Ch-ch-ch-changes

‘Sea Change’ documentary highlights threat of ocean acidification 9

Sven and Elias on the beachSven Huseby and his grandson Elias during production of the film A Sea Change.Photo: Daniel de La Calle

 

If you’ve ever doubted the power of the printed word, strike up a conversation with one Sven Huseby, whose entire life was changed by one article in the New Yorker.

The retired history teacher found himself one day reading Elizabeth Kolbert’s “The Darkening Sea” and the next traveling all over the world in search of answers about ocean acidification—with a documentary film crew tailing him all the way. The result is A Sea Change, a film about the largely underreported effects of excess carbon dioxide on the chemistry of our sensitive seas.

One reviewer has called it a “global warming horror documentary.” And there is certainly plenty to fear as Huseby—and the audience—learns more and more about the threat of ocean acidification. He interviews scientists who tell him 118 billion metric tons (or 118 billion VW Bugs worth) of CO2 have already been absorbed by the ocean. He watches the enamel of a human tooth quickly dissolve after sitting in a cupful of carbonated water. He listens during a conference where scientists ask each other how they missed this big issue—and whether we’re already screwed (answer: probably).

Sven and Elias on the beachHuseby and his trusty sidekick.Photo: Daniel de La CalleBut despite all this, A Sea Change emerges as more love story than horror flick. For one, the film is centered around Huseby’s relationship with his (almost unbearably adorable) grandson, Elias, who serves as both sidekick-style comic relief and helpful narrative device as Huseby reports on the progress of his quest. The gap-toothed five-year-old is incredibly precocious and knowledgeable about the ocean environment (“no, it’s a lungfish!” he says, pointing to a drawing he’s made in the sand)—perhaps it’s an inherited trait.

A competing love story also develops as Huseby begins to learn about pteropods, a type of planktonic snail about the size of a lentil. They’re known as “sea butterflies” because of the wing-like appendages that help propel them through the water, but the name is also apt to describe their frailty: the organism’s thin, colorless shell disintegrates with the dip in pH associated with excess CO2.

They play a starring role in Kolbert’s article and consequently become a sort of mild obsession for Huseby, who’s shown Googling image after image of the transparent sea creature and cooing when he sees them alive for the first time in a lab. He’s even planning to produce a children’s book about them. But Huseby’s crush isn’t unwarranted: The humble pteropod serves as food for a large variety of fish who become meals for larger fish as well as birds and mammals (and us!), making them vital to the marine food chain.

PteropodA pteropod.Photo: NOAAThe pteropod isn’t the only organism that will be affected by the increasing acidity of the ocean, though. Anything with a calcium carbonate-based skeleton or shell will have trouble making and maintaining those structures; these include corals, crustaceans like crabs, shrimp, and lobsters, and shellfish like oysters, clams, and mussels.

So what do we do about all this? Huseby goes there too—or rather he goes to Norway and to Silicon Valley and other places around the world where exciting advancements are being made in solar, wind, and geothermal energy generation. He talks to the entrepreneurs and investors who are putting wind in the sails of a carbon-free energy economy. He walks on the beach with a young environmental lawyer who helped in the court cases that led to the EPA’s determination that CO2 is a pollutant and should be regulated.

These scenes provide hope for what Huseby calls “our entrepreneurial opportunity, our chance to explore what’s possible.” And the conversations he had—and continues to have—with folks making bold moves in the right direction helped lift him out of the depressive state he appears to be in during some portions of the film.

And it’s a good thing, too, because Huseby is more energized than ever in his quest to publicize the dual threats of ocean acidification and global warming. During a panel discussion following a Seattle International Film Festival screening, Huseby announced that he’ll be attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December and will be showing the film there. He’s also planning screenings for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a UN delegation. He’s even been asked to testify on the topic in front of Congress.

“We have a 10-15 year window to make some noise,” he said. “I would love to see the term ‘ocean acidification’ become part of the political discourse.”

And thanks to this film—and Huseby’s love of the ocean—it just might.

Sarah van Schagen is Grist’s Seattle editor.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. solargroupies's avatar

    solargroupies Posted 7:16 am
    08 Jun 2009

    Ocean acidification is another well-documented example of the systemic nature of climate change. It's not just that the planet is warming. The impacts will create multiple and sometimes unpredictable changes in the system.

    Permalink

  2. fighthunger Posted 9:00 am
    08 Jun 2009

    Kudos on the documentary: A Sea Change.  Our waterways are taking a huge hit and we need constant reminders to conserve and keep our resources pollution free.  Huseby gets added to my list of environmental heros.  Check out another: www.changents.com/christopherswain

    Permalink

  3. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 9:27 am
    08 Jun 2009

    It's important to communicate these basic points about OA to others: • It is 100% provable and traceable to anthropogenic CO2• The phenomenon isnt complex• It was only recently understood (just 5 years ago)• It is vastly underused as a rally cry by advocates of CO2 regulation.• The speed of the change makes species adaptation difficult, and almost impossible for coral reefs 

    Permalink

  4. greenpeacetempe Posted 12:56 pm
    08 Jun 2009

    How do I buy this documentry?

    Permalink

  5. Brudaimonia Posted 1:07 pm
    08 Jun 2009

    There are 106 members of the Congressional Coastal Caucus, at least according to this (slightly outdated) list on Rep. Frank Pallone's website.The current members should all be well aware of ocean acidification and its effects on their districts' economies as the ACES Act progresses through Congress.If they oppose strong regulation of GHGs, and attempt to weaken the bill, it should be made clear to their constituents that they are jeopardizing their districts' marine economies.

    Permalink

  6. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 6:54 pm
    08 Jun 2009

    Well I've read some professional papers on ocean acifidicifation, and it's really not understood all that well, all there is some mounting evidence that (1) the ability of the oceans to buffer acid inputs from carbonic acid are somewhat lowered, and (2) the ability of the ocean surface to absorb gaseous CO2 is also seemingly lower as well. My limited understanding is thar carbonic acid is caused by rainfall passing through air that contains certain concentrations of carbon dioxide, causing a weak acid called carbonic acid.  The gaseous interface is mainly seaweed and related vegetative growth, that absorbs the gas much in the was a tree does. The first pathway, rainfall, lowers ocean pH, making it more acid.  The second prevents CO2 from being naturally absorbed into the water column.  Thus as atmospheric CO2 concentration rise, precipitation can lead to more intense acidification. Given the notion that there are "hot spots" and seemingly random, non-linear events, I am unsure if there is a comprehensive study on a global scale of such ocean-carbon cycles, that includes precipitation to the seafloor as well.  I'd be very careful about this unless there were two or three peer-reviewed papers that could agree on the mass balance fluxes. I say that because you'll expose yourself to the climate naysayers and deniers who can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some parts of the ocean are in fact getting healthier - like some saying that parts of the Antarctic are actually getting colder.  Being a skeptic and a thinker, I think we shouldn't leap off the cliff but a very stern warning is definitely in order, since both pathways reate to increases in gaseous CO2 increases.

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 8:37 pm
      08 Jun 2009

      Clifford,

      Sow any doubt lately?Unlike global warming, there is NO controversy that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor to carbonic acid and the lowering of ocean pH. There is no other forcer even in the same neighborhood. And its chemically traceable.I dont give a rats ass what the absorption method is. All I want to know is• where it comes from (humans burning fossil fuels. period. full stop.)• how fast is it happening (a THOUSAND times faster than when it happened in the geologic past)• where is it happening first (the poles and cold upwellings)• when does it become corrosive and dissolve shell based species (its already started in the worst case scenario zones, larger areas as soon as the 2050's)• how do we adapt to the inevitable changes and species lossThe work of...Dick Feely, Jim Orr, Viki Fabry, Ken Caldeira, Scripps, NOAA, and the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology kicks denier's asses up and down the street!F*ck "stern warnings". We're about to regulate CO2, baby. Pole to frickin pole. Sign up or stand aside in peace while we do the work.

      Permalink

      1. Clifford Wells's avatar

        Clifford Wells Posted 9:31 pm
        08 Jun 2009

        Gosh, abusive language and everythig, how cute. Talk about "ad hominem."I am not a "denier" but a scientist and I believe I said this was a big deal, although poorly understood as how the chemical reactions occur in local spots of the ocean, although we're gaining knowledge all the time.  I guess you just had some negative emotions or something - not very clinical or objective?Let me give you an example.  We all know about reef decline, and suspect that carbonic acid loading might be one of the causes.  it is not THE cause because other kinds of pollution, such as from disturbing the soils, having urban run-off, doing dredging, and allowing wasterwater to percolate into the coral reefs also have taken a toll.  Then you have an invasive green, slimy algae of some kind I can't remember that forms over the coral structures.  If you have even been to Key West you can see those damaged area for yourself, simply by snorkeling.  So it is several things happening at once.  Which came first?There again, I am smart enough to know that atmospheric CO2 loading might be a principle cause, no matter how hard it is to tease causality and plausibility from the symptoms [of reef decline] we see.  But that's just one example.  I;m sure you're heard about multi-collinearity and such.If you say that you are 100% certain that only carbonic acid from CO2 is what is causing problems in the ocean, I would probably dismiss your answer as being journalistic pap, as opposed to a scientist who must test a hypothesis with a certain research design, qualitatively or quanititatively.So you are aware that if there is a calcium pathway, carbon is essentially extracted from carbonic acid and gaseous CO2 and converted to calcium carbonate - the same stuff that buffers acidity, is used for sea shells, and ends up precipitated as limestone over the millennia.  So when we say we're losing ground on that CaCO3 (calcium cadonate) pathway, that means a lot to me. From what I've read there are about half a dozen such carbon pathways that work in the ocean, and to model them would be extremely complex - a challenge I would welcome if some had the bucks.  In the meantime, I would recommend you use that horrendously inaccurate source, Wikipedia, to offer you some of the contractory evidence that in some areas, ocean acificiation can actually increase calcification, such as promoting shelly organisms.  As a scientist I find that very, very interesting, which means we still have more to learn about what limits certain chemical pathways and not others. And no, you didn't offend me in the least because I know you're just trying to do the right thing, and meant no malice.

        Permalink

  7. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:41 pm
    08 Jun 2009

    Clifford, your costume of carefulness doesn't increase your reading comprehension.1.) You mentioned the denier crowd and so it only follows that that is who I was speaking of, when I referenced them, no? I was accusing you of sowing unnecessary doubt where there is none. And I was correct. Your statement, "Well I've read some professional papers on ocean acifidicifation, and it's really not understood all that well" is without merit. There may be a 'corner' of specific research that needs clarification, for example, 'why the purple coral is slower to die off than the pteropods, ect.', but the cause and effect is not one of them.2.) You then moved over into the multiple causes of reef collapse and 'problems in the ocean', something I didn't even address or claim only came solely from OA. What an erroneous claim to say that was my argument. I'm talking about general acidification, dissolving shells, and the culprit being anthropogenic CO2.3.) Betcha a thousand dollars that any calcifier life-forms that BENEFIT from acidification are in such a minority that they are nothing more than a curiosity. Where is your money?Emotional? Yes. Stupid? No. I know the context of the date (the month and the year) that you are bringing this crap in here. Its just before the Waxman-Markey vote and then Copehagen. You know that your statement "Well I've read some professional papers on ocean acifidicifation, and it's really not understood all that well." would be read as "there is no proof of causation". And for that you *earned* the emotion. Live with it.Keep on misrepresenting my statements.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement