Some people will get very excited by the title of this post (before the parenthetical) but don't for one minute think this adaptive behavior isn't costly (Heating Waters Force Change in Industries That Depend on the Ocean):
In Maine, lobsters are heading north and some lobstermen are moving into kelp farming. ...
Marine heatwaves are expected to become stronger and more frequent, according to a consensus of oceanographers and climate scientists.
One of the fastest-warming waters is the Gulf of Maine, forcing lobstermen to change tactics to save their businesses.
Summer surface temperatures between July and September in the gulf have risen four times the global ocean average since 1982. The entire region is warming more rapidly than 97% of the ocean’s surface because of overall climate warming and a shift in local currents, according to the Gulf of Maine Research Institute.
The warming is making life more unpredictable for the $388 million lobster fishing industry in Maine. The U.S. lobster catch has moved 162 miles northward and nearly 70 feet deeper over the past 50 years, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service, as the crustaceans seek refuge in colder water. The Maine lobster catch has fallen 26% since a record catch of 132 million pounds in 2016.
Some harvesters in the state are looking for new species, such as black sea bass, tuna or crabs.
Steve Train, a third-generation lobsterman in Casco Bay, Maine, has become a farmer. He started growing kelp–something still plentiful in the area–offshore of his property to earn money during spring months when lobstering is traditionally slow.
Train says kelp is no substitute for lobsters, still the most lucrative single-species commercial fishery in U.S. waters. But it can help as Maine’s coastal environment changes.
“The people who survive are going to have to be diversified so they can take the cream out of a few different fisheries and have a paycheck year round,” Train said as he pulled up a string of lobster traps onto his 32-foot boat Marcia, a few miles from the Portland wharf where he sells his catch. ...
In Casco Bay, Steve Train has watched Maine’s lobster population shift north, driven by changes in bottom water temperatures and the supply of the tiny animals that are the main food of baby lobsters.
Over time, Train has been moving his traps to deeper water and said he has noticed a faster temperature increase in the past five years. “I started setting gear in June where I thought the lobsters would be in August or September,” he said. “Everything the lobsters do is by water temperature.”
Train and other lobster fishermen own licenses that are tied to specific fishing grounds. So there are limits on how far north or offshore they can set their traps.
Train, 56, says his kelp-farming venture isn’t as easy as he initially thought. “Between the moorings, the storms, the tide, and the stretch of the line, there’s a lot of maintenance,” Train said. “But now I have another month or two filled in for cash flow.”
He said he is figuring out the best direction to suspend ropes in the water that are embedded with kelp seeds to avoid tidal currents that could damage his harvest. The seeded ropes mature into an underwater forest. He expects to be profitable this year, while expanding from 4 acres to 10 acres.
Each spring, Train collects wide fronds of brownish-yellow kelp and sells them to Atlantic Sea Farms, a Biddeford, Maine-based company that processes seaweed into kelp burgers, smoothie cubes, and pet-food additives. It has signed up 30 lobster fishermen across Maine since it launched in 2018, and another 19 are in line for a state license, according to CEO Briana Warner.
“We’re building an entirely new market,” said Warner, who sold 30,000 pounds of kelp products last year to grocery and restaurant chains.
Train said lobstermen he has known for decades are beginning to consider a future that will reward adaptability as waters continue to warm. “Even the people that are in denial are a little concerned,” he said.
So, the lesson from this case study is that, yes, people will adapt to climate change but the net benefits of their new behavior is lower with the climate constraint than business as usual pre-climate change. Economists who promote adaptation as a magical fix are doing a disservice.
*****
And, inexplicably, in the middle of the article someone at the WSJ decided to question whether climate change is happening:
There are other possible explanations in addition to climate change and the El Niño/La Niña cycle. New pollution rules have cut airborne sulfur aerosol particles released by commercial ships over parts of the ocean, clearing the air and allowing more sunlight to reach the ocean surface. That in turn might be heating the water along some shipping routes, although the amount is in dispute, according to several recent estimates.
In January 2022, an underwater volcano near Tonga blasted 50 million tons of water vapor into the stratosphere. Some researchers believe that vapor might be acting as a planet-warming greenhouse gas and nudging up ocean temperatures. Both theories are still under investigation, and their overall impact is up for debate.
We started blogging again this year and it has been fun. I've managed to keep up with my quantity expections (quality is an issue) ... until I took two trips in April. I've found that I can't do everything anymore. Actually, I can't do hardly anything anymore, it seems, but keep up with my classes. I think I have finally caught up and have posts written for Thursday, Friday and Monday.
The first trip was a two day trip to Charleston for the SAFMC's Socio-Economic Panel meeting. Here is a piece of what I helped write in our report in response to the questions posed in item 8 on the agenda:
The second trip was the following week to Tampa for NMFS's 2023 Recreational Fisheries Economics Constituent Workshop (here is a description). I gave the first presentation where I was supposed to cover valuation methods in 10 minutes (10 minutes). One of the organizers told me afterwards that "you had the hardest job". IKR. Anyway, here is my presentation and, yes, I stayed within 10 minutes.
In both locations I beat the drum that the National Marine Fisheries Service has the data available to annually estimate regional recreational demand models for management purposes. I got serious about this issue in 2013 and wrote this paper (SAFMC NRUM 2013) in a couple of days (if I remember correctly). I said the exact same thing at the 2014 Recreational Fisheries Economics Constituent Workshop (see #1 on the list). I think I have some folks half-way interested in this so we'll see if anything happens.
Or, at least salmon are doomed. From the NY Times (California Salmon Stocks Are Crashing. A Fishing Ban Looks Certain):
This week, officials are expected to shut down all commercial and recreational salmon fishing off California for 2023. Much will be canceled off neighboring Oregon, too.
The reason: An alarming decline of fish stocks linked to the one-two punch of heavily engineered waterways and the supercharged heat and drought that come with climate change. There are new threats in the ocean, too, that are less understood but may be tied to global warming, according to researchers.
The solution to the problem seems simple enough:
Fossil fuel emissions must be addressed, scientists say. ...
In a country where an increase in gas prices causes a national apoplexy, sure.
From Marginal Revolution University's Women in Economics:
via Twitter: @Laurent Franckx
I just finished reading Kirk Wallace Johnson's The Fishermen and the Dragon: Fear, Greed, and a Fight for Justice on the Gulf Coast. Here's my book review (from the view of an Environmental Economist of course).
The Fishermen and the Dragon tells the true story of the evolution of the Texas Gulf Coast crab and shrimp fisheries in the post-Vietnam era. The era is important to the story because tension builds along the Texas coast when post-war Vietnamese refugees locate to the Gulf Coast creating economic competition and (racial) tension between the existing anglers and the refugees. The racial tensions play out against the backdrop of the encroachment of the Ku Klux Klan into post-war political asylum issues and the the environmental problems that come along with rapid industrialization of the Gulf Coast.
So why would an environmental economist care? Honestly the story has a bit of everything: Tragedy of the commons, Coasian bargaining, Ostrom-like institutional building, credible (and incredible) threats, industrial organization, the role of government in regulating the commons, natural resource damages (oil spills), environmental and health externalities, social and environmental justice.
Part Erin Brokovich (an initially reluctant environmental crusader), part John Grisham-like southern legal thriller tinged with undertones of racism, part Pat Conroy-like description of the hardships of coastal life, this true story reads like a popular fiction thriller.
If I have one complaint, it would be that there is a slight disjoint between the story of race tensions between the refugees and local fishers, and the story of corporate greed and environmental disaster. There is overlap in the main characters, but stories seem to be separated in both time and presentation.
Nevertheless, a good read with Env-Econ lessons abound.
I give it a solid four out of five beers raised.
I'm shouting because the journal is shouting:
Marine Resource Economics is now accepting submissions for a new section of the journal titled Case Studies, which is intended to provide an outlet for rigorous, theoretically grounded analyses of the governance of individual fisheries and/or aquaculture systems. The new section will be edited by Tracy Yandle of Emory University, and the editors expect the first Case Study to be published in the forthcoming volume of the journal.
“Case studies play a valuable role in the development of our understanding of effective marine resource governance, yet they are underrepresented in the economics literature. This new section presents a unique opportunity for researchers to apply an economic perspective to rigorous case studies—whether comparative case studies, or single case studies focused at a range of scales," said section editor Tracy Yandle. "I look forward to continuing the strong intellectual tradition of Marine Resource Economics, while expanding its coverage to a broader range of settings and research methods.”
The Case Studies section joins four sections currently published in Marine Resource Economics: Articles, Perspectives, Systematic Reviews, and Book Reviews. Its published pieces will provide description and analysis of a particular regionally defined fishery, aquaculture system, marine resource, or comparisons of two or more cases, with an emphasis on an economic analytical perspective and focus on historic and/or current issues of marine or coastal zone policy and governance.
"I'm very excited for the potential of this new section to expand the reach of the journal to a wider range of scholars and resource management practitioners," said Joshua K. Abbott, Marine Resource Economics editor.
The editors encourage submissions focusing on small-scale fisheries and aquaculture in developing nations. Case studies drawing upon quantitative evidence are preferred, though qualitative analyses are also encouraged—particularly in data-poor settings. All submissions to the Case Studies section are subject to a single-blind peer review process. For more information, please review Marine Resource Economics Instructions for Authors webpage.
This is sure to be the home for many studies that haven't been able to find one in the past.
Put this one in our new "easy to win a trade war" category:
Next month, China is expected to impose an additional 25 percent tariff on American lobster as the sparring over trade continues and Mr. Trump threatens to impose tariffs on as much as $450 billion worth of Chinese goods.
Annie Tselikis, executive director of the Maine Lobster Dealers’ Association, said that Mr. Trump’s policy was having the unintended effect of further helping Canada’s lobster market, which doesn’t face the same duties when selling to China. And Canadian sellers were already benefiting from a new trade agreement with the European Union that slashed tariffs for them.
China buys about a fifth of American lobster exports, Ms. Tselikis said, and the value of those exports has nearly tripled in the last two years to $137 million.
“I’d love see these tariffs not go through for the sake of our industry and the Maine economy,” Ms. Tselikis said. “At this point it’s really about American jobs.”
Kristan Porter, the president of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, said that he supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to renegotiate trade agreements to help American industry but hoped his was not harmed in the process.
“I’m sure everybody is playing their hands and we’re caught in the middle of it,” he said. “We’re hoping cooler heads prevail.”
Urban Dictionary puts it this way:
"[Hope] in one hand, [poop] in the other. See which one gets filled first." When a person wants the impossible.
The Legislature of the State of Ohio is currently considering legislation to reduce Phosphorous loadings into Lake Erie by 40%. This is a good thing, as reducing Phosphorous going into Lake Erie will reduce the incidence and impact of Harmful Algal Blooms in the Western Lake Erie Basin.
The proposed legislation establishes a Clean Lake 2020 plan that includes:
A significant new Clean Lake Capital Fund that may appropriate up to $100 million per year for five years for both Lake Erie algae reduction, and agricultural best practices. Funding may include establishing facilities to improve manure application processes, projects to reduce open lake disposal of dredged materials, funds to local governments for water quality-based green infrastructure, water management projects to help reduce nutrient and sediment runoff impacting the lake and other strategies.
A new Soil and Water Support Fund, with some of the funding provided directly to soil and water conservation districts to assist farmers in soil testing, nutrient management plans, installing edge of field drainage devices, encouraging inserting of nutrients (subsurface placement), and agreed to conservation methods that may include riparian buffers, filter strips and cover crops.
To the casual observer, this all looks good. The proposed bill has widespread support among agricultural groups, and local and state authorities. As one of the bill's sponsors notes:
“These are not brand new ideas, just a greater sense of urgency to implement them,” Arndt said. “There appears to be widespread agreement with state officials, environmental and agriculture groups, tourism advocates and business leaders that many of these strategies will make a big difference.”
And he is right, these strategies could make a big difference.
But as economists we are trained to ask, 'At what cost?'
'At what cost?' is an uncomfortable question for many because it forces us to recognize that a politically acceptable solution may come at increased cost to the rest of society.
A colleague of mine here at Ohio State, Brent Sohngen, has been looking at this question for a number of years and he has come to an obvious answer to economists, but uncomfortable answer for the state: There are MUCH cheaper ways to get the same reduction in Phosphorous, than those put forward in the bill.
Here is a list of possible solutions, each of which could achieve a 40% reduction in Phosphorous loadings into Lake Erie:
The first four solutions are command and control type solutions, and make up the crux of the proposed bill before the Ohio legislature. The last bullet point lists the market-based approaches to reduction of Phosphorous.
It's probably predictable where I am going with this, but here is the same list with the estimated lost profit (cost) per acre per year to farmers based on the work of Brent and one of his PhD students:
And to drive the point home, here are the estimated total costs for the entire watershed:
Which do you prefer?
Here's the press release our College put out on this today:
It may not be a popular solution, but a recent study from The Ohio State University shows the least costly way to cut nearly half the phosphorus seeping into Lake Erie is taxing farmers on phosphorous purchases or paying farmers to avoid applying it to their fields.
Doctoral student Shaohui Tang and Brent Sohngen, a professor of agricultural economics, conducted the study in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES).
At a projected price tag of up to $20 million annually, a phosphorus subsidy to Ohio farmers or a phosphorus tax would be far cheaper than many of the proposed measures being recommended to reduce phosphorus in Lake Erie, Sohngen said. These proposals are estimated to cost anywhere from $40 million per year to $290 million per year, in addition to the $32 million spent on current conservation practices.
Phosphorus spurs the growth of harmful algal blooms, which poisoned Toledo’s drinking water in 2014 and impact the lake’s recreation, tourism and real-estate values.
A tax on phosphorus would be an added expense for farmers and “not many people want to talk about it,” Sohngen said. “From an economics standpoint, it is the cheapest option.”
The money generated from a tax on phosphorus, which would be paid by farmers, could be partially returned to farmers for using conservation measures on their land. It could also compensate others affected by the water quality issue including Toledo and lake area residents to pay for improved water treatment and fishing charter businesses that lose income when algal blooms are severe.
Sohngen presented the estimated costs associated with different methods of cutting phosphorus sources to Lake Erie during a recent conference hosted the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics within CFAES.
Each of the options Sohngen presented is aimed at cutting the phosphorus runoff entering Lake Erie by 40 percent within 10 years, a goal the state has been aiming for but has not yet reached.
“If we want to achieve a 40 percent reduction, it’s going to be more expensive than most people imagine,” Sohngen said.
Costlier options than the phosphorus tax and subsidy include reducing phosphorus application on fields by 50 percent statewide and incorporating any phosphorus into the soil so it does not remain on the surface. The price tag on that option is $43.7 million for the machinery needed to incorporate phosphorus and the incentive paid to farmers for not using phosphorus, Sohngen said.
Requiring subsurface placement of phosphorus on only half the region's farmland acres would cost $49.9 million, he said.
All figures were generated by a mathematical model created by Tang, working under the direction of Sohngen.
In recent years, high levels of phosphorus, a nutrient in fertilizer, manure and sewage, have led to harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie as well as in Ohio’s inland lakes including Grand Lake St. Marys.
Some measures that have been tried in the state have had little impact on reducing the phosphorus load into Lake Erie, Sohngen said. They include planting cover crops on fields during winter and refraining from tilling the land to prevent erosion.
“We’re at the point of a phase shift, of having more information to give us better focus on where we need to turn our attention,” said Gail Hesse, director of water programs for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center.
Hesse, who was the keynote speaker at the conference where Sohngen presented his findings, noted that agriculture is the predominant source of the phosphorus going into Lake Erie.
Climate change, including the increase in intense rainfalls over short periods, has worsened efforts to keep phosphorus out of Lake Erie because rainfall can increase the chances of phosphorus running off a field with the rainwater, she pointed out.
“We don’t have enough practices in place across the landscape,” she said. “We still have more to do.”
FB18-032 |
Request for Comments: Limited Opening of Recreational and Commercial Red Snapper Fishery in South Atlantic Federal Waters
KEY MESSAGE:
NOAA Fisheries requests comments on a proposed rule for Amendment 43 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic Region (Amendment 43). The proposed actions would specify recreational and commercial annual catch limits for red snapper beginning in 2018.
*The comment period on the proposed rule begins on May 17, 2018, and comments are due by June 18, 2018.*
Source: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/fishery_bulletins/2018/032/index.html
R. J. Rhodes, J. C. Whitehead, T. I. J. Smith and M. R. Denson
https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2018.1
Published online: 11 May 2018
Abstract: Recreational saltwater anglers from the mid-Atlantic through the Gulf of Mexico commonly target red drum. Due to concerns about overharvesting within South Carolina coupled with regional management actions, South Carolina explored the technical feasibility of stocking hatchery-produced juvenile red drum as a technique to augment the abundance of South Carolina stock. In order to assess a continued program, in 2005 a mail survey was used to collect data for estimating the economic benefits with the contingent valuation method. The theoretical validity of willingness to pay was assessed by comparison to the value of a change in red drum fishing trips that would result from the program. Benefits were compared to estimated, explicit stocking costs. We illustrate how a certainty recode approach can be used in sensitivity analysis. The net present values (NPVs) for the stocking program are positive suggesting that the program would have been economically efficient relative to no program.
I like this paper for a number of reasons: