What do they mean by the term ‘ocean sprawl?’

Dear EarthTalk: I recently heard the term “ocean sprawl,” which was a new one on me. We all know “sprawl” as it manifests itself above sea level. But in the oceans? Can you enlighten?

Bill Chadwick

Nantucket, Mass.

We are all familiar by now with “urban sprawl” — the uncontrolled spread of urban development into areas beyond the city. But environmentalists warn that the next frontier in sprawl is on the high seas, where the proliferation of fishing, shipping, tourism, resource extraction, energy development, military exercises and other human activity has begun to call into question just how vast our oceans really are. 

According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), our oceans are already under siege from problems like pollution, overfishing and acidification, and increased industrial activity off-shore — leading to so-called “ocean sprawl” — will jeopardize the food, jobs and recreation we have come to depend on the oceans to provide. It’s hard to believe, given how much planning goes into various types of development and human activity on land, that the oceans are still like the Wild West — with various entities staking claims on huge stretches of open water for different purposes.

A promising approach to combat ocean sprawl is called coastal and marine spatial planning (CMSP), a form of zoning for the seas to help define who can do what and where. Says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency charged with predicting changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts, CMSP “identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security and social objectives.” 

“Marine planning places sound science and the best available information at the heart of decision-making and brings federal, state, tribal and other partners together to cooperatively develop coastal and marine spatial plans,” continues NOAA. “This process is designed to decrease user conflict, improve planning and regulatory efficiencies, decrease associated costs and delays, engage affected communities and stakeholders, and preserve critical ecosystem functions and services.”

President Obama’s 2010 National Ocean Policy directs NOAA and other federal agencies to work with ocean users, industries and coastal communities on ways to implement CMSP in America’s off-shore waters to prevent ocean sprawl at home while setting an example for other nations around the world. Nine regional planning bodies are currently tasked with developing detailed plans for their own regions by early 2015, at which point federal policy makers will begin to coordinate implementation.

In response to momentum on CMSP, a coalition of industries including offshore energy, shipping, fisheries, recreation, mining and others formed the World Ocean Council to have a say in how and where marine spatial planning is implemented. The group organized a National Business Forum on Marine Spatial Planning in 2011 and will take part in a World Ocean Summit in San Francisco in February 2014.

Those of us who appreciate the sea certainly hope that CMSP and other approaches will succeed in turning the tide for oceans and not be undermined by special interests only concerned with bottom lines.

Contacts: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; NOAA Coastal & Marine Spatial Planning, www.msp.noaa.gov; World Ocean Council, www.oceancouncil.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What are “dark factories” and are they good for the environment?

Mitchell Pearson

Erie, Pa.

So-called dark factories — otherwise known as “lights out” or “automatic” factories — are manufacturing facilities that do not depend on human labor to get work done. While they may have some benefits for the environment they are certainly not beneficial overall considering the impact widespread adoption would have on needed jobs.

Without human line workers, such factories can operate without lights, heating and cooling and other “amenities” required by human workers. Of course, very few such facilities are completely automated, as human workers are usually required to set up equipment or remove completed parts. And some run “lights-out” between human labor shifts or as separate shifts to meet increasing demand or save money.

And while the up-front costs of setting up automated work routines manned by robots and other machines may be higher than setting up a traditional factory, on-going expenses can be significantly less given the lack of human payroll and other human-centric outlays.

The first dark factories started appearing in Japan in the 1980s as companies there started to take advantage of improvements in the technology of robotics and automation to get around the high costs of human labor. At that time, business analysts predicted then that as technology improved and qualified workers became harder to find and more expensive to support, dark factories would become more prevalent around the world. But in the interim the spread of manufacturing to developing nations with cheap human labor may have temporarily forestalled the rise of dark factories. Also, General Motors’ unsuccessful implementation of automated manufacturing in the 1980s — quality declined and sales fell accordingly — soured many big companies on the concept back then.

That said, there are many thriving examples of dark factories around the world. Many machine shops in the U.S. run “unattended” all or part of the time. Robots are commonplace now in the auto industry despite GM’s faltering early on. Amazon.com makes extensive use of robotic systems in its distribution centers and last year even acquired the company behind the technology, Kiva Systems, for $775 million in cash. In Japan, FANUC Robotics operates a lights-out factory employing robots to make other robots. Japanese camera giant Canon recently announced that it is phasing out human workers at several camera factories by 2015. And in the Netherlands, Philips produces electric razors in a facility with 128 robots and nine human quality assurance workers. 

While widespread adoption, lights-out manufacturing could deliver substantial energy savings and thus be environmentally beneficial, but analysts wonder whether replacing human laborers with computers, machines and robots is a good thing for humanity overall. According to NaturalNews.com editor Mike Adams, the rise of automation is more likely to sharply divide the economic classes and cause widespread strife. “Those who are replaced by robots will become jobless and homeless,” he explains. “Those whose lives are enriched by the benefit of the robots will become abundantly wealthy in the material quality of their lives.”

Contacts: FANUC Robotics, www.fanucrobotics.com; Kiva Systems, www.kivasystems.com; SingularityHub, www.singularityhub.com, NaturalNews.com, www.naturalnews.com.

EarthTalk is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com.