From the Robert Bryce Substack

Once again, nuclear energy is absent from the Democratic Party Platform and it’s gone missing at the same time China is accelerating its nuclear buildout. Plus, radio and podcast hits.

About 15 years ago, I visited a high-ranking official at the Department of Energy at his office in Washington. We chatted for 30 minutes about the obstacles facing nuclear energy deployment in the US, including Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, supply chains, and the need for a stable fuel supply. Toward the end of our conversation, he said that one of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is that it needs bipartisan support in Congress. That hasn’t happened because “Democrats are pro-government and anti-nuclear,” he said. Meanwhile, “Republicans are pro-nuclear and anti-government.”

To be clear, Democrats have been more vocal recently in their support for nuclear energy. In June, during an appearance at the Plant Vogtle in Georgia, where two new 1-gigawatt nuclear reactors have come online, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said, “We have to at least triple our current nuclear capacity in this country.” Also in June, the Senate passed, by a vote of 88 to 2, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, which aims to speed up the federal process for approving and deploying new reactors. (Ed Markey, the Democrat from Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, were the only senators to vote no on the measure.)  Last month, President Biden signed that bill into law.

The passage of the ADVANCE Act (and Granholm’s rhetoric) will give a much-needed boost to the domestic nuclear sector. But don’t expect to hear the words “nuclear energy” during the final two days of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Nor will you find a single mention of nuclear energy in the just-released Democratic Party Platform. Alas, this isn’t surprising.

The omission of nuclear energy in the party’s platform shows, yet again, that while Democrats are making climate change a top talking point — the word “climate” appears 81 times in the 92-page platform — the Democratic Party is still firmly in the grip of big anti-nuclear NGOs that operate on $100 million+ annual budgets. Those groups, which include Sierra Club, NRDC, and League of Conservation Voters, are integral to the party’s fundraising and get-out-the-vote effort. Those same NGOs continue to insist that the US can run its economy on alt-energy. Thus, the party’s top leaders dare not risk alienating them.

Indeed, as I explained in May, renewable energy fetishism dominates the Left’s approach to energy. The word “solar” appears nine times in the party’s platform, wind energy gets two mentions, and “clean energy” — the catch-all marketing term that has become the rationale for hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare under the Inflation Reduction Act — appears 44 times. (The word “Trump” appears 150 times!)

The omission of nuclear energy in the 2024 Democratic Party Platform means that over the past 52 years, nuclear power has received only one positive mention in its platform. That mention occurred in 2020. I wrote about it four years ago in Forbes:

It took five decades, but the Democratic Party has finally changed its stance on nuclear energy. In its recently released party platform, the Democrats say they favor a “technology-neutral” approach that includes “all zero-carbon technologies, including hydroelectric power, geothermal, existing and advanced nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.” That statement marks the first time since 1972 that the Democratic Party has said anything positive in its platform about nuclear energy. The change in policy is good — and long overdue — news for the American nuclear-energy sector and for everyone concerned about climate change. 

Before going further, I must note that the Republicans aren’t exactly jumping up and down over nuclear energy. In its 16-page platform, the GOP mentions it just once, saying, “Republicans will unleash Energy Production from all sources, including nuclear, to immediately slash Inflation and power American homes, cars, and factories with reliable, abundant, and affordable Energy.”

So why does this matter? There are four reasons.

First, China and other countries are leaping ahead of the US in terms of nuclear energy. Earlier this week, China announced it will spend $31 billion to build 11 new reactors over the next five years. The new projects include a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor in Jiangsu province. The US has led the world in nuclear technology since the end of World War II. And yet, we now risk being technological laggards in deploying new nuclear technology. According to the IAEA, China now has 28.5 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity under construction. The US, again, according to the IAEA, has no reactors under construction.

Second, there is no chance for large-scale decarbonization of the global economy without nuclear energy, and lots of it. Last December, during COP28 in Dubai, the US and more than 20 other countries signed a pledge to triple nuclear energy production by 2050. The first sentence of the declaration “recognizes the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” The US delegation led the push to get countries to sign the declaration. So why aren’t Democrats touting their own effort?

Pew’s August 5 report shows the increase in support for nuclear energy.

Third, while polls show a tight race between Harris and Trump, the majority of Americans, some 56%, favor nuclear energy. An August 5 poll from the Pew Research Center found support for nuclear has soared over the past four years:

Americans remain more likely to favor expanding solar power (78%) and wind power (72%) than nuclear power. Yet while support for solar and wind power has declined by double digits since 2020 — largely driven by drops in Republican support — the share who favor nuclear power has grown by 13 percentage points over that span.

Fourth, the bully pulpit matters. If the US is going to revive its nuclear sector — an industry that has been withering for the past three decades — the public needs to hear about it from the country’s top leaders. Alas, that hasn’t happened at the convention in Chicago. And given the absence of nuclear energy in the Democrats’ platform, there’s no reason to expect to hear anything about nuclear tonight or tomorrow night.

The sudden decline in the snow crab population in the Bering Sea has triggered considerable concern among scientists, fisheries, and environmentalists alike. The collapse is alarming not only because of its immediate economic impact but also due to the broader implications for marine ecosystems. However, a critical examination of the prevailing explanations for this phenomenon reveals a troubling reliance on speculation rather than solid evidence. The central thesis of the NOAA Fisheries report—that warmer water temperatures increased snow crab metabolism, leading to their downfall—requires a more skeptical analysis. In this post, we’ll explore the weaknesses of this hypothesis, examine other plausible causes, and argue for a more comprehensive approach to understanding this ecological mystery.

The Metabolism Hypothesis: A Weak Foundation

However, scientists suspect that warmer water temperatures increased snow crab metabolism.

Unfortunately, available prey in the wild were insufficient to meet these new caloric demands. This effect may have been magnified by increasing crab density as the stock contracted to occupy shrinking cold-water habitat. 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/snow-crab-collapse-due-ecological-shift-bering-sea

The core argument presented by NOAA Fisheries is that rising sea temperatures increased the metabolic rate of snow crabs, thereby boosting their caloric needs. According to the report, the available prey in the wild was insufficient to meet these new demands, leading to a population collapse. While this idea may seem intuitively plausible, it rests on a shaky foundation of assumptions rather than robust empirical data.

Firstly, the premise that warmer waters necessarily lead to significantly higher metabolic rates in snow crabs, resulting in increased food requirements, is not remotely substantiated. In general, it is true that ectothermic (cold-blooded) organisms experience higher metabolic rates in warmer environments. However, the report does not provide specific data on how much the metabolism of snow crabs actually increased under the conditions in the Bering Sea. Was this increase marginal or substantial? Without precise or even any measurements, this argument remains completely speculative. The relationship between temperature and metabolism is not linear, and various factors, such as the availability of food and the specific thermal tolerances of the species, can modulate this response.

Moreover, the report fails to account for the ecological adaptability of snow crabs. Like many marine species, snow crabs are known to exhibit behavioral and physiological adaptations to environmental changes. For instance, crabs may reduce their activity levels to conserve energy when food is scarce, or they may shift their feeding strategies to exploit different types of prey. The assumption that snow crabs would simply succumb to increased metabolic demands without any adaptive response seems overly simplistic. It overlooks the complex interactions between physiology, behavior, and environment that characterize the lives of these animals.

This logic is the classic version of the drunk looking under the lamppost for their lost keys because that’s the only area where he can see. In this case, Climate Change is the lamp.

“It’s really this combination of factors working together that caused the snow crab collapse,” said Litzow. “All of these factors are a result of climate change brought about by human activity since the start of the industrial revolution in the early 1900s. They indicate a wholesale transition towards boreal conditions in the southeast Bering Sea during these warm years.”

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/snow-crab-collapse-due-ecological-shift-bering-sea

Ignoring Other Plausible Explanations

The metabolism hypothesis is not the only potential explanation for the snow crab decline, yet the report largely ignores other factors that could have played a significant role. This narrow focus is problematic, as it risks attributing the collapse to a single cause without fully exploring the broader ecological context.

One alternative explanation involves changes in predation pressure. The Bering Sea is home to various predators of snow crabs, including Pacific cod and other fish species. In recent years, populations of some of these predators have increased, potentially exerting more pressure on snow crab populations. Increased predation could reduce the number of adult crabs, leading to a decline in reproduction and, eventually, a population collapse. The report mentions nothing about changes in predator populations or their potential impact on snow crabs, leaving a significant gap in the analysis.

Another potential factor is overfishing. While the snow crab fishery is regulated, it is possible that past overfishing or illegal fishing activities have weakened the population, making it more vulnerable to environmental changes. Fisheries management often relies on stock assessments that can be imprecise, particularly in fluctuating environments like the Bering Sea. If the snow crab population was already under stress from overfishing, even a slight environmental change could have pushed it over the edge. Again, the report does not thoroughly investigate this possibility.

Additionally, environmental changes other than temperature could be influencing the snow crab population. For example, shifts in ocean currents, changes in the availability of specific prey species, or alterations in habitat conditions could all contribute to the observed decline. Marine ecosystems are inherently complex, with many interdependent factors, and isolating one variable as the primary cause of a population collapse is fraught with difficulties. The report’s failure to consider a broader range of environmental variables limits its explanatory power.

The Assumption of Limited Habitat

The report also posits that the snow crab population became more concentrated in shrinking cold-water habitats as the Bering Sea warmed, exacerbating the effects of increased metabolic demands. This idea hinges on the assumption that snow crabs are highly dependent on specific cold-water habitats and are unable or unwilling to migrate to other suitable areas. However, this assumption may not hold true.

Snow crabs are known to migrate seasonally and in response to environmental changes. They have been observed moving to deeper waters or different regions in search of more favorable conditions. If suitable habitats were available elsewhere in the Bering Sea, it is possible that at least some portion of the population could have relocated rather than remaining in a shrinking habitat and suffering the consequences. The report does not explore this possibility, nor does it provide data on the availability of alternative habitats or the actual movements of the snow crabs during the period of decline.

Furthermore, if snow crabs did not migrate, this could indicate other underlying stressors that are not related to temperature. Barriers to migration, such as physical obstacles, changes in habitat quality, or disruptions in migration cues, could have played a role. Alternatively, if the crabs were already weakened by other factors—such as disease or genetic issues—they might not have been able to respond to environmental changes as they normally would. These possibilities are not considered in the report, leaving us with an incomplete understanding of the situation.

The Problem with Singular Explanations

The reliance on a single explanation for the snow crab collapse—warmer waters leading to increased metabolism—reflects a broader problem in ecological and environmental studies. Complex phenomena are often oversimplified, with one factor being highlighted at the expense of others. This approach can lead to misguided conclusions and, ultimately, ineffective management strategies.

Marine ecosystems, like all ecological systems, are characterized by intricate interactions between multiple biotic and abiotic factors. Temperature is certainly an important variable, but it is not the only one, and its effects cannot be fully understood in isolation. By focusing primarily on temperature and metabolism, the NOAA report risks ignoring other critical drivers of population dynamics, such as predation, disease, fishing pressure, and habitat changes.

Moreover, attributing the snow crab collapse to a single cause may inadvertently lead to policy decisions that fail to address the true complexity of the problem. If management efforts are based on the assumption that reducing water temperatures (an unrealistic goal in the short term) or managing metabolic rates (an impossible task) are the keys to solving the problem, other vital issues may be neglected. For instance, addressing overfishing, improving predator management, or enhancing habitat conservation could be more effective strategies for ensuring the long-term sustainability of snow crab populations.

The Need for a More Comprehensive Approach

To fully understand the reasons behind the snow crab collapse, we need a more comprehensive and nuanced approach. This means moving beyond simplistic explanations and considering a wider range of factors that could be influencing the population. It also means collecting more robust data on the various potential causes, including temperature changes, predator-prey dynamics, fishing practices, and habitat conditions.

One possible avenue for future research could involve detailed studies on the metabolic rates of snow crabs under different environmental conditions. This would help clarify the extent to which temperature changes truly impact the crabs’ caloric needs and how these changes interact with other ecological factors. Additionally, tracking the movements and distribution of snow crabs in relation to temperature shifts could provide valuable insights into their adaptive behaviors and habitat preferences.

Another important step is to conduct thorough investigations into the role of predators and fishing pressure in the snow crab collapse. This could involve population modeling and historical analyses to determine whether increases in predator populations or changes in fishing practices correspond with the observed decline in snow crabs. Such studies would help to identify whether these factors are contributing to the problem and how they might be mitigated.

Finally, a more integrated approach to fisheries management is needed—one that considers the entire ecosystem rather than focusing on a single species or factor. This could involve implementing more precautionary fishing limits, enhancing habitat protection efforts, and developing adaptive management strategies that can respond to changing environmental conditions. By taking a broader view of the problem, we can develop more effective solutions that address the root causes of the snow crab collapse rather than just the symptoms.

Conclusion

The decline of the snow crab population in the Bering Sea is undoubtedly a serious issue, with significant ecological and economic implications. However, the current explanations for this collapse, as presented by NOAA Fisheries, are based on speculative assumptions and a narrow focus on temperature-induced metabolic changes. This approach overlooks other plausible causes and fails to capture the complexity of marine ecosystems.

To truly understand and address the snow crab collapse, we must adopt a more skeptical and comprehensive approach. This means questioning unproven assumptions, considering alternative explanations, and gathering more robust data on the various factors that could be influencing the population. By doing so, we can develop more effective management strategies that will help to ensure the long-term sustainability of snow crab populations and the health of the Bering Sea ecosystem as a whole.

In the end, the lesson here is one of caution: when faced with ecological mysteries, we must resist the temptation to jump to conclusions based on incomplete evidence. Instead, we should embrace the complexity of nature and strive to understand it in all its facets. Only then can we hope to develop solutions that are as nuanced and adaptive as the ecosystems we seek to protect.

The article Snow Crab Collapse Due to Ecological Shift in the Bering Sea from NOAA can be found here.

H/T Steve