Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environment International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envint

Review

Pollution: A global threat Melissa McCrink-Goode Columbia University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 December 2013 Accepted 20 March 2014 Available online 14 April 2014 Keywords: Pollution Fibropapilloma Colony collapse disorder White Nose Syndrome Coral Bleaching Chytrid

a b s t r a c t Over the past several decades, several large-scale seemingly unrelated events have unfolded in all corners of the world. Within the oceans, coral reef systems have been facing unprecedented mass bleaching episodes, sea turtles worldwide are currently experiencing an epidemic in the form of fibropapilloma, and global phytoplankton populations have declined by 40%. Within the Earth's terrestrial systems, similar phenomena have appeared in the form of colony collapse disorder (CCD) currently devastating honey bee colonies, White Nose Syndrome decimating bat populations, and the chytrid fungus plaguing amphibian populations. On the surface these events appear to be unrelated yet at the root of each phenomenon there appears an underlying threat — pollution. This paper will investigate the commonality of these occurrences as well as investigate the current and potential solutions to the threat. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. 2.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oceanic systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. The coral reef system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Sea turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Phytoplankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Terrestrial systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The honeybee: Apis mellifera . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Bats: Chiroptera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The global threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Analysis of current solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. The localized approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. Current solution #2 — the global effort . . . . . . 5.3. Solution #3 — the steps to environmental security 6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction May 10th 2013 marked a new milestone in the field of climate science — we officially reached 400 ppm of CO2 concentrated in the Earth's atmosphere, a level not seen on Earth since the Pliocene Epoch, over 2.5 million years ago (Gillis, 2013). This rise in CO2 has been directly linked to anthropogenic causes. While the climate change debate officially continues to be played out on the world stage via the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.03.023 0160-4120/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

162 163 163 164 164 165 165 165 165 166 166 166 167 168 169 169

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) many skeptics remain and continued global disagreements have made progress extremely slow. While the majority of the climate debate focuses on excess CO2 emissions and the negative repercussions estimated in terms of global temperature and weather patterns, other potentially related events have been simultaneously emerging across the globe. Over the past several decades, numerous large-scale phenomena, involving massive

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

population declines and/or the rampant spread of disease, have been observed with increasing intensity. Entire species are vanishing without explanation, mass reports of widespread disease have emerged and others are dying in record numbers. These occurrences have been heavily documented and investigated around the globe yet little progress has been made in identifying the exact causes of these occurrences let alone in the development of solutions. Within the world's oceans there are several notable events worth investigating. Included here are the recent proliferation of “mass bleaching” occurring in coral reef systems, the recent explosion of disease currently plaguing the world's sea turtles, as well as dramatic losses reported in global phytoplankton populations. Coral bleaching, a process in which coral lose their symbiotic, color-infusing relationship with algae zooxanthellae is perceived to be a response to larger oceanic threats including ocean warming and acidification as well as pollution. Mass bleaching events were first documented in the early 1980s but have since appeared with increasing frequency around the globe and have been discovered to exhibit strong correlations with rising ocean temperatures (NOAA, 2011). Also found in the oceans, an epidemic of sorts has emerged, plaguing nearly all species of the world's sea turtles. The cause: a disease known as Fibropapillomatosis (FP), a form of cancer closely related to the human papillomavirus that causes the growth of massive tumors throughout the turtle's eyes, oral cavity and visceral organs (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004). The disease itself is nothing new — it was first documented in 1938 in a green sea turtle off the coast of Florida (Turtle Hospital, 2013). But until recent decades, it was a rare occurrence. While the exact cause remains undetermined, the sharp rise in infected turtles is believed to be the result of larger environmental concerns such as ocean warming, pollutants, and marine biotoxins (Aguirre and Lutz, 2004). At a much smaller level, the ubiquitous phytoplankton is also experiencing dramatic population declines. Over the past 50 years, global population numbers have declined by as much as 40% (Morello, 2010). These changes have been determined to correlate with our changing climate through ocean warming and disruptions in weather patterns such as El Nino (Boyce et al., 2010). Within the Earth's terrestrial systems similar stories are unfolding. In the late 1990s, reports of massive population declines in amphibian populations across the globe began to emerge (Daugherty and Hung, 2013). The cause is believed to be the result of a deadly chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). Scientists estimate that 1/3 of the worlds amphibians will be lost by the end of the century (ZSL, 2013). While the exact cause of the recent spread of Bd is yet to be determined it has been suggested that changes in global climate conditions, including temperature and seasonal variability, are correlated to the prevalence of the disease (Olsen, 2013). In October 2006 reports began to surface from US beekeepers claiming losses between 30 and 90% of their hives. Many bees simply disappeared, never returning to their hives. The phenomenon has been termed colony collapse disorder (CCD) and continues to claim over 30% of US bee populations annually (USDA, 2013). Research is ongoing to determine the exact cause but preliminary theories point to chemical pollution and disease. Also emerging in 2006, a fatal disease began to spread throughout US bat populations known as White Nose Syndrome (WNS). WNS is attributed to a fungus known as Geomyces destructans, which attacks the skin and wing membranes of hibernating bats. Since 2006 over 1 million bats across 6 different species throughout North America have died from the disease (USGS, 2013). While the exact cause of the emerging disease remains under investigation, links have been made with changing environmental conditions (Flory et. al., 2012). At first glance these occurrences appear distinct and unrelated but it is my belief that an underlying threat exists. Ocean warming, ocean acidification and the rapid epidemic of disease all appear to stem from a singular threat — pollution. This paper intends to investigate and

163

define several global “events” that are hypothesized to be fundamentally linked by the core threat of pollution. Investigating the varying forms of pollution affecting our planet and the subsequent solutions to such involves definite challenges as the Earth is a complex system and remains inherently unpredictable. Vast sub-systems found within the Earth as a whole, including the biosphere, atmosphere and lithosphere as well as the various socio-economic spheres, all interact at multi-scalar levels causing a virtually unpredictable web of interrelations and feedbacks (Donner et al., 2009). The result is a complex, dynamic and evolving system — ever-changing and adapting to the previous. That said, the task of defining, predicting and mitigating current threats remains intrinsically complex. The first section will begin with the examination of several threatened systems found in the world's oceans. Topics of discussion will be overall significance and connectivity, geographical range, economic and political factors as well as a detailed analysis of current threats and the potential consequences of their loss. Next there will be a discussion surrounding several terrestrial systems in the same manner described above. Once the threat is clearly presented, the interconnectivity between these species and their respective ecosystems will be expanded upon through a systems analysis describing potential feedbacks as well as known and unknown factors of the threats. This will be followed by an analysis of the current local and global solutions as well as an introduction to a potentially useful new solution. 2. Oceanic systems The Earth's oceans account for over 70% of the surface area and contain nearly half of the total number of species found on the planet (NOAA, 2013). Ocean temperatures range from 100 °F in tropical waters and near freezing at the poles (ONR, 2013). Current threats to the oceanic system as a whole include ocean warming, acidification, pollution and habitat degradation. 2.1. The coral reef system Spread throughout the tropical regions of the world's oceans is a system currently under threat — the coral reef. Coral reefs are composed of an agglomeration of smaller organisms known as coral polyps, Anthozoa, which are tiny soft organisms similar to jellyfish. For protection, the polyps form a protective skeleton known as calicle (National Geographic, 2013). The coral polyps themselves are colorless — it is their symbiotic relationship with other species, particularly the singlecelled algae zooxanthellae, that is ultimately responsible for the vibrant colors seen in coral reefs (Smithsonian, 2013). Globally, coral reefs provide a habitat for nearly 1 million species of fish, lobsters, sponges, turtles and seahorses (NOAA, 2011). Of current concern is the emergence of several mass bleaching events, in which corals lose their normally vibrant colors. Coral bleaching occurs when the coral polyps and zooxanthellae lose their symbiotic relationship as a result of stress. This stress is believed to be a result of ocean warming (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). While corals themselves are found across all of the world's oceans, reef-building corals are localized to tropical and subtropical waters (Smithsonian, 2013). Global coral reef coverage is believed to be minimal at 0.1–0.5% of the ocean floor yet provides a habitat for nearly 1/3 of all ocean fishes (Moberg and Folke, 1999). Mass bleaching events have been documented in all tropical and subtropical regions where coral reefs are present, with strong correlations found between elevated sea temperatures and bleaching events (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Worldwide between 9 and 12% of human-consumed fish comes from reef habitats with higher percentages noted in southeastern Asia and other fishing-dependent regions (Moberg and Folke, 1999). Reefs also provide added protection to coastal communities by forming structural barriers on which waves are dissipated (Moberg and Folke, 1999). Economically, the global value of the world's coral reef systems

164

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

is estimated to be as much as $172 billion annually (Smithsonian, 2013). These economical estimates encompass numerous resources pertaining to coral reef including goods and services in the forms of tourism, recreation, coastal protection, fisheries and biodiversity (NOAA, 2011). If we consider the structural benefits that coral reefs provide to shore communities, these numbers would be far greater. The most immediate threat to the coral reef system comes under the umbrella of a larger global threat — climate change. Rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been identified as the leading cause of recent changes in the both the temperature and the chemical composition of the oceans (NOAA-PMEL, 2013). Before the 1800s, CO2 concentration is believed to have hovered fairly steadily in the range of 280 ppm. Just over 60 years ago, CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere wavered between 300 and 310 ppm. This year, CO2 levels have reached a level not seen since the Pliocene Epoch, 400 ppm (Kunzig, 2013). As CO2 builds up in the Earth's atmosphere, a global warming trend has been identified, leading not only to increased air temperature but also to an increase in global ocean temperatures. Approximately one third of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere are absorbed by the world's oceans, resulting in an additional 22 million tons absorbed per day (National Geographic, 2013). Coral reefs are especially sensitive to climactic shifts, reacting to stress in a phenomenon known as coral bleaching (Coral Watch, 2013). Mass bleaching events have become more frequent over the last two decades with the largest ever recorded bleaching event in 1998, in which 1/6 of the world's coral reef colonies died (Coral Watch, 2013). Coral bleaching was first observed in 1982, coinciding with unusually high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) associated with a major shift in weather patterns that year known as El Nino (NOAA-CHMP, 2013). Since then, coral bleaching has been observed with increasing frequency and intensity in coral reefs throughout the world and is predicted to continue to do so as long as the ocean temperatures continue to rise (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). Ocean temperatures have risen on average nearly 1 °C over the past century and are expected to further increase at a rate of 1–2 °C per century (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). In addition to ocean warming, anthropogenic CO2 has resulted in another immediate threat to ocean life — ocean acidification (National Geographic, 2013). For millions of years, ocean pH has remained relatively stable, hovering slightly basic at 8.2. Currently the pH has fallen to 8.1. While this 0.1 drop in oceanic pH seems minimal, it is important to note that the pH scale is logarithmic and this measurement represents nearly a 30% increase in the overall acidity (NOAA-PMEL, 2013). Ocean acidification poses an ultimate threat to coral reefs as the presence of calcium carbonate is a critical component in their ability to produce their protective skeletons (NOAA-PMEL, 2013). If pollution levels continue to rise, further ocean warming and acidification will subsequently follow resulting in increased mass bleaching events in the near future (Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999). It is hard to predict how coral may or may not adapt to such changes in the composition of the oceans. In a worst-case scenario, if the world's coral reefs were to disappear, massive spatial shifts would likely occur as 1/3 of the oceans creatures would be forced to find new habitats. The feedbacks produced by such a shift would be incredibly complicated making hypothesizing such scenarios extremely difficult. Ultimately, the loss would not only affect oceanic systems but would also reach across the globe with economic and social ramifications, especially for countries such as those in Southeastern Asia and the Caribbean, where as much as 80% of their economies are based in reef-related products and activities (Cho, 2011). 2.2. Sea turtles One species that heavily relies upon the fate of the coral reef, and experiencing a current threat of its own, is the sea turtle, Chelonioidea. The emergence of Fibropapillomatosis (FP) in green sea turtles has reached epidemic proportions and has since expanded its reach to

include nearly all other species including loggerhead, olive ridley, Kemp ridley, flatback and leatherback sea turtles (UO, 2013). FP is a virus similar to the herpes virus found in humans, causing abnormal tumor growths around the infected turtle's eyes, mouth and flippers (UO, 2013). Despite being the focus of nearly 1000 scholarly research articles (Google Scholar, 2013), the direct cause of the rapid spread of FP remains unclear but strong correlations have been made between chemical runoff in the form of nitrogen pollution and increased incidence of FP in turtle populations (Barile, 2004). Sea turtles are found in all temperate and tropical regions of the world's oceans including the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. FP was first documented in the late 1930s in the green sea turtle (Turtle Hospital, 2013). The disease remained sporadic at best until the 1980s when it began to resurface with epidemic proportions. Since then, FP has spread rapidly throughout sea turtles in all areas of the world (Turtle Hospital, 2013). Sea turtles have become a major contributor in the world economy. Having roamed the oceans for over 100 million years and reaching a lifespan similar to humans, these charismatic creatures have generated a tourism-based economy exceeding billions of dollars annually (Brown, 2013). In one US coastal community alone, the revenue derived from “sea turtle tourism” is estimated to be near $50 million (Brown, 2013). The recent increase in FP has led scientists to believe that outside environmental factors have ultimately made the turtles more susceptible to FP (Jones, 2004). Several studies have found strong correlations between FP and heavily polluted coastal areas, agricultural run-off and biotoxin producing algae (Barile, 2004). Included here is a 2010 study of nearly 4000 Hawaiian green sea turtles where positive correlations were found between rates of FP and coastal eutrophication associated with agricultural runoff. These findings suggest that an invasive microalgae that thrives in high nitrogen environments subsequently becomes the primary diet of foraging turtles in these areas (Van Houton et al., 2010). This environmental factor is believed to be a significant contributor to the dramatic rise in sea turtle papilloma (Jones, 2004). As sea turtles are among the oldest creatures on Earth, having existed virtually unchanged for over 100 million years, their loss would likely entail a wide array of feedbacks. Little is known about the complete ecological role that sea turtles play. Hatchlings emerge from their nests, enter the ocean and essentially disappear for several years before reemerging as juveniles (SWOT, 2013). In order to fully understand the effects of the loss of sea turtle populations, further research is necessary in understanding the exact roles that they play. 2.3. Phytoplankton Moving along in the oceans, forming the base of the oceanic food web is another species facing dramatic declines — phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are microscopic plant-like organisms that drift throughout the world's oceans, exhibiting the highest densities along coastlines and at higher latitudes (Lindsay and Scott, 2010). The primary consumer of phytoplankton is its animal-like counterpart, zooplankton, which in turn provides food for numerous larger consumers throughout the oceanic food web (National Geographic, 2013). Similar to land-based plants, phytoplankton use the process of photosynthesis to convert CO2 into oxygen, producing approximately 50% of the oxygen that we breathe (Lindsay and Scott, 2010). This system, termed “the biological pump,” transfers approximately 10 gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere annually thereby allowing even minimal changes of phytoplankton populations and productivity to produce significant changes in the Earth's temperature (Lindsay and Scott, 2010). Over the past century, global phytoplankton populations have declined by as much as 40%. These changes have been determined to correlate with our changing climate as witnessed in ocean warming and increased SST (Boyce et al., 2010). Additionally, strong links have been made between recently emerging weather variations such as the

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

El Nino (ENSO) phase, also resulting from climate change (Boyce et al., 2010). Aside from CO2 removal and food production, phytoplankton exhibits additional qualities worth noting. Being extremely sensitive to sunlight, phytoplankton appear to have developed the ability to alter their surroundings via cloud production. This is done first by producing a chemical called DMSP to protect themselves from UV light. DMSP is then further broken down by bacteria in the water forming a substance known as DMS (Ramanujan, 2004). DMS in turn breaks down and results in tiny particulates being released into the surrounding air — particulates sized perfectly to allow for condensation to form, ultimately resulting in cloud formation (Ramanujan, 2004). Overall, the phytoplankton system is highly connected not only to other oceanic systems but also to numerous other systems found throughout our planet (National Geographic, 2013). To evaluate phytoplankton in terms of economics is complicated. Many systems and sub-systems would be affected by such a loss including not only the food that we, along with what many other species eat, but also the air that we breathe. As phytoplankton serve as the base of the oceanic food web, an economic analysis focusing on their loss is especially revealing. Direct resources from the oceans in the form of fisheries and aquaculture account for over $100 billion per year while extended resource goods and services are estimated to reach over $20 trillion annually (Hudson and Glenmarec, 2012). Ultimately humans will be affected as well through the economic ramifications that would result through the decline of the fishing industry. 3. Terrestrial systems 3.1. The honeybee: Apis mellifera Within the terrestrial systems of the planet, several species are currently experiencing devastating threats, the first of which is the honeybee, A. mellifera. Responsible for nearly one third of the world's crop pollination estimated to be over $30 billion annually and for $15–20 billion in revenue in U.S. crop production alone, the honeybee's role in our current ecosystem is crucial (Holland, 2013). Honeybees are found on all continents of the world with the exception of Antarctica (Dray, 2013). Colony collapse disorder (CCD) was first observed in the U.S. in 2006 but has since spread globally, resulting in drastic population declines reported in China, Japan, Egypt and the European Union (McCarthy, 2011). Since 2006, the world's honeybee population has witnessed a dramatic decline, estimated at a loss of more than one third of previously existing hives (Holland, 2013). CCD is characterized by the unexplained disappearance of adult worker bees while the live queen remains present along with stores of pollen and honey (Gifford, 2011). The exact cause of CCD remains under investigation with theories ranging from pathogens and parasites to chemical pollution and other environmental stresses though both theories and policies vary greatly by geography (USDA, 2013). In the center of this controversy is a specific class of pesticide known as neonicotinoids. Beginning in 1994 in France, following the introduction of neonicotinoid pesticide imidacloprid (IMD), French apiaries reported severe winter losses totaling over 75% (Gifford, 2011) (note: losses here were over 10 years prior to the official CCD emergence in the U.S.). By 2003, the French government had banned IMD yet the losses continued. Further research pointed to another possible chemical pesticide, Fipronil. The following year the government had extended its ban to include Fipronil as well as IMD and by 2005 apiaries reported returns in their bee populations (Gifford, 2011). Following the recovery witnessed in France, other European countries including Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and British Columbia followed suit in banning the chemicals (Gifford, 2011). Conversely, the U.S. remains uncertain, claiming that more research is needed in order

165

to determine an exact cause (USDA, 2013). Ultimately, the loss of the honeybee would result in definite economic impacts as well as an overall reorganization of commercial crop management as the primary pollinator of many crops would effectively need to be replaced. 3.2. Bats: Chiroptera While bees serve as the daytime pollinator for several major crops, bats assume the role of nocturnal pollinator, responsible for the pollination of many fruit-bearing flowers including mangoes, bananas and guavas (USFS, 2013). Additionally, bats serve a crucial role in pest management, consuming up to 2/3 of their body weight in insects in a single night (Ober, 2013). Bats are found on all continents of the world with the exception of Antarctica and the Polar regions (Simmons and Tenley, 1997). Globally, there are nearly 1000 different species of bats, with varying roles in overall ecosystem function (Defenders, 2013). In agricultural regions, bats not only contribute to the natural pollination of many fruits and wildflowers, but also serve as a natural pest controller, protecting crops from threatening insects while simultaneously lowering or eliminating the need for additional pesticides (USDA, 2013). One localized study of a single bat species in southern Texas estimated pest control services alone to be at an annual value of nearly $750,000 (Cleveland et al., 2006). White Nose Syndrome is an emergent disease in U.S. bat populations named after a white fungus, G. destructans, commonly found on the noses of affected bats (Blehert et al., 2009). First documented in the New York State in 2006, White Nose Syndrome has since spread to 22 States as well as 5 Canadian provinces, leaving affected caves with losses between 80 and 97% of total bat populations (US-FWS, 2013). As of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that over 5.5 million bats have died as a result of the disease (USFS, 2013). The fungus believed to cause WNS has also been detected in Europe but without the associated casualties, indicating that European bats most likely coevolved with the fungus and thereby developed a natural resistance to such (Laaser, 2013). The economic impacts resulting from the loss of bats would be extreme. Serving as the natural pest controller in many agricultural areas, estimated losses range from $3 billion to over $50 billion annually (Laaser, 2013). Ultimately, the loss of agricultural pest management services provided by bats would further result in increased chemical insecticide use to compensate for such a loss. Feedbacks here would further accelerate the global threat of pollution as a whole. 3.3. Amphibians Within an ecosystem, amphibians serve as an indicator species — a species that, having increased sensitivity to its immediate environment, acts as an indicator to the overall ecosystem health (USGS, 2004). In the late 1990s, an indicator emerged simultaneously on opposite sides of the world, in Australia and in Central America (Daugherty and Hung, 2013). The cause has been identified as the amphibian chytrid, B. dendrobatidis, a deadly fungus believed to cripple the immune systems of infected amphibians (Holmes, 2013). Amphibians are found on all continents with the exception of Antarctica and the Polar regions. While the initial emergence of chytrid was localized to Australia and Central America, the disease is now found in populations globally, spanning more than 100 different amphibian species located in 40 countries and 36 U.S. States (USGS, 2013). While chytrid is believed to be the cause of amphibian declines, aggravating factors include chemical pollutants and increased susceptibility due to climate change (DNR-DR, 2013). As an indicator species, amphibians have a value beyond economical measure as they are capable of warning us of impending environmental threats. Inasmuch, the loss of global amphibian populations, accelerated by the warming climate, would likely shed even more light onto the

166

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

much larger global threat of climate change. That said, amphibians serve as a communicator between us and our environment, providing a crucial link between the two, as long as we acknowledge their indications and adjust our actions accordingly.

4. The global threat While the threats are manifested in varying forms, ranging from ocean warming and acidification to chemical pollutants and disease, these threats appear to be linked through a common denominator — pollution. This pollution varies in the form of CO2 emissions and its ultimate effects, to the onslaught of widespread diseases linked to chemical and other pollutions including nitrogen found in agricultural runoff. The threats to the world's oceans range from the tiniest base of oceanic life to the entire ocean as a whole. With coral bleaching this pollution stems back to anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are ultimately raising ocean temperatures and acidity. The decline in phytoplankton can also be traced to CO2 emissions in that the warming ocean temperatures are believed to be responsible for the 40% population decline seen in the past century. And, in the case of the rapid spread of disease in the world's sea turtles, the threat is also founded in pollution, this time in the form of agricultural runoff and excessive nitrogen. On land, colony collapse disorder currently threatening bee populations, though still under investigation, appears to be connected to chemical pollution in the form of pesticides. The source of White Nose Syndrome that is sweeping across U.S. bat populations also remains undetermined but strong correlations have been made with climate change. Similarly, while the exact cause of the massive amphibian

declines remains unclear, chytrid, the fungus consistently found in conjunction with such, has also been determined to correlate with climate change. For both the bats and the amphibians, the diseases threatening them are ultimately a result of pollution in the form of excess CO2 emissions leading to climate change. While on the surface the threats appear to stem from several inter-relating factors, including climate change, agricultural runoff and disease, a further analysis of each situation provides a common element tying each together — pollution. In Fig. 3.1 a streamlined analysis of the interconnectivity of the pollution threat as a whole is presented. 5. Analysis of current solutions Investigating the common threat of pollution, a wide range of conservation and mitigation efforts begins to emerge. These efforts vary from localized solutions including local and national governments, NGOs and volunteer organizations to international and global organizations, such as the UNFCCC and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP, 2013). The following section will include an analysis of current localized approaches followed by an analysis of global solutions. 5.1. The localized approach In the United States, local organizations focused on environmental protection and regulation began to appear in unison with the spread of industrialization and its related effects. The first water quality legislation occurred in 1948 followed by the first air pollution act in 1950 (PBS, 2013). Over the next two decades, various laws and amendments

Fig. 3.1. Systems analysis of streamlined threat: pollution.

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

tackling emerging environmental issues ultimately culminated in the formation of a national organization, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 (PBS, 2013). The EPA is the United States' answer to pollution while similar agencies exist worldwide including the European Environment Agency (EEA), Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), as well as numerous branches of governmental organizations. The EPA acts as “the gatekeeper” to U.S. environmental health, responsible for activities ranging from the regulation of toxic chemicals to the remediation of polluted sites (EPA, 2013). With respect to nitrogen pollution, the EPA has recognized the growing need for mitigation as demonstrated in its 2011 issuance of the memorandum, “Working…to address Phosphorus and Nitrogen pollution through the use of a framework for state nutrient reductions.” (EPA, 2011). The memo addresses several disturbing observations noting that 64% of shallow monitoring wells nationwide have exceeded background concentrations of nitrates, 78% of coastal waters have exhibited eutrophication and toxic algae blooms are steadily rising (EPA, 2011). As a result, the EPA developed a framework addressing nitrogen and phosphorus reduction yet the program remains entirely voluntary, instead directed to “interested and willing states,” ultimately leaving the problem largely unaddressed (EPA, 2011). Aside from the lack of direct regulation regarding nitrogen pollution, another potential setback exists directly within the foundation of the local-based approach. As demonstrated by Elobeid et al., when local regulations pertaining to agricultural nitrogen runoff are put in place thereby lowering production and usage levels, the rest of the world simply responds by raising their production levels. On a global scale, any local reductions remain negligible (Elobeid, 2011). Another national agency, often found working in collaboration with the EPA, is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). NOAA is a federal agency in charge of monitoring and researching concerns relating to oceans, fisheries, weather and the atmosphere. Within NOAA, the Coral Health and Monitoring Program (CHAMP) is responsible for monitoring and researching matters pertaining to coral bleaching (NOAA, 2013). Across the globe, there are many similar localized organizations found scattered throughout reef-bearing countries including ECOMAR in Belize, Reef Check and AIMS in Australia, the Guam Community Coral Reef Monitoring Program in the South Pacific and Coral Reef Research Foundation (CRRF) in Palau. Collectively, these agencies focus on a variety of oceanic concerns including ocean warming, ocean acidification and coral bleaching. Since the emergence of mass bleaching episodes, agencies across the globe have attempted to define the root cause of the problem. Despite being the subject of over 2000 scholarly articles, the actual cause remains uncertain though warming ocean temperatures, increased CO2, and increasingly destructive weather patterns such as El Nino remain common theories (Google Scholar, 2013). Research regarding the adaptability of coral to warming ocean temperatures is ongoing (COS, 2013) and efforts have also been made in simulating the possible effects of rising acidity in oceans and its subsequent effects on coral reef systems (NWN, 2013). The results regarding acidity have painted a dismal picture as increased acidity not only inhibits calcification in the growth of coral reefs but also increases the rates in which the entire reef systems completely dissolve (NWN, 2013). The 40% decline in global phytoplankton populations falls under the same global threat with ocean warming believed to be the root of the problem. As both warming and acidification are the result of a larger threat of pollution via CO2 emissions, analysis will begin there. Local efforts tackling CO2 reduction have taken form in several geographic areas of the world including in the State of California with its Cap and Trade program, the European Union with its own emissions trading system and higher emissions-related taxes and in EU member France by not only committing to EU standards but also through its energy transition away from fossil fuels shifting instead to nuclear power (Boden et al., 2011). While many localized efforts are making positive changes in

167

regulating their own CO2 emissions, the problem continues to exist at a much larger scale. Mitigating atmospheric CO2 is a global problem that is simply too large for a localized effort to be effective. Moving forward, in the case of the pressing threat of colony collapse disorder (CCD) in U.S. honeybee populations, the EPA has joined efforts with the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) internal research agency, the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) in an attempt to understand and identify the exact cause of the phenomenon (USDA, 2013). To date, ARS has been unable to identify a root cause but has suggested that a combination of factors including disease, nutrition and related management practices, exposure to pesticides, and biodiversity loss have all attributed to the massive declines (USDA, 2013). Meanwhile, private studies, including a Harvard study in 2011 of an in situ replication of honeybee colony collapse disorder in association with neonicotinoid pesticide use have provided convincing evidence of the correlation, finding losses near 95% (19 of 20 hives observed) within 23 weeks of neonicotinoid exposure (Lu et al., 2012). Despite the growing evidence correlating pesticide use with the CCD phenomenon, the US remains uncertain (USDA, 2013). As discussed previously, other regional organizations, namely the European Union (EU), have drawn opposing conclusions, determining that the root cause of collapse is in fact a result of neonicotinoid pesticide use (EPA, 2013). Beginning December 1st, 2013, the EU is moving forward with the restriction of three neonicotinoid pesticides: clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam as well as other chemicals including the insecticide Fipronil (EPA, 2013). Within both the EU and the USA, opposing political and legal scenarios are unfolding. In March of 2013, a group of US beekeepers joined together with environmental and consumer groups to file a lawsuit against the EPA claiming that the pesticides “harm honeybees and other pollinators” (Wozniacka, 2013). The leading maker of the neonicotinoid clothianidin, Bayer CropScience, immediately joined in the conversation citing “there has been a long history of the safe use of neonicotinoid insecticides and…any impact on bees is negligible.” Their objection to regulating the chemical is underscored by the fact that in 2012, Bayer CropScience's revenue rose by 12.4% to $10.8 billion globally, leaving their interest in the problem understandably shortsighted (Fresh Plaza, 2013). In November of 2013, with the EU moving forward to restrict pesticide and insecticide use, BASF, a German agrochemical company, has joined with fellow chemical companies Bayer and Syngenta in challenging the EU's decision. With combined gross revenues totaling over $150 billion for 2012, these corporations have significant economic interests tied to the outcome of these proceedings (BASF, 2013; Bayer, 2013; Syngenta, 2013). Both White Nose Syndrome (WNS) spreading through bat populations and the chytrid fungus devastating amphibian populations remain poorly understood in terms of the exact causes yet the proliferation is believed to be linked to climate change (Rohr and Balustein, 2011). In the case of the chytrid fungus B. dendrobatidis, it is thought that amphibians are experiencing a decreased resistance to the fungus resulting from a variety of factors including climate change (Altizer et al., 2013). Similarly, in regard to WNS, increasing evidence points to an array of factors, including climate change and pollutants which thereby make the bats more susceptible to the disease (IDNR, 2013). Furthermore, correlations have been made between the rapid spread of chytrid and not only temperature but also with recent significant changes in meteorological conditions resulting from global climate change (Bosch et. al., 2007). As was discussed with regard to ocean warming and acidification, the problem itself is global in scope, making localized solutions less likely to be successful. Overall, local approaches are becoming increasingly ineffective as many environmental threats are emerging on the global scale. 5.2. Current solution #2 — the global effort The pollution threat as a whole is gradually shifting away from the local and instead appearing at the global level. This can be seen in the

168

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

accumulation of greenhouse gases, ocean acidification, as well as the emergence of numerous diseases spanning all corners of the globe. Consequently, solutions are also expanding beyond the previously successful localized approaches, instead forming at multinational and global levels. As suggested by McAloose and Newton (2009), a larger, multidisciplinary effort, including the identification of complex systems involved in disease occurrence, integration of both animal and human surveillance systems, as well as establishing and expanding upon relations with policy makers and stakeholders, would be most successful in addressing the direct causes of the disease. For the coral reef systems, international efforts have been established to understand and monitor the world's coral reefs, including the International Coral Reef Initiative, (ICRI) which consists of 60 different countries, NGOs and international organizations (ICRI, 2013). Furthermore, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has developed its Coral Reef Unit to focus on the current threats to the world's coral reef systems while also collaborating with another international organization, the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) (UNEP, 2013). With the rise of diseases in sea turtles and other organisms, the aggravating factor stems to ocean warming resulting from CO2 pollution. In phytoplankton populations, the direct threat, again, appears to be pollution in the form of CO2 emissions. In response to rising CO2 levels, close to 200 nations across the world have banded together with the United Nations UNFCCC. This organization is primarily devoted to the identification and mitigation of climate change. Regarding chemical runoff in the form of nitrogen pollution, the United Nations has joined the global effort with its International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), focusing on environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) regarding waste management (IETC, 2013). Also found within the United Nations is a Harmful Substances subsector of its Environmental Programme. Here the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) has been formed to promote sound management of chemicals including pesticides (UNEP, 2013). At this point, UNEP has broadly identified the cause of CCD in bee populations, attributing the phenomenon to multiple factors including herbicides, pesticides, habitat degradation, viruses, parasites, pests, air pollution and electromagnetic fields (NY Times, 2013). Presently, no specific solution has been identified. Another branch of UNEP, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) is involved in the study of epidemics such as WNS in bat populations while yet another subsector focuses on biodiversity issues and includes the study of the chytrid fungus decimating global amphibian populations (UNEP, 2013). Despite the abundance of global organizations focusing on the development of solutions, very little progress has been made. Several factors appear to be responsible for this stagnation including the economic interests of parties involved, political and legislative barriers, as well as the division of developing and developed nations. Furthermore, a clear barrier exists with the lack of accountability as seen in optional and self-defined emissions targets. What is known is that CO2 emissions, left unmitigated, will continue to rise. What is knowable includes current and future mitigation strategies to lower ambient CO2 emissions. Also knowable are ways to reduce nitrogen and other chemical fertilizer runoff as well as the development of new cleaner technologies. What remains unknown is “the tipping point.” At what point does anthropogenic CO2 cause a catastrophic failure of the Earth's system? How much further can this boundary be pushed? Will the dead zones of nitrogen run-off eventually merge together as one singular global problem? Will the rampant spread of disease continue to accelerate ultimately threatening all of Earth's organisms? 5.3. Solution #3 — the steps to environmental security An analysis of current solutions points to the growing need for a globally accepted solution derived from facts, structured with action and enacted through global cooperation and commitment. This paper

proposes a global solution, tentatively named the Global Environmental Trust (GET). At its base, GET would begin with a global union of all countries interested in protecting the health of the planet. Its basic structure would include a panel from each member country consisting of a representative from an array of disciplines including an environmental scientist, a biologist, a chemist, an atmospheric scientist, a financial analyst, and a journalist, just to name a few. Disciplines would be added or removed as circumstances warrant. There would also be a political representative from each member country to relay pertinent information to their respective countries. While membership in GET would remain voluntary, once a country officially joins, it would be required to follow the regulations enacted by the group. The group would be self-sufficient, funded through the donations of its member-countries. Within the group, members would work both within and across disciplinary boundaries. Both global problems and global solutions would be researched, discussed and voted upon in a timely and efficient manner. Voting would be anonymous to deter voter swaying pertaining to economic, political or other prospective barriers. GET would ultimately follow a set structure of steps in order to process and resolve each matter at hand. The process would appear similar to the description detailed below. Steps to environmental security through Global Environmental Trust 1. We admitted that our actions have negatively affected the environment, beyond local boundaries and divisions and instead have emerged as a global threat. 2. Came to believe that the Global Environmental Trust (GET) could unite us together and thereby restore our environment to a prosperous state. 3. Made a decision to join in the global effort of GET to understand, mitigate and prevent further environmental problems. (GET could originate as a convention of the United Nations Environmental Programme or could emerge as a distinct entity.) 4. Made an honest and thorough environmental inventory detailing the current state of our environment. This process would begin with each member country detailing the specifics of their environmental threats. 5. Admitted to GET, without fear of persecution or punishment, the exact nature of our environmental problems, ultimately leading to a global knowledgebase of pertinent GET threats to be examined. 6. Became willing to adopt a new framework in regard to global environmental mitigation, leaving behind economic-centered, politicalcentered and any other ineffective frameworks, instead moving towards global cooperation. 7. Adopted a new framework as a result of increased education through the GET knowledgebase and through compassion and encouragement of fellow member-countries. 8. Made a prioritized list of GET threats and voted upon standardized global mitigation strategies. 9. Upon determining a course of action, made immediate efforts to enable the new regulatory and mitigation practices determined. 10. Through the continued synthesis of knowledge in the GET knowledgebase, we continue to increase education among all people, regardless of membership, and continued to adopt and enforce the new standards of GET. 11. Continued to re-evaluate mitigation efforts, share knowledge freely through the GET knowledgebase, and immediately address any new concerns as they arise. 12. Continued to spread the synthesized knowledge through the GET knowledgebase, not only sharing determined threats and solutions but also sharing current results of all measures employed regardless of success or failure. This open access availability will limit dishonest practices and promote honest, open communication.

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

6. Conclusion The global threat of pollution is manifested in varying forms around the globe, from increases in species-specific diseases to atmospheric and oceanic changes resulting from excess CO2. While local approaches to specific occurrences may have been effective in the past, many threats are currently spreading beyond the local reach. A local solution to a global threat fails to make satisfactory progress as witnessed in addressing CO2 emissions as well as in pollutant taxation and legislation. Ultimately, a global threat requires a global solution such as that proposed in GET. Additionally, within the global solution, solid standards and requirements will need to be adhered to in order for global policies to be effective. Our probability of success in addressing pollution and other global threats will be greatly increased when united as a global force, sharing knowledge through the global knowledgebase and through uniform adherence to globally set policies.

References Aguirre AA, Lutz PL. Marine turtles as sentinels of ecosystem health: is fibropapillomatosis an indicator? Ecohealth 2004;1(3):275–83. Altizer S, Ostfeld RS, Johnson PT, Kutz S, Harvell CD. Climate change and infectious diseases: from evidence to a predictive framework. Science 2013;341:514. Barile PJ. Evidence of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment of the littoral waters of east central Florida. J Coast Res 2004;20(4):1237–45. BASF. Annual report. Retrieved from: http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/investorrelations/key-financial-data/statements, 2013. Bayer. Annual report. Retrieved from: http://www.annualreport2011.bayer.com/en/ cropscience.aspx, 2013. Blehert DS, Hicks AC, Behr M, Meteyer CU, Berlowski-Zier BM, Buckles EL, et al. Bat WhiteNose Syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science 2009;9(323):227. Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RA. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.: U.S. Department of Energy; 2011 Bosch J, Carrascal LM, Duran L, Walker S, Fisher MC. Climate change and outbreaks of amphibian chytridiomycosis in a montane area of Central Spain; is there a link? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2007;274(1607):253–60. Boyce DG, Lewis MR, Worm B. Global phytoplankton decline over the past century. Nature 2010;466:591–6. Brown B. Report on sea turtles' economic value boasts big number. Port City Daily. Retrieved from: http://portcitydaily.com/2013/11/21/report-on-economic-value-ofsea-turtles-boasts-big-number/, 2013. Cho R. Losing our coral reefs. Retrieved from: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/ losing-our-coral-reefs/, 2011. Cleveland CJ, Betke M, Federico P, Frank JD, Hallarn TG, Horn J, et al. Economic value of the pest control service provided by Brazilian free-tailed bats in south-central Texas. Front Ecol Environ 2006;4:238–43. Coral Watch. Coral Bleaching. Retrieved from: http://www.coralwatch.org, 2013. COS. Center for ocean solutions: coral bleaching. Retrieved from: http://centerforocean solutions.org/climate/impacts/ocean-warming/coral-bleaching/, 2013. Daugherty M, Hung K. Chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Center for invasive species research. University of California Riverside; 2013. [Retrieved from: http://cisr. ucr.edu/chytrid_fungus.html]. Defenders. Basic facts about bats. Retrieved from: http://www.defenders.org/bats/bats, 2013. DNR-DR. Chytridiomycosis (amphibian chytrid fungus disease). Retrieved from: http:// www.dnr.state.oh.us/LinkClick.aspx, 2013. Donner R, Barbosa S, Kurths J, Marwan N. Understanding earth as a complex system — recent advances in data analysis and modeling in earth sciences. Eur Phys J 2009; 174:1–9. Dray S. On what continents are bees not found? Retrieved from: http://animals. pawnation.com/continents-bees-not-found-5374.html, 2013. Elobeid A, Carriquiry M, Fabiosa JF, Mulik K, Hayes DJ, Babcock BA, Dumortier J, Rosas F. Greenhouse Gas and Nitogen Fertilizer Scenarios for U.S. Agriculture and Global Biofuels. Working Paper 2011. Paper 11-WP-524. EPA. Pollinator Protection: EPA Actions to Protect Pollinators. Retrieved from: http:// www.epa.gov/opp00001/ecosystem/pollinator/risk-mgmt.html, 2013. EPA. Working in Partnership with States to Address Phosphorus and Nitrogen Pollution through Use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions. Retrieved from: http:// www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/memo_nitrogen_framework.pdf, 2011. EPA. US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov, 2013. Flory AR, Kumar S, Stohlgren TJ, Cryan PM. Environmental conditions associated with bat white-nose syndrome mortality in the north-eastern United States. J Appl Ecol 2012; 49:680–9. Fresh Plaza. Bayer CropScience eyes more expansion. Retrieved from: http://www. freshplaza.com/article/109778/Bayer-CropScience-eyes-more-expansion, 2013. Gifford, C., 2011. Colony Collapse Disorder: The Vanishing Honeybee (Apis Mellifera). (Unpublished Masters Thesis). University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado.

169

Gillis J. Heat-trapping gas passes milestone, raising fears. NY Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passeslong-feared-milestone.html?_r=0, 2013. Google Scholar. Retrieved from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q= fibropapillomatosis&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C31&as_sdtp=, 2013. Hoegh-Guldberg O. Climate change, coral bleaching and the future of the world's coral reefs. Mar Freshw Res 1999;50:839–66. Holland JS. The plight of the honeybee. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalgeographic. com/news/2013/13/130510-honeybee-bee-science-european-union-pesticides-colony-collapse-epa-science, 2013. Holmes B. Deadly fungus cripples frog immune systems. New Scientist. Retrieved from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24435-deadly-fungus-cripples-frog-immune-systems.html#.Uqs3Q6Xphg0, 2013. Hudson A, Glenmarec Y. UNDP-GEF: catalysing ocean finance volume I — transforming markets to restore and protect the global ocean. New York, USA: Graphics Service Bureau, Inc.; 2012. ICRI. International coral reef initiative. Retrieved from: http://www.icriforum.org, 2013. IDNR. Illinois Department of Natural Resources: White Nose Syndrome. Retrieved from: http://dnr.state.il.us/orc/wildlife/wns.html, 2013. IETC. International Environmental Technology Centre. Retrieved from: http://www. icriforum.org, 2013. Jones AG. Sea turtles: old viruses and new tricks. Curr Biol 2004;14:R842–3. Kunzig R. Climate milestone: earth's CO2 level passes 400 ppm. National Geographic News. Retrieved from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/ 130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/, 2013. Laaser J. DNA research sheds light on white-nose syndrome in bats. Journal Sentinal. Retrieved from: http://www.jsonline.com/newswatch/dna-research-sheds-light-onwhite-nose-syndrome-in-bats-b9970274z1-220132911.html#ixzz2nN9zte00, 2013. Lindsey R, Scott M. What are phytoplankton? http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ Phytoplankton/, 2010. [Retrieved from:]. Lu C, Warchol KM, Callahan RA. In situ replication of honey bee colony collapse disorder. Bull Insectology 2012;65(1):99–106. McAloose D, Newton AL. Wildlife cancer and plastic pollution. Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9: 842. McCarthy M. Decline of honey bees now a global phenomenon, says United Nations. The Independent; 2011 [Retrieved from: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/ nature/decline-of-honey-bees-now-a-global-phenomenon-says-united-nations2237541.html]. Moberg F, Folke C. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecol Econ 1999; 29(2):215–33. Morello L. Phytoplankton population drops 40 percent since 1950. Retrieved from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population, 2010. NG (National Geographic). Coral Anthozoa. Retrieved from: http://animals.national geographic.com/animals/invertebrates/coral/, 2013. NOAA. Coral reef conservation program: threats. Retrieved from: http://coralreef.noaa. gov/, 2011. NOAA. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved from: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html, 2013. NOAA-CHMP. Coral bleaching. Retrieved from: http://www.coral.noaa.gov/research/ climate-change/coral-bleaching.html, 2013. NOAA-PMEL. What is ocean acidification? . Retrieved from: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/ co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F, 2013. NWN. Nature World News: ocean acidification, high levels of carbon dioxide associated with coral reef death. Retrieved from: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/ 3787/20130903/ocean-acidification-high-levels-ocarbon-dioxide-associated-coralreef-death.htm, 2013. NY Times. Bee survival in Europe. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/ opinion/international/bee-survival-in-europe.html, 2013. Ober HK. Insect pest management provided by bats. Retrieved from: http://edis.ifas.ufl. edu/uw289, 2013. Olsen DH. Mapping the global emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the amphibian chytrid fungus. PLoS ONE 2013;8(2):1–13. ONR (Office of Navy Research). Retrieved from: http://www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/ water/temp3.htm, 2013. PBS. Timeline: the modern environmental movement. Retrieved from: http://www.pbs. org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/earthdays/, 2013. Ramanujan K. When sun's too strong, plankton make clouds. Retrieved from: http:// www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/0702_planktoncloud.html, 2004. Rohr JR, Blaustein A. Understanding the role of climate change and land use modifications in facilitating pathogen invasions and declines in ectotherms. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/ncer/events/calendar/2011/sep20/ presentations/rohr.pdf, 2011. Simmons NB, Tenley C. Chiroptera. Bats. 1997. [Retrieved from: http://tolweb.org/ Chiroptera/]. Smithsonian. Corals and coral reefs. Retrieved from: http://ocean.si.edu/corals-and-coralreefs, 2013. SWOT. The state of the world's sea turtles. Retrieved from: http://seaturtlestatus.org/ learn/7-mysteries, 2013. Syngenta. Annual report. Retrieved from: http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/ SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/media-releases/en/20130206-en-full-year-results2012.pdf, 2013. Turtle Hospital. Fibropapilloma. Retrieved from: http://www.turtlehospital.org/blog/? page_id=478, 2013. UNEP. Pesticide-related activities at UNEP chemicals. Retrieved from: http://www.unep. org/hazardoussubstances/UNEPsWork/Pesticide-relatedactivitiesatUNEPChemicals/ tabid/104444/Default.aspx, 2013.

170

M. McCrink-Goode / Environment International 68 (2014) 162–170

UO. University of Oregon: turtle tumors: fibropapillomatosis and green sea turtles. Retrieved from: http://fullspectrumbiology.blogspot.com/2013/06/turtle-tumorsfibropapillomatosis-and.html, 2013. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Honey bees and colony collapse disorder. Retrieved from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/news/docs.htm?docid=15572, 2013. USFS. Bat pollination. Retrieved from: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/animals/bats.shtml, 2013. US-FWS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Awards Grants to 28 States for work on deadly bat disease. Retrieved from: http://static.whitenosesyndrome.org/sites/default/files/files/ 2013_wns_grants_to_states_final.pdf, 2013. USGS. Amphibian Researching and Monitoring Initiative. Retrieved from: http://armi. usgs.gov/topic.php?topic=Disease, 2013.

USGS. National Wildlife Health Center, White Nose Syndrome. Retrieved from: http:// www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/white-nose_syndrome/, 2013. USGS. Use of amphibians as indicators of ecosystem restoration success. Retrieved from: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3106/, 2004. Van Houtan KS, Hargrove SK, Balazs GH. Land use, macroalgae, and a tumor-forming disease in marine turtles. PLoS One 2010;5(9):e12900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0012900. Wozniacka G. Beekeepers ask EPA to ban pesticide, protect bees. Bloomberg Businessweek; 2013 [Retrieved from: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TL7CD81.htm]. ZSL (Zoological Society of London). Retrieved from: http://www.zsl.org/conservation/ species/amphibians/a-deadly-disease,831,AR.html, 2013.