Gulf Dead Zones Just Got Deadlier

It’s bad enough what marine “Dead Zones” do to the oceans; now it looks as if they’re drivers of global warming as well.

In a new report in the March 12 edition of the journal Science, Dr. Lou Codispoti of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science found that as Dead Zones expand, they release more nitrous oxide — a particularly potent greenhouse gas. As reported in US News and World Report:

“As the volume of hypoxic waters move towards the sea surface and expands along our coasts, their ability to produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide increases,” explains Dr. Codispoti of the UMCES Horn Point Laboratory. “With low-oxygen waters currently producing about half of the ocean’s net nitrous oxide, we could see an additional significant atmospheric increase if these ‘dead zones’ continue to expand.”

For more than 20 years, scientists have documented the appearance of a summertime Dead Zone that all but obliterates marine life in what is arguably the nation’s most important fishery, the Gulf of Mexico. Each year the Dead Zone grows to an area that is roughly the size of New Jersey – ranging from 5,000 to 8,000 square miles. The main culprit: an annual flood of excess fertilizer and animal waste from heavily farmed land running off into rivers and streams and finally into the Gulf, where it feeds the growth of massive algae blooms. The algae then die and decompose, robbing the water of oxygen and suffocating all life that cannot get out of the area.

The past decade has been especially bad for the Gulf Dead Zone, as federal mandates for ethanol fuel and robust commodity subsidies spurred the planting of millions more acres of fertilizer- and pesticide-intensive crops. Corn ethanol is an especially troubling contributor to the Dead Zone, and to the resulting nitrous oxide emissions, since we’re told that the subsidies and mandates for corn ethanol are there because of its potential to reduce greenhouse gases. Hmm. That’s not really working out too well, is it?

That raises two questions: Did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) factor in Dead Zone emissions from corn-ethanol runoff into its full life cycle analysis of ethanol in the RFS 2? If not, do they plan to?

Coupled with budget cuts that are dropping millions of protected acres from the Conservation Reserve Program, which helps mitigate agricultural runoff damage, the Gulf Dead Zone becomes the poster child for misguided government priorities: no money for conservation, but plenty of taxpayer cash to support the folks who cause the problem.

To make things worse, the most promising tool for shrinking the Dead Zone is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which unfortunately has also been repeatedly targeted for cuts even as ethanol mandates and bloated commodity subsides remain unchanged.

  • Tim Gieseke

    In the last month I have invested some time toward AgMag and I attempted to bring a working group mentality along with my own strong opinions. My assessment of AgMag after 30 days is that EWG works at a fairly high level in the policy arena and their chosen combatants are others on this same policy plateau. In this plateau, both solutions and problems reside in government programs and program participants fall neatly into two camps – Big Ag and Little Ag. After I worked in the policy arena for a few years I concluded that no one should work in the policy arena full time. Eventually your feet leave the ground and you are never wrong, because no one ever gets their complete policy adopted. And the policy that gets adopted is failing because no one ever gets their complete policy adopted. Working on policy full time results in too much information to make good policy judgments. Its the forest and the trees scenario. Every once in a while you should cut down a tree and figure out what we could do with it.

  • Don Carr

    Tim — thanks for the comment and the continued dialogue. There’s much to agree with what you’re saying in terms of not seeing the forest for the trees. However, framing the debate is part of working toward better policy.

    And no one knows better than we do that no one ever gets their complete policy adopted.