The most recent warning to that effect came today from WWF-UK and The Cooperative Financial Services, which together released a report titled, “Toxic fuels, toxic investments: Why we need mandatory greenhouse gas reporting.” The report finds that today’s lack of carbon reporting requirements is allowing oil and gas companies to invest heavily in high-carbon energy developments such as Canada’s tar sands without having to disclose potential future risks to investors.

“Emitting carbon dioxide will become more and more expensive in the future, as regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is progressively tightened up,” the report’s executive summary states. “Yet oil and gas companies are not disclosing to investors the potentially huge costs they will have to pay in order to continue emitting massive amounts of CO2 and other GHGs in the future … The failure of companies to measure and disclose their exposure to future carbon costs obscures the risk associated with high-carbon investments, and contributes to a misallocation of resources.”

And that’s in the UK, which falls under the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme that is at least trying to establish a baseline price for carbon pollution. Such is not the case with top polluters China — which is talking about implementing “half-mandatory” carbon trading by 2014 — and the US, where the much-vaunted hope for a climate bill before this November’s mid-term elections has withered into a resounding “Nope.”

Such developments in the world’s number-one and number-two carbon emitting countries threaten existing carbon markets that are already struggling in the ongoing shaky economy. With EU carbon prices at record lows, carbon brokers are losing their jobs left and right.

Could this be a precursor to the first death rattles for carbon trading? Energy analyst/investment advisor Chris Nelder seems to think so, warning that the carbon emissions legislation game is one that “cannot be won.” His solution? For the US, anyway, he believes the answer lies with a comprehensive energy plan that incorporates all energy sources, phases in an increasing proportion of renewables and makes the most of “every last BTU.”

But is that realistic? Can we really transition from fossil fuels to clean energy using the approach of carrots for renewables versus sticks for oil, gas and coal? And can we do it in a reasonable time frame that addresses both declining fossil fuel reserves and accelerating climate change?

Where do you place your bets? Let us know.

Obviously, sellers don’t want to spend too much money because they are selling their homes. However, a few green tips can help them achieve improvements without costing a fortune. Following are five tips to get home-sellers started in the right direction:

1. Household fixtures: Showers, sinks and toilets can waste a lot of water if they are not fitted with energy-efficient controls. Fittings to control the flow of water are fairly cheap to buy and, in most cases, you can install them yourself. The advantage of having these low-water control fittings is you don’t waste water and you will notice the difference in your water bills when they come in. That’s something you can point out to a potential buyer.
2. Electrical appliances: Many of the electrical items you buy these days will have already been adapted to be energy efficient. However, appliances that came as fixtures with your house might not be quite as up to date. Check your dishwasher and see if it has energy- and water-efficient stickers on it. These stickers are found on items that have already been adapted for maximum energy efficiency. You might find, if your house is a few years old, that fixtures like your water heater do not meet eco-friendly standards. Replacing it with an approved Energy Star-rated heater will result in savings on your power and water. So whilst you may not want to spend any money, you could save more in the long run by having a more energy-efficient water heater installed.
3. Insulation: You would be amazed at the difference proper insulation makes to your home. Instead of sweltering in summer or freezing in winter, having good insulation puts back some control over the temperatures in your house. Insulation doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive, either; many DIY stores sell insulation that you can install yourself. Even if you want to fix only some of the small areas that let in draughts, such as round doorways and windows, you’re still adding value to your property.
4. Floors: Polished wood floors add that extra bit of appeal to a home, which accounts for their popularity with many home-buyers. But wood floors are expensive both to buy and install. An environmentally friendly alternative is bamboo. You still get the natural wood effect in your house, but with less expense and the added bonus of being a natural, eco-friendly product. Bamboo is extremely durable and suitable for most rooms, and can be purchases in tiles, strips or planks for easy installation.
5. Thermostats: Not always an obvious consideration when looking at energy saving, but one well worth thinking about. Being able to program your thermostat and maintain constant temperatures throughout your home will make a huge difference to your power bill. If you are at work in the day and don’t want to waste energy and money keeping your house cool, you can set your thermostat to automatically start cooling or heating your home at a time that suits. Programmable thermostats are reasonably inexpensive to buy and can be purchased from most of the larger hardware stores.

It’s also a good idea to have a talk with your real estate agent and get his or her suggestions on green tips you could use to improve the value of your home and save you money in the meantime.

Editor’s note: This article was written by William Eve, who writes about saving money, investment loans and real estate for Home Loan Finder, which also provides information for first-time home-buyers and those looking to refinance.

In its latest interim management statement, issued this week, SSE reported that “weather conditions” during April, May and June contributed to a full 30 per cent drop in electricity output from its wind farms, hydroelectric facilities and Slough biomass heat and power plant. Output from those sources fell to 700 gigawatt-hours during that period, compared to the 1,000 gigawatt-hours generated during the last quarter of 2009.

While SSE didn’t elaborate on those “weather conditions,” one factor certainly had to be the fact that the first half of 2010 saw the “driest first six months of the year for 100 years,” according to the UK’s Met Office. And, as the climate continues changing, Britain can expect that type of situation to become more common, the agency warns.

If hydroelectric power sources are threatened by climate change, wind energy’s greatest shortcoming is its great variability, Lovelock warns in his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia:

“Used sensibly, in locations where the fickle nature of wind is no drawback, it is a valuable local resource, but Europe’s massive use of wind as a supplement to baseload electricity will probably be remembered as one of the great follies of the twenty-first century … ,” he writes.

Lovelock argues the only clean energy sources that make sense for society are nuclear and solar thermal energy. All the rest aren’t viable without heavy injections of government subsidies and green cheerleading, he says.

Lovelock acknowledges he sometimes takes a bit of hyperbolic licence to make his points — as when he warned that global warming will lead to a die-off of billions of humans this century, resulting in only a “few breeding pairs of people” left in the Arctic. But does he have a point here? Is the bit of news from SSE a warning sign that we’d be better off by aggressively developing nuclear and concentrating solar power (such as that proposed in the Desertec project), and forgetting more intermittent clean-energy sources?

What do you think? Let us know in the comments section below.

We had a fantastic bunch of business delegates: open-minded, deeply concerned about the state of the earth and climate change in particular, and all incredibly keen to see themselves and their companies as part of the solution rather than the cause of the problem.

For a lot of them, the highlight of the week was the sharing of a new film, Carbon Nation. This picks up from where An Inconvenient Truth leaves off, with 80% of the content focused on developments in energy efficiency and renewables in the US. It’s a smart piece of work, interviewing both the usual suspects (Amory Lovins, Lester Brown and so on) and treehuggers, with some “salt of the earth” entrepreneurs, farmers, community activists and even military types.

It was the first time I’d heard of the Pentagon’s Green Hawks. They’re driving a programme of energy efficiency through the US armed forces (particularly “in theatre” in Afghanistan and elsewhere) which makes most civilian enterprises look weak-kneed by comparison. Its success can largely be put down to its appeal to patriotic and nationalistic sentiments — summed up neatly by Thomas Friedman (author of the brilliant Hot, Flat and Crowded) with the soundbite, “Green is the new red, white and blue.”

This stuff works in the US. Friedman’s latest rallying call is that American environmentalists should give up on their “Earth Day” rhetoric and focus instead on the emerging “Earth Race” — the race between the US and China to become the dominant player in the burgeoning cleantech sector. This is a big deal: the cleantech market is worth around $150 billion a year at the moment, but will need to grow to a minimum of $500 billion a year if we are to meet today’s targets for reducing greenhouse gases.

Tough-talking army officers and aggressive entrepreneurs add a new dimension to the way all this sits with US citizens. But it’s still a tug of war. On the one hand, a Gallup poll in March showed that 46% of US citizens are now persuaded that climate change is caused by natural factors rather than man-made emissions. On the other, a big piece in Time Magazine a few months ago highlighted what it called the new “Responsibility Revolution” sweeping America, with 40% of US citizens claiming to put the environment at the heart of their purchasing decisions.

On one thing, however, everybody agreed: the US political system is broken. Any dreams of bi-partisanship have withered in the face of Republican intransigence; Capitol Hill is besieged as never before by lobbyists of every description; and that good old US “pork-barrel” is as prominently displayed at the heart of Congress as it’s ever been.

The likelihood of getting any climate treaty passed is close to zero. Indeed, the requirement to have a majority of two-thirds in the Senate means that there are already 45 international treaties stuck in the logjam waiting to be ratified. To that resonant election catchphrase “Yes We Can!,” have been added the words “but we probably won’t … !”

And so Barack Obama is increasingly dependent on going over the heads of such a chronically dysfunctional Congress. With the emphasis on energy security, new jobs, skills and innovation, he’s out with a nationwide crusade around the “Clean Energy Economy.” By all accounts, this has hardly been barnstorming Barack at his best, and hopes are fading that it could parallel JFK’s summons of the entire nation in support of efforts to get a man on the moon — before the Russians did!

It’s hard to go over the heads of Congress, directly to the people, if you can’t rely on the media’s help. And that just isn’t happening. When I’m in the US, I’m invariably over-taken by a bizarre compulsion to tune into Fox News, immersing myself masochistically in its melee of misinformation and madness.

What’s most scary about Fox News is that it gives no more standing or authority to science (as in the pursuit of evidence for or against any particular hypothesis) than to political opinion or “received wisdom.” Whether Fox News is simply reflecting a growing denialist trend, or actively fashioning it, the implications for policy-makers are grim. And it’s not just businesses that find this very perplexing indeed.

Editor’s note: This article was written by Jonathon Porritt, Founder-Director of Forum for the Future. This piece originally appeared in Green Futures, which is published by Forum for the Future and is the leading magazine on environmental solutions and sustainable futures. Its aim is to demonstrate that a sustainable future is both practical and desirable — and can be profitable, too. WWF-UK is a Forum for the Future partner. Jonathon’s blog is available as a podcast at: www.JonathonPorritt.com. Listen to Jonathon at: www.ipadio.com/phlog/JonathonPorritt.

Being powered by a petrol engine which seeks assistance from an electric motor, the CR-Z gets a hybrid badge slapped onto the back of it. This one detail could have a profound effect on how the public judges the car.

But don’t fear, because this is a different sort of hybrid. It is one you want to drive and want to be seen in.

I took the CR-Z away for four days to see how well it could juggle being environmentally conscious whilst also trying to appeal to people who like to drive well made, drivers’ cars.

The CR-Z looks like no other hybrid on the road today. Being a short coupe with 2+2 seating, it automatically distances itself from the perception people have of hybrids. The car in many ways has two personalities, both in design and technology. With an aggressive front which goes from being cheeky at some angles to angry at others, the CR-Z can be looked at for hours. With its sharp angles, it has a great futuristic, Japanese look.

The rear is a bit more subdued, with its hunched stance over the rear wheels and an aerodynamically effective tear-drop shape. These two design styles show the two personalities of the car. It is like a reverse mullet: party at the front and business at the back.

One thing I have noticed about the CR-Z is that it is very colour-sensitive. Having such striking futuristic lines, the car
looks best, in my opinion, in white or dark gray. I have seen the car in both red and aqua blue and it doesn’t pull off the same strikingly sporty look on the road.

The interior of the car is very driver-oriented. Sitting in the sporty driver’s seat, you’ll find that everything is accessible with all the major buttons being ergonomically centred toward the driver. The major touch points for the driver are good, but even better if the car is in “S” or “GT” spec.

However, the passenger side can be a lonely and plasticky place to sit, with the glove box and dash surrounds being made of low-quality plastics which are scratchy to touch. The rear seats are nothing more than a shelf with accompanying seatbelts.I found that flattening the seats to open up the cavernous 401 litres of space was a lot more sensible option. The use of the cheap plastics and poorly designed rear seats could have been a cost-cutting exercise to keep the car affordable at £17,000, as the major cost of the car is the hybrid power train.

When first reviewing the CR-Z, I thought it was a hybrid car with sporty credentials, but after living with it for a while I have found out that it is a sporty car with hybrid credentials. With its short wheelbase, short-throw manual gearbox and accurately weighted steering in a package which makes a good noise, it is a seriously fun car to drive on the twisty stuff. You can easily forget about the hybrid nature of the car because it is a slightly different system compared to other hybrids on the market.

Unlike the Toyota Prius, Lexus 450h and Honda Insight, the CR-Z cannot work solely off the electric motor.  Instead,
the electric motor is there to assist the traditional 1.5-litre, i-VTEC petrol engine to give you a boost and save fuel. The electric motor provides its peak torque instantly, improving initial acceleration and making the car feel nippy around town or out of corners. The torque curve of this new hybrid is unusually flat for a naturally aspirated engine, with the peak arriving at just 1,500 rpm so the car feels more balanced through the rev range. Think of it as a super-efficient, techy turbocharger.

Honda’s CR-Z produces a total power output of 122bhp with 14 of those horses coming from the electric motor. This produces a 0-62 time of 9.9 seconds, which breaks the 10-second mark though it’s not blistering. But with a good chassis and steering, with an exhaust note which wants to be heard, it is far from boring.

This car is about more than hooning, though. Remember, it has two personalities and these mood swings are dictated by the three driving modes:

To the right-hand side of the driver are three buttons. You can choose from either “Sport,” “Normal” or “Econ” and — depending on your decision — the throttle, steering, idle stop timing, climate control and the level of assistance provided by the electric motor will change.

“Sport” mode sharpens the throttle response, gets the most power from the hybrid system and increases the weight of the electric power steering to give the driver more feel. It’s all essential for a solid driving experience, but it can become a bit grouchy at slower speeds so you find yourself changing the driving mode to suit.

“Econ” mode is used for best efficiency and fuel economy. The throttle is numbed and less responsive so you don’t fly away from the lights, the air-conditioning is given a rest and the dashboard changes colour to a red mist when you start getting wasteful with the fuel. This mode is better suited for traffic and commuting, as the looser throttle lends to a more comfortable driving experience.

“Normal” achieves the best of both worlds and is what people will probably use most of the time, as “Sport” mode can be a bit aggressive all of the time.

The driving modes have one more trick up their sleeve in the shape of Eco Assist. Together with the “Econ” mode, the CR-Z uses Eco Assist to help educate drivers to achieve high fuel economy and therefore minimise exhaust emissions
and time and money at the pumps, through illuminating various displays with a rainbow’s worth of colour. This is a system transferred from the CR-Z’s bigger brother, the Honda Insight. Eco Assist can be treated as an Eco Tamogotchi and it can become a very addictive interactive experience. Small leaves will “grow” above the bar in the digital
display to show the driver’s eco progress, with more leaves and eventually a flower added if the system records a “perfect” score.

There is also an orbing light centred around the rev gauge which changes from a happy green if you are driving efficiently, to a moody blue, to an angry red if you are driving really inefficiently.

The CR-Z is also fitted with a shift indicator light (SIL), which alerts the driver to shift up or down at the most efficient time. Eco Assist, combined with the SIL, can improve fuel consumption by up to 10 per cent and leave you becoming incredibly geeky about your fuel consumption. On a 600-mile journey, I averaged 49 miles per gallon on mixed terrain whilst trying out all the driving modes.

So is the CR-Z a gamechanger? Yes it is. Its schizophrenic nature will help it to appeal to a new breed of drivers and even some to some critics of early hybrids, as it is a solid driver’s car. Starting at £17,000, it is also the cheapest and greenest car in comparison to its rivals, the VW Scirocco and Peugot RCZ.

Honda set out to make a sporty hybrid and many people, including me, thought that was just a hyperbolic oxymoron. But it is not an oxymoron. It is reality, and I want one.

The report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the DOE doesn’t currently have a system in place for assessing the maturity of various carbon-cutting technologies that could be used at coal plants.

“This lack of information limits congressional oversight of DOE’s expenditures on these efforts, and it hampers policymakers’ efforts to gauge the maturity of these technologies as they consider climate change policies,” the report stated.

Based on their own independent research, GAO investigators concluded that efficiency improvements to help coal plants use less coal are both more mature and more widely used than carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. While CCS is viewed as key to allowing us to continue burning cheap and readily available coal without making climate change even worse, the actual technologies have a long way to go before they’re likely to see widespread commercial adoption, the report found.

“While all of the components of CCS — CO2 capture, transportation and storage — have been used commercially in other industries, such as natural gas processing and oil production, stakeholders generally reported that the application of these technologies remains at small scale in coal plants,” the GAO report stated. “Moreover, stakeholders identified only one integrated CCS system in a coal power plant — the Mountaineer Plant in West Virginia — which aims to capture and store more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2.  This project captures CO2 from a portion of the plant’s exhaust — 20 megawatts or about 4 per cent the size of a typical 500-megawatt coal plant.”

The report also pointed to two key obstacles standing in the way of carbon capture and storage: the lack of a national policy for cutting carbon dioxide emissions and unresolved liability issues concerning the storage of large amounts of carbon dioxide.

The GAO recommends that the Energy Department begin assessing the various carbon-reducing technologies for coal plants using Technology Readiness Levels, or TRLs, such as those used by NASA and the Department of Defense. TRLs rank the viability of technologies on a numerical scale with, for example, 1 being “Basic principles observed” and 9 being “Commercial operation in relevant environment.”

In a response to the study sent back to the GAO by the DOE, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy James Markowsky wrote that, while the department to “some exception” to the report, his office did acknowledge that it “could improve upon its current process of providing a clearer picture of technology maturity.” He added that his office would commit to developing a corrective action plan and would report back to Congress regularly on its progress in that area.

Hosted by US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, the gathering was organised to find ways to accelerate the world’s transition to clean-energy technologies.

“(T)oday we’re launching a global energy efficiency challenge,” Chu said in his opening remarks. “This initiative includes appliances, buildings, vehicles and the smart grid. All these things can transform the way we use and save energy.”

In addition to the global initiatives, Chu also announced today that the Department of Energy has set a new policy in which, wherever it makes economic sense, agency buildings with flat roofs due for replacement with be replaced with white surfaces that reduce cooling costs and reflect sunlight back into space. (The programme includes flat roofs only to avoid aesthetic complaints from those who don’t like light-coloured roofs.) Chu said the policy also aims to encourage other government agencies to pursue similar strategies.

Following a meeting of government delegations on Monday, the Clean Energy Ministerial continues today with several panel discussions featuring government ministers, corporate CEOs and other leading thinkers in clean energy. The discussions will focus on such topics as energy efficiency and the smart grid, clean energy supply and energy access.

Among the countries invited to participate are Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, China, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates and the UK. Together, these nations represent 70 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, 80 per cent of global gross domestic product and 80 per cent of the world market for clean-energy technologies.

US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the host of the meeting, later announced one initiative — lighter-colored paint on the roof of the Energy Department headquarters along with other agency buildings outside of Washington.

He said the project, to begin this summer, would better cool buildings and reflect more of the sun’s heat, leading to thousands of dollars in annual savings on air-conditioning.

“Cool roofs are one of the quickest and lowest cost ways we can reduce our global carbon emissions and begin the hard work of slowing climate change,” Chu said, adding that he would recommend that other US departments follow suit.

Delegates said the two-day meeting was likely to announce joint initiatives, although it was unclear how specific they would be.

One area of discussions will be on how to develop a cleaner form of coal, which makes up more than a quarter of the global energy supply and is politically sensitive in the United States and China, the top two polluters.

The clean energy meeting, which Chu expected to be the first of several, is an offshoot of the US-led Major Economies Forum, which brings key nations together to seek progress on fighting climate change.

Negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, whose requirements for nations to cut emissions run out at the end of 2012, have been hamstrung by disputes over how much to demand of both developed and emerging economies.

The countries taking part in the clean energy talks are Australia, Brazil, Britain, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the United Arab Emirates and the United States.

The European Union is also participating, along with a number of international organizations.

The Clean Energy Ministerial is being launched as an annual event, with future gatherings set to be held next year in the United Arab Emirates and in the United Kingdom in 2012.

Greenbang readers I have failed you. But let me explain.

The farmhouse is a grade two listed building and is located within the Northumberland National Park. There has been very little innovation incorporated into the fabric of the building during the past 300 years or so.

Our bid to renovate the building around eco principles was never going to be easy.

Solar: planners say no

Solar technology was dismissed at the outset. Panels on the roof might reduce the environmental footprint of the building but aesthetically they’d be a dog. That’s the view of the planners, by the way, and not my view.

Ground-source heating would be a good alternative but would require us to make the building airtight. Old buildings need to breathe to stop the ancient timbers from rotting. Besides, the historical listing meant that double glazing was never going to be a possibility.

Planning law in the UK favours historic significance over any other design consideration. We even had debates about the appropriate level of roof insulation so as not to cover some of the timbers.

Making fire

Biomass seemed like a worthwhile endeavour and resulted in several late-night debates. It is undoubtedly a laudable heating solution but in my view it simply isn’t ready for the domestic market.

The boilers are almost 10 times the cost of their oil or gas counterparts and look like the back end of a tractor. They take up a significant amount of physical space, especially with the storage of pellets or logs.

Wood-burning stoves have proved to be our most promising eco technology and we’ve installed three. They are beasts of machines, and each is able to kick out several kilowatts of heat energy. Fortunately, we have a local supply of wood.

Seeking skills

What’s really disappointing is that we have failed to combine any of the stoves with a back boiler system to feed into either the central heating or hot water system. Technically, it’s possible but we didn’t manage to find a plumber or heating engineer who could incorporate a system within the fabric of our building.

And so I regret to say we still have an oil boiler. It’s ruthlessly efficient and works solely on demand but it burns oil nonetheless.

Editor’s note: Two years ago, Stephen Waddington moved with his family from Ealing, London, to rural Northumberland. He joins the Greenbang team to write an occasional feature about his family’s attempts to renovate a 300-year-old farmhouse and live by eco principles.

Stephen is the managing director of Speed, a London-based multi-sector PR firm. He splits his time between London and his home in Northumberland. You can follow him on Twitter at @wadds.

Not only have they been wrong, new research suggests, but the real cause of phytoplankton blooms comes with a disturbing implication, one that suggests oceans warmed by climate change could end up being far less productive in years to come.

“The old theory made common sense and seemed to explain what people were seeing,” said Michael Behrenfeld, a botanist at Oregon State University whose new study is published in the journal Ecology. However, far more detailed, year-round data from satellites indicates that old theory is based on an incomplete picture of what really happens in the oceans.

The 1953 “critical depth hypothesis,” long a fundamental concept in ocean science, stated that phytoplankton begin blooming in the late spring and early summer because longer, brighter days warm the sea’s surface. Because that warm layer floats above colder water, the theory went, less water is mixed vertically by the wind and phytoplankton can thrive at the surface.

Only that’s not what happens, Behrenfeld has found. Considered one of the world’s leading experts in using remote sensing technology to examine ocean productivity, Behrenfeld analysed nine years’ worth of satellite data to determine that the phytoplankton population actually begins growing rapidly in mid-winter when conditions are still cold and dark.

The population booster for phytoplankton, Behrenfeld says, isn’t a top layer of warm sunny water but, rather, the fact that winter storms churn up the seas and mix the top layers with cold, near-lifeless water from below. That dilution helps put a greater distance between the phytoplankton and the zooplankton — tiny marine animals — that eat them, allowing the microscopic plants’ numbers to grow.

After the storms of winter come to an end, the phytoplankton do benefit from the warmer, sunny waters. However, they’re also once again in closer proximity to the predator zooplankton, which continue munching away at the same rates they did in colder weather.

“To understand phytoplankton abundance, we’ve been paying way too much attention to phytoplankton growth and way too little attention to loss rates, particularly consumption by zooplankton,” Behrenfeld said. “When zooplankton are abundant and can find food, they eat phytoplankton almost as fast as it grows.”

The summertime phytoplankton blooms end with a crash when the nutrients they need run out and the remaining populations are devoured by zooplankton.

Behrenfeld calls the process the “dilution-recoupling hypothesis.” And, if it’s right, it could mean we’ll start seeing far fewer fish and other food sources coming from the oceans as the planet keeps warming.

Where the old phytoplankton theory suggested ocean productivity would increase as the water got warmer, the new theory points to the opposite result. More stratified, warmer ocean water would mean less wintertime mixing … which, according to the dilution-recoupling hypothesis means less phytoplankton and less food for everybody up the marine food chain.

And that could be a big problem, considering that some of the oceans regions with large seasonal phytoplankton blooms are also among the world’s most productive fisheries.

Knowing for sure what future fishery production might be like will require more study and research Behrenfeld said. But anyone who’s been basing their predictions on the old theory of why phytoplankton bloom will have to re-start from square one.