PARIS (AFP) - The dramatic proliferation of jellyfish in oceans around the world, driven by overfishing and climate change, is a sure sign of ecosystems out of kilter, warn experts.

"Jellyfish are an excellent bellwether for the environment," explains Jacqueline Goy, of the Oceanographic Institute of Paris. "The more jellyfish, the stronger the signal that something has changed."

Brainless creatures composed almost entirely of water, the primitive animals have quietly filled a vacuum created by the voracious human appetite for fish.

Dislodging them will be difficult, marine biologists say.

"Jellyfish have come to occupy the place of many other species," notes Ricardo Aguilar, research director for Oceana, a international conservation organisation.

Nowhere is the sting of these poorly understood invertebrates felt more sharply than the Mediterranean basin, where their exploding numbers have devastated native marine species and threaten seaside tourism.

And while much about the lampshade-like creatures remains unknown, scientists are in agreement: Pelagia noctiluca -- whose tentacles can paralyse prey and cause burning rashes in humans -- will once again besiege Mediterranean coastal waters this summer.

That, in itself, is not unusual. It is the frequency and persistence of these appearances that worry scientists.

Two centuries worth of data shows that jellyfish populations naturally swell every 12 years, remain stable four or six years, and then subside.

2008, however, will be the eighth consecutive year that medusae, as they are also known, will be present in massive numbers.

The over-exploitation of ocean resources by man has helped create a near-perfect environment in which these most primitive of ocean creatures can multiply unchecked, scientists say.

"When vertebrates, such as fish, disappear, then invertebrates -- especially jellyfish -- appear," says Aguilar.

The collapse of fish populations boost this process in two important ways, he added. When predators such as tuna, sharks, and turtles vanish, not only do fewer jellyfish get eaten, they have less competition for food.

Jellyfish feed on small fish and zooplankton that get caught up in their dangling tentacles.

"Jellyfish both compete with fish for plankton food, and predate directly on fish," explains Andrew Brierley from the University of St Andrews in Scotland. "It is hard, therefore, to see a way back for fish once jellyfish have become established, even if commercial fishing is reduced."

Which is why Brierley and other experts were not surprised to find a huge surge in the number of jellyfish off the coast of Namibia in the Atlantic, one of the most intensely fished oceans in the world.

Climate change has also been a boon to these domed gelatinous creatures in so far as warmer waters prolong their reproductive cycles.

But just how many millions, or billions, of jellyfish roam the seas is nearly impossible to know, said scientists.

For one things, the boneless, translucent animals -- even big ones grouped in large swarms -- are hard to spot in satellite images or sonar soundings, unlike schools of fish.

They are also resist study in captivity, which means a relative paucity of academic studies.

"There are only 20 percent of species of jellyfish for which we know the life cycle," said Goy.

And the fact that jellyfish are not commercially exploited, with the exception of a few species eaten by gastronomes in East Asia, has also added to this benign neglect.

But the measurable impact of these stinging beasts on beach-based tourism along the Mediterranean has begun to spur greater interest in these peculiar creatures whose growing presence points to dangerous changes not just in the world's oceans, but on the ground and in the air as well.

_________________
"There's no law, no law anymore - I wanna steal from the rich and give to the poor."
~The Ramones~

Exxon Valdez $2.5 billion oil spill ruling overturned By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out the record $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) had been ordered to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, the nation's worst tanker spill.

By a 5-3 vote, the high court ruled that the punitive damages award should be slashed -- limited by the circumstances of the case to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million.

The justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. Court of Appeals that had awarded the record punitive damages to about 32,000 commercial fishermen, Alaska natives, property owners and others harmed by the nation's worst tanker spill.

In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter concluded the $2.5 billion in punitive damages was excessive under federal maritime law, and should be cut to the amount of actual harm.

Soaring oil prices have propelled Exxon Mobil to previously unforeseen levels of profitability in recent years; the company posted earnings of $40.6 billion in 2007.

It took Exxon Mobil just under two days to bring in $2.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2007.

The Exxon Valdez supertanker ran aground in Alaska's Prince William Sound in March 1989, spilling about 11 million gallons of crude oil.

The spill spread oil to more than 1,200 miles of coastline, closed fisheries and killed thousands of marine mammals and hundreds of thousands of sea birds.

A federal jury in Alaska awarded $5 billion in punitive damages in 1994. A federal judge later reduced the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, and the appeals court further cut it to $2.5 billion.

Exxon Mobil, the largest U.S. company by market capitalization, then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing it already had paid more than $3.5 billion for the spill.

Souter rejected Exxon Mobil's argument that the federal clean water law's water pollution penalties preempt punitive damage awards in maritime spill cases. But he sided with the company in reducing the award.

"We ... hold that the federal statutory law does not bar a punitive award on top of damages for economic loss, but that the award here should be limited to an amount equal to compensatory damages," he said.

DISAPPOINTMENT IN ALASKA

In Alaska, Riki Ott, a fisherman and scientist and longtime environmental activist in the Prince William Sound town of Cordova, where most of the area's fishing fleet is concentrated, was disappointed by the ruling.

"We were really counting on punitive damages paying for our long-term losses in the fishery. That's obviously not going to happen," Ott said. "Well, that's an affront to everyone's sense of justice."

Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said: "This is good news for companies concerned about reining in excessive punitive damages." The business group said the ruling could have an impact far beyond federal maritime law.

John Passacantando, executive director of the environmental group Greenpeace USA, said the ruling "makes a mockery of justice" and added: "The worst environmental calamity in U.S. history will continue to haunt the Prince William Sound and those dependent upon it for their livelihoods."

Company lawyers had called the $2.5 billion the largest punitive damage award ever affirmed by a federal appellate court -- larger than the total of all punitive damage awards upheld by federal appellate courts in U.S. history.

The case was decided by eight Supreme Court members. The ninth, Justice Samuel Alito, who owns Exxon Mobil stock, recused himself from the case.

Dissenting Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would have upheld the award. Stevens and Ginsburg said Congress, not the court, should set limits on punitive damages under maritime law.

Breyer said this was no ordinary reckless behavior case.

RELAPSED ALCOHOLIC

"The jury could reasonably have believed that Exxon knowingly allowed a relapsed alcoholic repeatedly to pilot a vessel filled with millions of gallons of oil through waters that provided the livelihood for the many plaintiffs in this case," he said.

"Given that conduct, it was only a matter of time before a crash and spill like this occurred," Breyer said.

Exxon has not set aside any legal reserves for possible damages as the company has argued that it was not possible to predict the ultimate outcome. The ruling will likely take a small bite out of upcoming earnings.

Immediately after the ruling was announced, Exxon Mobil shares dropped around 80 cents, or just less than 1 percent.

But the company's shares later recovered and were up 18 cents at $87.10 each in early afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The ruling could create a new public relations challenge for Exxon, which is already facing heat from Congress and consumers because of high gasoline prices.

"They are already being vilified in the news because of their profits," said Argus Research analyst Phil Weiss, who said the company's tenacious legal defense was good for its shareholders.

"But if I'm a consumer who doesn't own Exxon stock and doesn't care about Exxon stock, I'm looking at the money I'm paying to put gas in my tank and thinking 'Here they are, taking advantage of somebody else,"' Weiss said.

(Additional reporting by Michael Erman in New York and Yereth Rosen in Alaska)

(Editing by Dave Zimmerman and Gerald E. McCormick)

Here's a recent collection that's made a big splash in the SF community. It's about the economic and ecological future of America and the rest of the world and the stories are described as having more in common with horror rather than science fiction.

http://www.amazon.com/Pump-Other-Storie ... 736&sr=1-1

_________________
Well, there have been a couple of flipper babies...yeah.

I think Sarah Langan's first two novels can be called ecological horror.

Skipp had one called 'The Cleanup" I think. I also think that he had another one, maybe called Prophesy? I read them so long ago my memory is a bit faded on them. Though I think they made Prophesy into a movie.

And who can forget The Toxic Avenger? Remember Troma?

Tt

There's a movie new out on dvd called The Last Winter and the plot sounded similiar to Tim Lebbon's The White, another eco horror.

Lebbon wrote another one called The Nature of Balance that was kind of an eco horror.

A tense and creepy one I never hear anyone talk about is The Portent by Marilyn Harriss.

_________________
Well, there have been a couple of flipper babies...yeah.

_________________
"There's no law, no law anymore - I wanna steal from the rich and give to the poor."
~The Ramones~

_________________
Scottish by birth, British by law,
Highlander by the grace of God

Australian climate report like 'disaster novel': minister Sun Jul 6, 5:39 AM ET

SYDNEY (AFP) - Heatwaves, less rain and increased drought are the likely prospect for Australia, according to a new report on climate change which the agriculture minister said read like a "disaster novel".

The report, by the Bureau of Meteorology and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, found that the world's driest inhabited continent is likely to suffer more extreme temperatures due to climate change.

It said that exceptionally hot years, which once occurred every 20 to 25 years, were more likely to hit every one or two years. And the hotter weather could begin as soon as 2010.

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke said the assessment indicated that the risk of drought would double, as would the area of Australia declared to be in drought.

"Parts of these high level projections read more like a disaster novel than a scientific report," he told reporters.

"What's clear is that the cycle of drought is going to be more regular and deeper than ever."

The report is part of a government review of drought policy.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said the report, which found that the area of Australia having an exceptionally hot year could increase from just under five percent to as much as 95 percent, was "very disturbing".

"The analysis shows that the extent and frequency of exceptionally hot years have been increasing rapidly over recent decades and this trend is expected to continue," the report concluded.

Rainfall, which has been falling since the 1950s -- partly due to climate change -- is also likely to decline with southern Australia and the southern island of Tasmania among the worst affected, it said.