Forget about climate change for a minute.

I know, I know. It's tough to do. Especially with Earth Day upon us, along with the hundreds of corporate commercials and PR campaigns associated with it, touting everything from zero emission cars to the elimination of waste.

But there's a more pressing and serious issue: peak blue crab.

Once thought an unlimited resource, blue crabs have been harvested at maximum possible levels for years. Their succulent meat is used not only in its original state, but also refined into other, value-added products.

It seemed as if there was no limit to the use of the blue crab—from the steamed variety to soups and crabcakes. It's the blue crab's countless uses that have made it ubiquitous across the country and even the world.

No one ever thought we'd run out of crab.

Peak Blue Crab

But some years ago, murmurs originated claiming that the high use of blue crab was unsustainable; that continuing to harvest it at high levels would inevitably deplete the resource.

Some experts even said there would be a point when the maximum rate of crab harvesting would be reached, and then would subsequently decline every year after.

They said that if crab harvesting was not limited before the peak, a crab crisis would emerge in which availability dropped and prices significantly rose.

But hardly anyone listened. And no limits were set on the amount of crabs that could be harvested.

Eventually, the inevitable occurred. The amount of crabs pulled from the Mid-Atlantic's waters began to decrease. And, of course, the price skyrocketed.

I can remember—in the 1990s—when a dozen crabs cost a dozen dollars.

Today, I've seen a dozen large blue crabs go for as much as $75.

But consumers are still paying for them. The number of Saturday crab feasts has hardly declined. And seafood houses are still serving up bushel after bushel of overpriced crabs to paper-laden tables across the country.

Despite the astronomical rise in crab prices, consumer behavior has hardly changed.

Are we addicted to crab?

Peak Crab Legislation

Obviously, no politician has the pluck to propose limiting the amount of crabs citizens can consume—although they may suggest voluntarily doing so.

Instead, leaders in the prime crab-producing states are coming together to put limits on the amount of crabs that can be reaped.

Last weak, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine pledged to make a drastic cut in the harvest of Chesapeake Bay blue crabs. The pair recently appeared together on the banks of the Potomac to announce a 34% reduction in the amount of female crabs that can be harvested.

Of course, this has led to staunch opposition from watermen, who say the cut would put them out of business.

But the governors are adamant, with Virginia's Kaine going as far as saying, "The price of inaction is greater than the price of action. We do not want to wake up in five or ten years and realize we've lost this very important part of who we are."

All that remains to be seen is how the two states will reach their proposed 34% reduction. Some ideas include reducing the number of traps allowed to be used or limiting the different techniques that can be used to harvest crabs.

To protect the watermen's livelihood, O'Malley has hinted at offering them alternative lines of work, including doing research and bay-restoration efforts.

But even though limiting the harvest of crabs today will mean the watermen have jobs tomorrow, they remain opposed. Some have even said they're being made scapegoats, with one fisherman claiming, "They [the government] try to make you think that it's overfishing, but it's not overfishing."

A Perfect Peak Oil Parable

Obviously, the current state of the blue crab industry offers a perfect peak oil parable that even Hans Christian Andersen would be proud of. In fact, if you replace ‘blue crab' with ‘oil' anywhere in this article it still makes contextual sense.

Only one question remains: Why is the government so quick to ensure we have plentiful crabs for years to come while dragging their feet in the preservation of the earth's supposed most precious resource? A resource clearly more valuable—and with thousands more uses—than simply being enjoyed with cold beer.

That is a question I and most others can't answer. But I'll tell you this.

Just like with crabs, the alternatives to oil (and obviously oil itself) will continue to increase in value until the problem is solved. And that won't be anytime soon.

Already fishermen are flocking to crab alternatives. Some are chartering private rockfish trips, while others are turning to the oyster industry. Ironically, rockfish numbers are doing incredibly well thanks to a moratorium on rockfishing imposed in the 1980s.

The same thing is happening in the oil industry. Its availability is decreasing while its price climbs higher and higher, paving the way for alternative energy industries to be ever more attractive and profitable.

The only difference is, in the case of the blue crab our elected officials are willing to acknowledge we're running out.

Too bad the consumption of blue crabs doesn't cause any undesired side effects. We'd undoubtedly be discussing the side effects—instead of the depletion—as the reason we need to get off crab.

Call it like you see it,

Nick

PS. We are running out of oil. Maybe not today. Maybe not next year. But the production levels are going to begin declining. And the technologies allowing less oil to be used are increasingly growing in value and profitability. The Alternative Energy Speculator is taking those profits all the way to the bank. We've found one company that allows big rigs to use 90% less diesel while reducing emissions. You don't want to miss this one. Read the report.

"Energy stocks... The only way a human is going to make any money."

-- Matt Simmons, Peak Oil's first and most vocal proponent,
and founder of the country's last pure play energy investment banking firm.

Follow the money trail. Sign up for Energy and Capital now.

Enter Your E-mail Address Below:

By signing up, you'll also get our latest report, The Truth About Oil.

I love me some blue crabs, great article!

What the devil does it take for a person to realize you cannot continue to abuse the levels of Blue Crabs, and/or oil onsumptions without shortages resulting from over consumption? Is everybody icluding the waterman failing to realaize the consquences from what they are doing?
Here in Florida the same impact took place on the Grouper fishing. Restrictions were imposed to change some of the fishing tactics so that the Grouper fish would not be overfished. There was a time not too long ago Grouper cost as much as steak because restaurants would be limited with the lack of Grouper. Some restaurants stopped serving Grouper because it just wasn't available or it was coming in from So America.
So are we going to continue catching the Blue Crab, and disregard the warnings or are they going to cut back so the Blue Crab will have a chance to recover?
Why are people so stubborn, and relentessly selfish when it comes to changing there ways when in fact they know what is the right think to do but ignore the warnings.
This is the identical situation with fuel shortages. People know what they should do, but will they do it? I doubt it because most people who are financially better off than most really, don't feel the impact and really care less. The people that will probably take heed to the warning is the common wage earner. However, there will be a time in the future these thought waves of I don't care attitude will come back to haunt them.
Sacrafices need to be taken, and for the thousands of people who make them will help their respective countries recover.
Butchrgt

THE NUCLEAR IMPERATIVE - AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

There is an obvious solution to simultaneously solve global warming and overcome foreign-oil dependence and oil depletion. Only two prime energy sources, coal and uranium, are able to affordably deliver tera-watts of electricity and heat for heavy industry and future large-scale production of oil-replacing synthetic fuels (synfuels). However burning coal worsens global warming. Also coal should be preserved as raw material for making plastics and organics when oil and gas are gone. This leaves uranium as the only practical "big-mama" green energy source, an "inconvenient truth". Solar and wind energy are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. But at tera-watt levels, vast areas of land or sea would be needed, requiring enormous maintenance operations and destruction of local ecosystems. As scientifically documented in "The Nuclear Imperative - A Critical Look at the Approaching Energy Crisis" (ISBN 1-4020-4930-7), published by Springer-Dordrecht, only uranium can provide all needed "mother" energy in the world for the next 1,500 years. It requires 6,000 advanced nuclear reactors worldwide @ $15 trillion, built on 90,000 acres, compared to 15,000,000 windmills with storage batteries @ $45 trillion on 60,000,000 windy acres (2MWe windturbines with 20% year-averaged wind availability).

Long misunderstood and irrationally feared because of antiquated beliefs by the general public, modern nuclear power generation is safer, cleaner, and essential for solving the future energy shortfall. Because it takes decades to design and build new synfuel-producing reactors and new propulsion engines powered by new synfuels, action must be taken now to prevent a catastrophe by 2035 when oil starts to run out. Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, generation of tera-watts of power is three times cheaper with nuclear than with solar or wind installations. This is because the latter require expensive storage batteries when there is no sunshine or wind. Solar and wind power also need millions of acres that upset local ecologies and spoil scenic landscapes. Numerous access paths are required for repairs and maintenance to keep blades or mirrors clean from bird-droppings, dead birds, sand-erosion, and storm damage. Should the USA limit itself to solar and wind energy, it will assuredly become impoverished and dependent on synfuels imported from other countries (again), unless nuclear power is greatly expanded when oil fields are depleted.

A stale anti-nuclear myth is that "we do not know what to do with all the radioactive nuclear waste". The volume of waste amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person using nuclear electricity, compared to tons of air pollutants and globe-warming CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste can be easily stored and safely transported, as the US Nuclear Navy has done for decades. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of their million-year half-lives, all uranium and plutonium will be burnt up by fast-breeder reactors in future fuel reprocessing cycles. The notion that long radioactive half-lives are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the half-life, the less the radiation emitted by a gram of radioisotope. Each human carries radioactive potassium-40 (0.012% abundance) in his/her body, which continuously emits beta particles with a half-life of one million years! Man successfully evolved in this environment and there are even indications that low radiation levels benefit health (called hormesis).

To minimize biosphere pollution and overcome oil depletion, the most practical scenario is to replace all coal-fired power plants with non-air-polluting nuclear plants to provide electricity for heavy industries and power for large-scale production of hydrogen and ammonia synfuels. Made from water and air, these portable synfuels return to water and air upon combustion. For future aircraft propulsion, for long-haul land or maritime transportation and in mining operations, such green synfuels created by green nuclear energy will empower internal-combustion or fuel-cell engines. Future nuclear electricity must also feed large fleets of plug-in electric automobiles used for short-range transportation (to and from work) which can tolerate a two-hour battery recharge every 100 miles.

You say "Only one question remains: Why is the government so quick to ensure we have plentiful crabs for years to come while dragging their feet in the preservation of the earth's supposed most precious resource?

That is a question I and most others can't answer."

Well the answer is very simple: How much money have the Blue Crab lobbyists spread among the politicians? If they spent the way Big Oil and Detroit have spent, not only would there be no limit, but the industry would be heavily subsidized.

The Bakken oil reserve 26,000 square miles under North Dakota and streaches up to the end of Canada. Light Sweet Crude oil. Two wells in the wilderness of Alaska each having the capacity of 200 years of oil for the US.
The Gulf of Mexico is another untapped productive oil reserve! The oil companies are creating this mentality by capping productive wells and refusing to build refineries.
I think this will change dramatically when these oil boards of directors are imprisoned for 20 years for aiding and abbetting treason and other crimes against the United States and its people during a time of war. Profit causing detrimental economic catastrophy against the United States and it's people!
Thank you,

I am a geologist in the oil business. I am very familiar with
blue crabs and peak oil. I thought you would be interested in
the health hazards caused by the crabs (ie The existing advisory
recommending that blue crabs and catfish from Upper Galveston Bay
not be consumed should remain in effect by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry). The potential exist for a
single lab test to elimate or reduce profits from blue crabs.
The Galveston Bay area is a perfect example. I enjoyed your
article. Good luck with your new book!