The Last Chance - Part 1: Our Attitude Toward the Ocean

By Mitch Paine

In our world full of wars, political unrest, climate change, habitat destruction and expanding metropolises, a problem looms that could alter the outcome of human civilization: our oceans.

The difference between protecting our oceans and saving the land may seem a trivial difference, noticeable only to fishermen who spend time on the water and land. However, two-legged beings as we are, humans have trouble understanding the fathoms of the oceans. In an effort to understand the astounding 75 percent of our planet, let’s look at the differences between the land and the ocean and examine the road forward.

Humans, as well as most land animals, traverse a mostly two-dimensional world. We drive forward and backwards, left and right. The few exceptions to our two-dimensional outlook include pilots, birds, insects and other flying creatures. Even the biosphere over land spreads tremendously thin. Save for mountains, the layer of life is usually a few meters in thickness and rarely stretches beyond 200 meters. Our terrestrial, land-dwelling life is simply two-dimensional.
The oceans present a stark contrast to two-dimensional life. Instead of a few meters of life, the oceans provide 11,000 meters of an alien world where gravity is minimal, the surrounding seawater is far less transparent than air, immense stretches of open ocean fill the landscape, and the structure forms at the base of the ecosystem are almost microscopic.

One of the most basic but overlooked differences is the absolute presence of salt. All life in the ocean must completely adapt to a salty environment. On land, few patches of saline environments exist (some of which are the last saline wetlands near Lincoln, Neb.).

Ocean-dwelling creatures have to maintain a proper balance of salt and water within their bodies to survive. A type of marine algae, Dunaliella, lives best in highly saline waters, with pH of 1.0 (whereas human blood always is in the narrow range of 7.0–7.5 pH). This adaptation requires a high concentration of sodium within the alga.

This is unlike most fish species, which have sodium levels far below the surrounding seawater. The problem with having lower sodium levels than the surrounding environment is that the environment, which is saltier, takes the water from the body of the fish. The resulting water loss would kill the fish if there were no process of regulation. Fish, therefore, have to take in seawater to correct the sodium deficiency.

Freshwater fish have the opposite problem: a higher concentration of sodium within the body versus a lower concentration in the surrounding environment. Fish in freshwater lakes and streams have reverse adaptations.

Marine reptiles and birds have specialized glands to rid their bodies of salt. Turtles have these glands near their eyes and release "tears," very similar to the way humans release tears, full of salt. Some say that these tears are from mourning turtles, when in actuality, the turtles just need to get rid of some salt.

Another influence on life in the ocean is temperature. Because water stabilizes temperature much better than air, ocean life develops ecosystem niches (functions in the ecosystem) based upon temperature. Few examples of temperature-based niches exist on land.

For instance, there is a symbiotic relationship between red algae and coral. The algae excrete calcium carbonate, which the coral use to build structure. Without this symbiosis, coral reefs would cease to develop and our oceans would lose many species.

That is exactly what is happening in today’s world. The algae can only exist in a narrow temperature range because the seawater keeps that temperature range stable. Because of global warming, ocean temperatures are rising, killing off the red algae needed to develop coral reefs. Since 25 percent of all ocean life lives in coral reefs at some point in the life cycle, coral reefs are the most important ecosystem in the ocean. We are destroying reefs at unprecedented rates.

Besides influencing global warming, we also are contributing to the demise of coral reefs through our rivers. If all of the water were taken out of the ocean, we’d notice that all of the continents and islands would be huge mountains, with the ocean always downhill. The rivers are the ramps down to the ocean.

When we put the water back in, nothing changes. The ocean is still downhill from the land. Everything that is put in our creeks, streams and rivers goes downhill toward the ocean, and seemingly few things come back. And every person lives in a watershed, an area that is connected to a larger river.
Lincoln, Neb., for instance, is in a watershed by means of Salt Creek. The runoff, trash, fertilizer and lake water enter Antelope Creek or Little Salt Creek and empty into Salt Creek. Salt Creek runs to the Platte River. The Platte River drains into the Missouri River, which drains into the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River then runs to the Gulf of Mexico, which every year has a dead zone, an area void of life.

Dead zones begin in areas that have many nutrients in the water, such as nitrogen and oxygen from our fertilizers, waste and soil runoff. When too many nutrients are in the water, plankton "bloom," or rapidly increase in numbers. When these plankton die, the huge amount of decomposition requires tremendous amounts of oxygen, thereby lowering the oxygen levels in the water. As oxygen levels become low, life in the water ceases to exist. These areas are known as dead zones. The United Nations Environment Program has identified more than 150 dead zones around the world.

According to a study conducted by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 64 percent of the nitrogen in the Mississippi Delta dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is from agricultural sources, mostly from the Great Plains. Since the nutrient is nitrogen, the agricultural runoff is fertilizers and manure. This means that we, the citizens of the Great Plains, not those of Louisiana, shoulder the largest burden to the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone.

Examining the Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone is important because of the ecosystem value and also the economic value. Seventy-two percent of U.S. produced shrimp, 66% of oysters worldwide, and 16 percent of worldwide fish are from the Gulf of Mexico. Even though we think that the ocean is "downhill" from us, every item and substance that we discharge into our rivers ends back up on our dinner plate as seafood. The more fertilizer we put on the crops or the more fertilized crops we support, the larger the Mississippi Delta dead zone becomes. This could drastically drive up the cost of seafood and the cost of the Gulf ecosystem. We only have one last chance before the ecosystem is damaged beyond repair.

Because water flows "downhill," many counties, cities, states and countries can be involved in huge disputes. Water in the form of lakes and oceans knows no boundaries. Neither do the creatures that live in the ocean. International boundaries have no meaning in marine conservation other than a hindrance.

The path forward

The oceans are obviously faced with many environmental, scientific and biological problems; however, the base of all of the problems for the oceans is ethics. On land, we have taken many stands to promote individual responsibility. Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot, Rachel Carson, John Muir, Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold are among the influential environmentalists. Aldo Leopold empowered a "land ethic," elevating the land conservation movement to a new level.

This "land ethic" is parallel to none for marine conservation. Since 64 percent of the ocean is controlled by no country or person and no part of the ocean is "owned" by anybody, the guilt for the destruction of our oceans lies with every individual.

A study conducted in 2001 pointed out that the U.S. National Park Service was allowed a budget of $1.7 billion in 1999. This budget is arguably well under the necessary amount. The National Marine Sanctuary Program was given a budget of $14.3 million. The National Park Service receives 119 times more money than the National Marine Sanctuary Program, a clear indication of the priority level of marine conservation.

The "tragedy of the commons" is the most adequate means to describe the gross overexploitation of our oceans. Since every fisherman or company owns nothing, no incentive exists to conserve the ocean resources. The saying is, "if I don’t catch it, someone else will." Unfortunately, that is the case.

One clear example of the lack of respect shown to the oceans is the way we label fish. In determining the population of a land-dwelling animal, say the bald eagle, the population is said to be in numbers. For instance, "there were 120,000 bald eagles in 1991." However, when we discuss fish, we do not consider fish as individuals but rather as an economic value: "tons." Marine conservationists talk about how many tons of cod are left or how many tons of tuna are caught each year. Why are fish not worthy of being measured in individuals like the terrestrial animals?

The technology that we’ve developed to catch and kill ocean life has increased exponentially; however, the selectivity has not met the technological advances. In bottom trawling, no difference is made between the target species and the thousands of other species in the ocean. Boats can now be on the water for months and carry loads of thousands and thousands of fish. Fishermen employ technology capable of killing millions of animals at a single given time.

There are no places in the ocean for fish to hide from our technology; the only thing that can protect marine ecosystems is if our laws keep up with the technology. So far they haven’t.

On land, many "photographic" species are highly protected, such as the bald eagle or gray wolf. These animals are protected in part because people enjoy the sight of these animals more than the potential beneficial ecosystem services. In the ocean, the large, "photographic" species, such as dolphins, swordfish, sharks and whales, are more valuable for their meat than their image as "creatures of the ocean."

Agencies that are in charge of protecting species in the ocean seldom have jurisdiction over the watersheds that lead to the ocean. For instance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) helps to determine the recommended fertilizer use, however the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has no say in fertilizer use. Interestingly, NOAA deals with far more of the fertilizer use side effects, namely the dead zones of our coasts. With so many agencies handling small parts of the larger picture, a clear necessity looms: We need a better system.

The problems resulting from the ocean and land differences are astounding and seemingly impossible. It is true that we have one last chance. However, it is not true that these problems are too overwhelming and cannot be solved. All of us, from the coasts to the Midwest, need to take action, and in doing so we can change the future of the ocean.
Little good is done to simply point out these tremendous problems we face. We need more than just science; we need action. So, based upon the preceding ecological, economic and environmental perspectives, considerable changes to our society are needed to solve these tremendous issues.

First of all, we need to develop marine sanctuaries that span more than just a coastline; we need them to run the length of migration routes of fish species and larger organisms, such as baleen whales. Because ocean life is so mobile, a small marine sanctuary might not accomplish its intended goal. Large sanctuaries can accommodate extremely mobile ocean life. California currently is taking huge steps to create large marine sanctuaries. Within the next decade, California plans to have a large portion of the coastline under state protection from fishing at certain times of the year. California also has banned trawling in numerous areas.

We also need to work with commercial fishermen and fisheries to solve the issues of overfishing, coral reef depletion and other marine issues. Since fisheries and fishermen control the economic consequences of the industry, much more attention needs to be given to the people themselves. Many fishermen fish commercially because the only way to support families is to bring back the highest number of fish possible. If we simply ban fishing, many fishermen will be out of jobs and cannot support their families. We need to provide jobs for fishermen that make use of their talents; we need to provide incentives to not fish.

The difference between terrestrial and marine conservation practices needs to be bridged. Since much of the terrestrial actions and policies affect marine conservation in huge amounts, the government agencies need to be able to make decisions on both land and marine conservation strategies and laws. The difference between the National Marine Sanctuaries Program and the National Park System needs to be addressed quickly. Pollution and runoff issues must be addressed in all states, especially Midwestern states such as Minnesota, Ohio, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, all of which contribute to the increase in fertilizer use and the increase in dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

The level of political leadership needs to be stepped up. The politicians and policy makers in charge of these important environmental issues are not knowledgeable about many aspects of science and are unable to make educated decisions about the environment. We need to educate political leaders in the realms of economics, science, etc., so that they may be able to make decisions based on scientific fact, not information from the industry or environmental lobbying groups, who are biased in favor of their own agendas.

The local, state and national governments need to make ocean conservation a priority. Coastal states’ governments have a large role to play, but the governments of the inner states also have a significant role. Governors, county commissioners, mayors, senators, representatives and the bureaucracy must be influenced to change. We, as citizens, have that power.

We need to form closer relationships between the heart of politics and a sea ethic. Many people in the world would not say that the environment is one of the biggest issues facing us today. We need to change that attitude. Politicians need to make an issue out of the environment and act out changes to inspire citizens to do the same in bettering the future of our planet.

Coinciding with political leadership, we need international cooperation on terms of the conservation of both terrestrial and marine environments. Without the cooperation of all nations and all peoples of the Earth, our environmental issues cannot be solved. We should look at all issues in addition to simply ecological knowledge. Economic, social, personal, political, religious—all aspects of each issue need to be considered before enacting a decision that could change the fate of many people’s lives.

The fact that the oceans are not owned needs to be addressed. The tragedy of the commons must come to an end and not be an end of our common resources. The United Nations recently failed to ban trawling, one of the most destructive practices on the planet, due to commercial fisheries’ political influence.

International organizations can overcome these political games to save the oceans—only political will stands in the way. The United Nations, the European Union, CITES and other international groups play a large role, yet these groups need to set a balance between resource use and protecting the environment.

Last, we must develop a new sea ethic, as described by Carl Safina, Rachel Carson, Sylvia Earle and others. Our lack of knowledge, accompanied with misguided moral notions about the ocean, have led us down a dark road, one that cannot be the ground on which important decisions are based. A closer bond with the ocean can help alleviate many of these problems. As much as the presence of zoos and aquariums are argued by animal rights activists, we need the pure educational experience of seeing ocean animals, even if they are in the heart of the country hundreds of miles away from the ocean.

A quote by Ken Norris, contributor to the Marine Mammal Act of 1972, says, "Our knowledge of these dolphins is their protection. You cannot kill what you come to love." This can be extended to include all marine animals, plants, protists and so on. We need to change our education system to teach kids about the ocean, whether they live in Nebraska or Florida. As children grow up, becoming knowledgeable about the environmental challenges we face, they can make decisions as voters and as citizens of not only their country but also of planet Earth.

Jean-Michel Cousteau eloquently states in his recent documentary, Sharks at Risk, about the oceans and our future: "In the end, nature will survive, but perhaps we won’t. That is what we have to at all costs make sure does not happen. The future is in our hands, and our future depends on the ocean." This is our last chance.

Related: The Last Chance - Part 2: Overfishing

Visit these web sites and check out these books for more information.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program
Seafriends
MarineBio.org
Blue Ocean Institute
Institute for Fisheries Resources
Marine Stewardship Council
National Marine Fisheries Service
Song for the Blue Ocean, Carl Safina
Marine Conservation Biology, Elliot Norse and Larry Crowder

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Delicious  •   Digg  •   StumbleUpon  •   Propeller  •   Reddit  •   Magnoliacom  •   Newsvine  •   Furl  •   Facebook  •   Google  •   Yahoo  •   Technorati  •   Icerocket