EarthTalk®

Dear EarthTalk: How were elephant seals saved from extinction? -- M. Diamandis, Trot, NY

Seals, often referred to as “dogs of the sea” for their notable cuteness, are one of the most prevalent marine mammals in the world, with more than 33 different species currently occupying our land and seas. However, that count was almost lower—until recently.

In the 1700s, nearly all marine mammals, including sea otters, whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions were casualties of the Pacific Northwest fur trade. This included elephant seals, aptly named for their males’ prominent facial appendage. Characterized by their small limb (fin) size, elephant seals spend about 80 percent of their lives underwater and can swim up to 60 miles a day, shielded from the cold by their vast blubber. However, this oil-rich blubber that could be processed into lamp and machine oil was also the reason they were hunted, so near the point of extinction that, by the 1890s, there were less than 100 left.

A small group that managed to survive human threat was discovered off the coast of Mexico in 1892 and was immediately given protected status by the Mexican government, after which they slowly began recovering. By the 1920s, elephant seals were observed off the coast of California, so the U.S placed them under protected status, and the population steadily increased to some 200,000, where it is today.

But their survival did not come without consequence. Researchers have discovered that their near extinction resulted in loss of genetic diversity—meaning that elephant seals’ genetic makeup has been permanently altered. Their research indicated that the species’ severe population decline reduced beneficial genes, increased the risk of inbreeding, and potentially threatened their survival.

"The highly reduced genetic diversity, including the loss of beneficial gene copies, may impair the ability of northern elephant seals to cope with future environmental changes, including those caused by ...climate change, changes to the species' habitat, or even natural threats such as disease outbreaks,” states Professor Kanchon Dasmahapatra of the University of York and senior author of the genetic research.

While elephant seals’ population may be standing strong at over 225,000 today, no aquatic species can escape modern threats like entanglement in fishing gear and collisions with boats, nor human activities like pollution, habitat degradation, and climate change. The remarkable comeback story of elephant seals is a lesson in conservation and ecosystem management from which we can all learn.

CONTACTS: Return of the elephant seals, sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240927173545.htm;

Elephant seals have genetic scars from intense hunting - Earth.com, https://www.earth.com/news/elephant-seals-have-genetic-scars-from-intense-hunting/.

Dear EarthTalk: I often find old tennis balls in a nearby park, likely lost by dog owners. What is the collective effect on ecosystems of all these tennis balls? -- June Jackson, via email

Tennis balls, primarily made from rubber and synthetic materials, do not biodegrade and can persist in the environment for years. Made with a combination of rubber and felt, they contribute both litter and microplastics to our ecosystems.

Natural and synthetic rubber production is resource-intensive, often leading to deforestation and pollution in areas where rubber plantations are cultivated. The manufacturing process also consumes significant energy, and once discarded, tennis balls contribute to growing plastic waste in ecosystems. While some tennis ball recycling initiatives exist, such as efforts to repurpose used balls into playground surfaces or dog toys, the majority still end up in landfills or scattered in natural spaces?.

Also, when left in nature, tennis balls can present hazards to wildlife. Animals may ingest pieces of these balls, mistaking them for food. The felt cover on tennis balls can shed fibers over time, especially in wet or harsh conditions, potentially releasing microplastics and other synthetic particles into the soil and waterways. Studies on synthetic materials in the environment have shown that these particles can disrupt soil health and are increasingly found in water systems, where they accumulate and impact marine life?.

Fortunately, some manufacturers are developing more eco-friendly alternatives. Wilson Sporting Goods, for example, introduced the Triniti Ball, which is designed to last longer and comes in a recyclable, unpressurized paper container, a step toward reducing both waste and production impacts. However, these sustainable options are not yet widespread in dog toy collections, so responsible disposal and use are still crucial for pet owners who want to minimize their environmental footprint?.

If you want to discard your dog’s old tennis balls responsibly—or you pick up others’ long forgotten ones left behind on walks—take them to a nearby tennis center that hosts a collection bin from RecycleBalls. This innovative company takes apart old tennis balls and repurposes their constituent parts into a wide variety of other applications.

While one or two tennis balls left behind might seem inconsequential, the cumulative impact is not. Retrieving and disposing of used tennis balls properly—or opting for eco-friendlier toys—can help reduce this environmental impact and keep natural spaces cleaner for everyone.

CONTACTS: The Environmental Challenges of Tennis Balls and Strings, https://tennisnerd.net/balls/the-environmental-challenges-of-tennis-balls-and-strings/32144.

Dear EarthTalk: Have extreme weather events in places like Asheville, NC made people rethink where they consider to be good “climate refuges” as the world warms? – K.L., Raleigh, NC

The concept of the “climate refuge,” or a location relatively unaffected by extreme weather phenomena, arose in response to the growing frequency of tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding, droughts and other disasters. According to the Global Climate Resilience Ranking, the U.S. has one of the world’s largest numbers of these “refuges” as a result of the nation’s geography and ability to efficiently protect and rebuild assets and infrastructure.

Experts have long predicted that these least climate-affected communities lie in the interior Northeast, Midwest and Rust Belt. Yet many have also viewed areas in the inland South as meeting the qualifications of climate refuge. However, these communities have increasingly dealt with their own disasters. Vermont, ranked at the bottom of the climate risk index, is still recovering one year later from the Great Vermont Flood of 2023 which caused several fatalities and roughly $2.2 billion in damage.

In late September 2024, mudslides in the Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina took dozens of lives and caused horrific damage. Asheville, NC, one of the hardest hit cities, has been one of the many “refuge” destinations for Americans moving inland from coastal areas, citing rising sea levels and heightened insurance costs as affecting their decision.

As the reach of disasters grows, experts push for investment into the states comprising the Rust Belt, interior Northeast and northern great plains. These fairly temperate states are located far from warming oceans, and are ideal geographically. However, there are other challenges to these “havens.” Much of the Rust Belt struggles with high poverty rates and would require significant aid and investment to support a large population influx. But as the effect of extreme weather in the South, West and exterior Northeast regions have escalated, so has federal and private investment. In late September, the Energy Department closed a $1.52 billion loan to revive the shuttered Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. And the tech giant Micron Technology Inc. opened a 2022 chip plant in central NY, creating an anticipated 50,000 jobs.

The increasing reach of natural disasters across the U.S will likely shift the public’s idea of a “climate refuge” upwards and inwards. But while these regions may offer greater refuge from climate-impacted disasters, the idea of a completely immune “haven’ is unrealistic as proven throughout the past decade. Even the most isolated high-elevation community van be impacted by extreme weather.

CONTACTS: Why these ‘climate haven’ cities aren’t yet ready for more extreme weather events, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/why-these-climate-haven-cities-arent-yet-ready-for-more-extreme-weather-events.

Dear EarthTalk: Now that we are a few decades into the process of removing dams, how are the fish ecosystems doing? -- H.F., Boulder, CO

Dams, often built to generate hydroelectric power, store water and control floods, have significant negative impacts. They disrupt natural river flows, fragment habitats and alter the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of their river. When ecosystems are functioning properly, they support a wide variety of plant and animal life, providing crucial benefits to the environment and local communities. A healthy river is marked by clean water, diverse plant and fish life and the ability to transport sediments that replenish beaches and floodplains, all working together sustain life and adapt to ecosystem changes.

As the dam removal process has progressed in the U.S., scientists have seen significant improvements in waterway ecosystems. A long-term study that monitored the Cedar River in Washington state after dam removal showed a remarkable recovery in local fish populations. In the 20 years following the removal of the dam, chinook salmon, coho salmon and mountain whitefish returned to pre-dam population levels. The chinook salmon reached the river's carrying capacity—the maximum number of fish the river can support. Also, salmon diversity tripled. This demonstrates the long-term benefits of river restoration through dam removal and highlights the potential for ecosystems to recover when natural flow is restored.

In another example, the removal of dams along the Klamath River in California is also helping restore native fish populations. While the deconstruction of the dams initially led to the death of non-native fish species, it paved the way for native fish—like-chinook salmon and steelhead—to migrate upstream for the first time in over 60 years, offering hope that the river will once again become a thriving ecosystem for its native species. According to Bob Pagliuco, a NOAA marine habitat resource specialist, the Klamath River will soon see the return of these iconic fish species to areas where they had been absent for decades.

Dam removal has benefits beyond increased fish populations, allowing for vegetation regrowth, natural sediment transport, better water quality and safe spaces for fish from predators.

Despite these benefits, dam removal remains controversial. But by raising awareness, advocating for policy change and engaging the public through protests, the tide can be turned. Supporting legislation like the Clean Water Act is also crucial. By staying informed and actively participating, we can ensure the long-term health of our rivers and a future with thriving ecosystems and abundant wildlife.

CONTACTS: The Secret World Of Rivers: What Do Healthy Rivers Look Like?, https://ribbletrust.org.uk/what-do-healthy-rivers-look-like/; World’s Biggest Dam Removal Project to Open 420 Miles of Salmon Habitat this Fall, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/worlds-biggest-dam-removal-project-open-420-miles-salmon-habitat-fall

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that using robots can help us reduce our carbon footprint? This sounds great but what are the tradeoffs of increased utilization of robots? -- Robert Pardue, Reno, NV

Robots are increasingly integral to addressing environmental challenges, from cleaning oceans to aiding reforestation. For instance, Clearbot removes some 15 liters of oil and 200 kilograms of trash from oceans daily, mitigating marine pollution. Robots also accelerate tree planting, restoring forests faster and more precisely than humans. In cities, robots are helping lower carbon footprints. Delivery robots can cut road congestion by 29 percent and reduce emissions by 16 percent compared to traditional vehicles. Often powered by renewable energy like solar, these robots further minimize environmental impact.

Similarly, robots are making an impact in transportation. Electric vehicles equipped with self-driving features are becoming more common, following Tesla’s lead. Since EVs run on electricity rather than gas, they help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these autonomous vehicles also include features like automatic braking, lane detection and speed control, which can enhance safety and efficiency on the road.

Robots have also made their way into industrial settings, where they improve efficiency and help cut down carbon emissions. A 2022 study found that the use of robots in manufacturing has enhanced carbon emission reduction efforts across 35 countries. By automating repetitive tasks, robots can help reduce errors and improve the overall energy efficiency of production processes.

However, the environmental benefits of robots come with significant tradeoffs. Most robots rely on batteries made from lithium and cobalt, which are not evenly distributed around the world. Mining these materials is resource-intensive and often leads to environmental degradation. The extraction process consumes large amounts of energy, releases air pollutants and can contaminate local water supplies.

Once in use, robots—like any other technology—are subject to wear and tear. When they break or become outdated, they add to the growing problem of electronic waste. The faster pace of production enabled by robots also fuels consumer demand, further increasing waste. And these impacts often hit poorer nations hardest, as they are disproportionately affected by pollution and resource depletion.

Long term, as robot designs improve and new technologies are developed, some of these challenges may be mitigated. Companies like AI for Good, Echo Tech Daily and Redwood Materials are developing more sustainable robots. But for now, it’s important to weigh the benefits and tradeoffs carefully. While robots hold great promise for helping us reduce our carbon footprint, they are far from a perfect solution.

CONTACTS: Impact of industrial robots on environmental pollution, www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47380-6; Can robots reduce carbon footprint? www.plainconcepts.com/robotics-sustainability.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. See more at https://emagazine.com. To donate, visit https://earthtalk.org. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.