NOAA bans Krill Fishing – an opportunity for a new technology?

carlifornia-krill1A few months ago, I wrote a story on an amazing new technology from a company called TimberFish that produces fish food (and thus cleaner, safer fish to eat!) from wood (http://3.ly/rOL).

I bring this up because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) fishery services has issued a ban on krill fishing along the coast of Oregon, Washington, and California. Krill are a major food source for many marine life.

William Douros, NOAA’s West Coast regional director of marine sanctuaries, explains, “Krill is a critical prey for a huge number of vertebrate species there.”

NOAA has banned krill fishing within 200 miles of the West Coast. Krill are more freely fished off the coast of Antarctica, however, posing a threat to not only whales but sea birds, rockfish and other marine life, according to a Associated Press report.

The ban on krill fishing starts on August 12, 2009.

Perhaps this is an opening for this new technology to step into, an opportunity for fisheries to step more fully into sustainability. Sure makes for interesting possibilities.

Senate websites lack accurate information on climate and energy issues

senate-websites-fail1Grist– a noted website for environmental and news-related accuracy – reviewed the websites of US Senators, grading them on how well each explained a senator’s positions on climate change and energy policies. They were rated (the sites, not the Senators) on a variety of points:

  1. whether or not he or she agrees with the scientific consensus on climate change
  2. whether a site lists criteria for how the lawmaker will evaluate a climate bill  
  3. whether it describes a senator’s positions on  various energy policies

What they found was an amazing lack of accurate information – from Democrats and Republicans alike. And, without a grading curve, they scored poorly – 53 senators got a C or worse. That’s 53 out of 100, folks. And there were quite a few F’s! These folks are the one who are supposed to be leading the way in what’s good for the country?

Two  past climate legislation sponsors , John McCain and Joe Lieberman, had sharply differing scores. Lieberman (I-Conn.) scored 20 on the 25-point scale—a relatively high score. McCain (R-Ariz.) scored a 7.   Senators from Pacific states (California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii) had the highest-scoring sites, averaging 17.3 points out of 25. Next were Northeastern senators, with an average score of 17.1.

According to Grist’s report, “The range of information on climate and energy, from useful to useless, is par for the course for congressional sites, according to John Wonderlich, policy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington group that works to promote transparency in government.”

Okay, so see for yourselves how your own US Senator scored Then perhaps it’s time to educate our legislators. If they’re the ones making the laws, shouldn’t they have all the facts first?