
Climate change and nutrient pollution are depleting oxygen from oceans: study - elorant
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50690995
======
simonsarris
Boy are characterizations like this getting tired. An actually accurate title
would read something like: _Farm and industry run-off in certain areas of the
world is depleting oxygen in certain parts of the ocean._

The vast majority of the issue isn't related to rising temps, it would still
be there if there were no rising temps. It is the agricultural and industrial
runoff in what I suspect are very, very specific parts of the ocean. The title
"as temperatures rise" is totally dishonest. It's probably closer to something
like "as demand for palm oil increases" (not trying to finger that one crop,
but its more accurate than "as temperatures rise").

> "To stop the worrying expansion of oxygen-poor areas, we need to decisively
> curb greenhouse gas emissions as well as nutrient pollution from agriculture
> and other sources."

If you want to do something decisive, point out where these oxygen depleted
areas are, and do something to stop the runoff. That's the main problem. Tying
it in to the much more nebulous "carbon emissions" hurts more than it helps
but its like climate writers cannot help themselves.

Imagine if everyone trying to stop the ozone-depletion problem did this.
Nothing would have gotten done to this day. Find the smallest unit of
actionable, measurable change and try to change that _first._

EDIT hokay lets read the study:

BBC: "Around 700 ocean sites are now suffering from low oxygen, compared with
45 in the 1960s."

Section 2.5 summary on page 109 (PDF) or page 85 of the report, two bullets:

• Over 900 areas around the world have been identified as experiencing the
effects of eutrophication. Of these, over 700 have problems with hypoxia, but
through nutrient and organic loading management about 70 (10%) of them can now
be classified as recovering.

• There is no other environmental variable of such ecological importance to
coastal ecosystems that has changed so drastically in such a short period of
time as a result of human activities as dissolved oxygen.

Look, the part BBC wants to spook you with? It's eutrophication! It is
independent of warming and can be fixed independent of warming. This is a good
thing! It is already being fixed in some areas, which is even nicer. All I ask
is that we actually decouple these from "warming" so we can do something about
them faster.

~~~
Phylter
Honestly, sensational headlines like this are why so many people have a
difficult time buying into climate change. If the media would present it as it
actually is then I think more people would get on board.

~~~
the_narrator
That is the problem. Without actual proof of something, sensational headlines
are mandatory.

~~~
imtringued
No the problem is that the evidence is boring and people have a hard time
understanding how abstract numbers will affect their daily lives.

~~~
the_narrator
I agree, this is true. In this particular case though, there has been
sensationalism for decades now - it tends to have the opposite of the intended
effect.

------
thinkcontext
One of the best ideas I've run across to fight this (aside from stopping the
sources of the problem) is vertical ocean farming. You grow kelp on cables
hanging vertically in the water column, interspersed with mussels, oysters and
scallops. The kelp feeds on the nitrogen and phosphorus runoff and release
oxygen and the bivalves filter the water.

The small scale work done so far shows the water gets cleaner and local fish
population increases. Kelp grows incredibly quickly and it can be eaten by
humans and animals or used as fertilizer. The farming can be done by
experienced watermen who probably have suitable boats but are underemployed
due to fishing restrictions.

[https://www.greenwave.org/](https://www.greenwave.org/)

[https://ideas.ted.com/vertical-ocean-farms-that-can-feed-
us-...](https://ideas.ted.com/vertical-ocean-farms-that-can-feed-us-and-help-
our-seas/)

------
aazaa
Cannot fathom why articles like this fail to link to the original source
report. Here it is:

[https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documen...](https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-048-En.pdf)

In particular, I wanted to see what new contributions this report was making
in measurement of ocean oxygen concentrations. Section 2.1 appears to be the
place this is covered, but all I see is a review of previous work by others.

The report is extraordinarily vague about what exactly were the experiments
the authors did (if any). It's not structured like a research paper and reads
instead like a very long executive summary. I expected to find a detailed
analysis of how O2 measurements were conducted, and the possible limitations
of the techniques, but there was none.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Articles about scientific papers should be required to link right at the top.
Oftentimes all the hyperlinks are to other articles by the same journalist or
publisher. It's insanity. A firefox plugin that somehow finds the original
source and pops it up would be incredible.

------
bamboozled
I’d almost wish Governments would do more to fight climate change so we can
stop talking about it.

Not only are we facing the end of civilisation as we know it, it’s going to be
a long ass grind to the end constantly discussing the climate crises in
between dodging one catastrophe after the next and obsessing over it all.

I hardly remember life without talking about it, but I do remember it was
nicer and more simple.

Will deniers get sick of denying soon so we can move on ?

~~~
perfunctory
> I’d almost wish Governments would do more to fight climate change

Stop wishing. Go do something about it.

~~~
bamboozled
What do you actually think I can do? I feel pretty helpless and confused right
now about how much an individual can actually do and why so little is being
done globally.

Current things I do / have done are:

\- Attend rallies occasionally.

\- Divested most of my money where applicable.

\- Invest in energy companies and tech.

\- I went vegetarian for 2 years. I do eat meat again now, but not a great
deal and mostly fish and chicken when I do.

\- Have not owned a car for about 2 years, I cycle and use public transport.

\- Fly less than once a year currently. I live abroad so sometimes I do need
to go home to visit family.

\- Buy essential things like clothes from companies who do things sustainably
such as Patagonia. Don't really buy junk.

\- Buy a monthly subscription to Climeworks.

As an individual I can do my bit; But clearly there is a limited amount of
things I can do. I can't force countries to stop burning coal for power
generation for example, which let's be honest, is the real crux of the issue.
When I catch public transport, it's usually backed by coal or diesel right
now.

What I don't get is this coal love affair that politicians can't seem to get
over. We have so much to lose from climate change, including economically, so
why do people love it so? It seems to be somewhat of an addiction. There seems
to be a kind of "strength in denying" that older people enjoy to see in
politicians. I don't really understand it but if this attitude changes, can be
changed we'd instantly start on the correct path.

I also don't understand why simple and more cheap counter measures aren't
being implemented rapidly.For example, afforestation. Is this because it's an
admission something is wrong so most Governments won't do that so there is no
commitment in it?

What is the actual the blocker here really? Corruption? Ignorance? Lobbying?
We need to identify it and address it very quickly if we all want to survive
and have a decent quality of life. This is why I have compassion for deniers,
they don't really understand or want to admit how bad their lives will be.

On a personal level, I'm between jobs now looking for new things. I'm
optimistic about the transition to renewables happening. The renewable tech is
moving so fast and becoming so cheap I can see more and more of the grid
changing quickly, at least in the developed world (which isn't enough on it's
own); However I'm a little surprised at how little is being done to remove
existing Co2. This also needs to happen.

I'm really considering how I can change my career to work on direct air
capture tech or renewables even though this is far from my where my expertise
lie as I'm in software.

~~~
perfunctory
> I feel pretty helpless and confused

If it helps, you are not alone. I felt helpless and frustrated for a long time
myself. One thing that gives me hope at the moment is Extinction Rebellion. I
realise it's not for everyone but I believe they are the best chance we have
right now.

~~~
bamboozled
Thanks for getting back to me. In what way does Extinction Rebellion give you
hope?

~~~
perfunctory
I begin to think that mass civil resistance movement is the only way to
achieve deep structural social change. And deep structural changes is what we
need to avert climate change. Think about historical precedents. Women
suffrage, civil rights, anti-war movement, gay rights. None of these changes
were _initiated_ by the government. I also think XR is correct in saying that
traditional methods of campaigning of the last 30 years have failed. It's time
to try something new. Civil disobedience. A nice feature of these tactics is
that you don't need the majority. Apparently it takes 3.5% of the population
to take part in sustained active resistance to bring about radical change [0].

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w)

------
lcall
We don't have to be surprised about some of these events, since they have been
predicted in the scriptures, for now, for a long time (ice melting, storms,
quakes, waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, fires/smoke,
all things in commotion, and other significant catastrophic events--not just
the usual levels of them).

I greatly appreciate the science and am glad for progress in our efforts. But
I think we are not competent to solve planet-wide issues when we have largely
rejected the instructions given by the earth's Creator (like, honesty, the
Golden Rule, etc, etc): we have a hard time trusting each other even when we
say we agree. I'm glad we can share our own thoughts. We need His help both to
address important issues globally, and in our personal lives.

And importantly, we can be OK. Related, more detailed thoughts at
[http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html](http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html)
, a simple site w/ no javascript or sales).

------
krona
If this were a simple result of rising ocean temperatures on a global scale,
wouldn't we expect oxygen levels in the atmosphere to increase? That doesn't
seem to be happening (quite the opposite.) So, where is the oxygen?

~~~
jellicle
There isn't a lot of oxygen in water to start with, as solubility is low. If
we somehow made the Earth's oceans completely oxygen-free, it wouldn't add
noticeably to the amount of oxygen in the air.

------
revscat
Neoliberal economics — or really any economic theory — is not going to prevent
an apocalypse.

~~~
sambull
Nope they can't price this in; and would look and whistle the other way if
they had too.

~~~
ianai
Do you want a climate change dictator?

~~~
sambull
Dictator? I simply said the market/and economists can't price in damage to our
environment and won't. If you feel any regulation on a corporation is being a
dictator than maybe the answer is yes in your context. We've had to dictate
the direction many times in the past when industry has become to exploitative
of either labor or resources.

~~~
radicalbyte
The market certainly can be regulated in such a way as to effectively price in
the costs.

If we can have companies following constructs such as Sarbanes-Oxley then they
can most certainly follow the constraints of environmental constructs.

Unless you mean that certain vested interests will bankroll politicians to cut
regulation? Then yes, that is a very big problems (see: Koch industries buying
their way out of environmental legislation) but not insurmountable.

~~~
ianai
So I don’t have the answer here. I do like Jay Inslee’s argument for simply
making mandates to cut emissions and carbon usage. Ie mandating ever
increasingly efficient fuel ratings on vehicles. He says that’s an easier
policy change than forcing costs on people through laws or created markets
that can be undone in a following cycle.

It’s all got to be on the table and considered though. The entire energy
footprint of almost all of the industrial revolution through to current needs
to be undone in some way. There’s an inherent requirement on the energy that
must be expended in order to do that, by the laws of thermodynamics/physics.

