provide tools to create a culture of change. Currently, the group is working on a Action Guide to mentor others in bringing the HighWaterLine project to groups around the world.

The post The Writing on the Sea-Wall: High Water Line first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The EPA:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment.

Scott Pruitt’s first address to the EPA employees (paraphrased):

Let’s all be civil and compromise. I learned about it in a book about the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton said let’s reduce state debt. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said, sure…but only if we completely develop this tidal plain in Virginia and call it Washington D.C.

Dear humans of the US, I’d like to hold your hand, stare deeply into your eyes and tell you it’s going to be alright. Sure, it all sounds reasonable. Businesses and government working together to get what they want. But in light of Pruitt’s history of suing the EPA, ties to the fossil fuel industry and complete non-mention of climate in this speech, I just can’t. I really can’t.

Was his use of this environmental anecdote was intentional or not? I can’t say. But what I can say is that Scott Pruitt will definitely be doing as he always has done, putting the interests of business and money ahead of human health and the environment. It’s going to be a long 4 years, so don’t stop paying attention and don’t stop speaking out. We won’t.

The post Scott Pruitt and the EPA: One of these statements is not like the other first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Would you want your taxi driver using a paper road map from 1892? Or would you rather he plug in the route on his Google Map iPhone app?

You just got off a 14-hour flight from Australia, you’re exhausted and sore, and counting down the seconds until you can crawl into the soft comfort of your memory foam mattress. You want to get home as fast as possible, and any further delay is unacceptable.

In this scenario, if your taxi driver pulled out a faded historical road map, you would literally shout at him “Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a joke?”. Old maps list wagon trails, not highways, since the modern interstate system wasn’t built until the 1950s. In another scenario, maybe your taxi driver agrees to use Google Maps, but he turns off the traffic settings and also takes away your own smartphone so you can’t see where you’re going. He might be driving down back roads on purpose, choosing to ramp up the mileage and ramp up his final fare to rake in the cash.

Any of these above scenarios would really suck. They’re not cool. You should DEFINITELY not stand for them. You also shouldn’t stand for the gag order (#EPAgag) and grants freeze (#EPAfreeze) that’s happening this week at the EPA – because the results will be sickeningly similar to the above taxi driver scenario.

NPR reports this morning that peer-reviewed research coming out of the EPA may soon face a case-by-case review before it gets cleared for release into the public domain. This is exactly what corporations do when they fund research – do you think tobacco companies would approve studies confirming that cigarettes cause cancer? Nope, they would bury the science and ensures it never sees the light of day – and that’s exactly what the Trump administration wants to happen at the EPA. Climate change facts? Bury them. Gag the scientists. The difference is that corporations don’t fund the science at the EPA – YOU FUND IT, as a taxpayer and US citizen, and you should have a say in how your tax money is spent:

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings likely will need to have their work reviewed on a “case by case basis” before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency’s transition team.

Any review would directly contradict the agency’s current scientific integrity policy, which was published in 2012. It prohibits “all EPA employees, including scientists, managers and other Agency leadership from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

The EPA funds a stunning amount of stuff that effects your everyday life – the EPA monitors beach health (so you can swim in a seweage-free ocean!), water quality in lakes and rivers (so you can fish there!), air quality (don’t wanna taste smog on your run, right?), and even programs on Native American reservations to help with initiatives like recycling and sustainability.

If you want to know what the EPA funds in your local area, 1) Click here and enter your ZIP code to find your congressional district, and then 2) Go to the EPA search tool and search for grants awarded to your congressional district (you only have to fill out two boxes – your district number and state). The list of EPA search results will show you exactly what type of projects and how much $$ has been allocated to your town in the past few years.

Finally, CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON AND SENATORS to let them know that the #EPAfreeze and #EPAgag is NOT OK! All us scientists at Deep-Sea News are steaming mad, and you should be too. Click here to find contact info for your state senator. And click here and type in your ZIP code for your local congressperson in the House of Representatives. Phone calls are the best way to get in touch – inundate their district and DC offices with phone calls. Phone calls are scary for me as a millennial, but then again so is that dodgy taxi driver who wants to take me home using unpaved wagon trails and historical maps. Make a stand, make your voice heard.

———

UPDATE: 1/25/17, 1:42PM PST

To dig into this issue further, I did my own EPA award search. My congressional district (California 41st) has been awarded $26,369,556 in EPA grants over the last ~15 years. Here’s a screenshot of the awards:

To dig in even further, I started reading about the grants and tweeting short summaries of what the EPA had actually funded in my local area:

In my district alone, EPA has funded projects in basic research, terrorist attack prevention, drinking water and air quality #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$218k EPA grant went to Fort Mojave Indian Tribe to train staff & implement new environmental protocols https://t.co/VSuUSQWAYQ #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

Other $15k EPA grant funded research on BBQ smoke (small particles that go airborne when grease sizzzles) https://t.co/8uVykdeyoN #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

One $15k EPA grant funded research to build a device that lowers pollution/exhaust from your lawnmower https://t.co/iVchR80lxn #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $1.2 million EPA grant went to Big Bear Lake to replace aging water pipes & ensure safe drinking water https://t.co/iVqo3lt6ia #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$1.2 million EPA grant even went to “Air Quality Monitoring for Homeland Security” (w/ no other details) https://t.co/cCpdXgG1vi #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

More serious – $450k EPA grant went to the Luiseno Indian Tribe to fund water pollution control programs https://t.co/Ff9lhpj5df #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $408k EPA grant went to Chemehuevi Indian Tribe for community recycling program & to buy a wood chipper https://t.co/Lfq1K4941N #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $1.5 million EPA grant went to San Diego County to fund research and analysis on SoCal air quality https://t.co/xIYo9XSpk4 #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$1.7mill EPA grant to “advance environ literacy & stewardship” for preschool, senior citizens, businesses https://t.co/GIH8SaZ1Su #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $115k EPA grant aimed to reduce vulnerabilities of large drinking water utilities to terrorist attacks https://t.co/Z48XapM2Si #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

I encourage you to do your own search – what has the EPA funded in YOUR local community?

The post Fight against the #EPAfreeze – Because you don’t want sewage on your beaches, right? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

1. President Elect Trumps transition team requested the Department of Energy name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Thankfully they refused.
2. A Trump team member just compared climate science to the flat-Earth theory
3. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee tweeted a link to a widely debunked Breitbart article questioning warming due to climate change
4. Climate denier James Delingpole wrote an article for Breitbart recently, titled “When You Hear A Scientist Talk About ‘Peer Review’ You Should Reach For Your Browning” – a sentence taken almost word for word from the Nazi play “Schlageter”.  Steve Bannon, Trumps named Chief Strategist, served as Breitbart’s former executive chair (note DSN policy is not to link to websites that promote anti-science, sexist, or racist agendas)
5. Myron Ebell, who heads the transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, is the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group,
6. Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, was named the head of the E.P.A. “Pruitt actively opposed to the efforts of the E.P.A. to regulate the environment and in a recent piece for National Review…Pruitt denied the veracity of climate science…also led the effort among Republican attorney generals tin resisting the Clean Air Act.” (note DSN policy is not to link to websites that promote anti-science, sexist, or racist agendas)
7. Trump tapped another climate change denier for Secretary of Interior

Trump’s own words indicate he actively denies the overwhelming evidence for climate change.

In an precedented move, current Interior Secretary Sally Jewell stated researchers must “fight disinformation” about science during the Trump administration.  She advocate to “Make your voices heard and make them relevant to the people you are talking to.” Secretary Jewell made these statement to audience of one of largest gatherings of scientists in the world, the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco

“I encourage people to speak up and to talk about the importance of scientific integrity, and if they see that being undermined to say something about it”

A mentor once told me that you cannot complain about losing a fight if you never fought.

The post The Trump Administration’s Attack on Science first appeared on Deep Sea News.