I have been following a spate
of recent articles whose topics concerned the world’s oceans and the species in
them. One article pointed to a study that showed that nearly ½ of the Great
Barrier Reef has been destroyed in the past two decades. That was a depressing
piece of news. I had an opportunity to do a few brief dives on the Great
Barrier Reef in the early nineties. It was right outside of Cairns, Australia.
I remember vividly the clear water and the abundance of fish and other marine
species I saw during my four 30
minute dives over a two day period.
Another recent article in the
LA Times predicts that seafood species will be much smaller at future harvests
but that the price for fish and other seafood will increase and increase
substantially.
Basically it said, Seafood
lovers will find their favorite “wild caught” menu items will diminish in size
by nearly 25 percent over the next fifty years due to human impact on the
oceans.
The article appeared in the
journal “Nature Climate Change”, ( see below) described the drop in species size as ultimately having a
huge negative impact on seafood supply and price due to climate change as well
as over fishing and pollution……
The headline was pretty
grim.
Global warming will shrink fish sizes, seafood
supply, says study….. By
Tiffany Hsu
October 1, 2012, 11:19 a.m. | Los Angles Time –
Business
It’s not just fish populations shrinking,
according to a new study. Fish themselves will be much smaller within a few
decades.
Global warming linked to greenhouse-gas
emissions will cause the body weight of more than 600 types of marine fish to
dwindle up to 24% between 2000 and 2050, according to a report in the journal Nature Climate
Change.
Additional factors, such as over fishing and
pollution, will only make matters worse.
Ultimately, the changes “are expected to have
large implications for trophic interactions, ecosystem functions, fisheries and
global protein supply,” according to the study.
Aquatic creatures grow depending on the
temperature, oxygen and resources available in water, according to researchers.
Fish will struggle to breathe and develop as oceans become warmer and less
oxygenated.
Fewer, smaller fish could result in a supply
crunch, leading to higher prices of seafood down the line.
The news has not been all bad
however, in an October 3, 2012 article The New York Times reported that
scientists found some encouragement in their process of creating a new way of
monitoring the health of the oceans.
A two-year study broke with
traditional methodology and based their approach on the tenet Global Blue
Technologies’ close, non-profit partner – the International Foundation for the
Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR) – has been preaching for better than
two decades, namely that humans are “A Part of Nature, Not Apart from
Nature.”
You can see in the article below the study’s co-author is quoted, “People and Nature are not separate
any more.”
New ocean health index scores world 60 out of
100
The U.S. gets a 63. Criteria include economic
benefits of coastal waters, along with aesthetics and environmental data.
After two years of collecting global
data and developing models, scientists have a new, comprehensive way to measure
the health of the world’s oceans that recognizes humans as a part of an integrated
marine ecosystem.
The scientists’ report, published
this week in the journal Nature, gave the oceans an overall score of 60 on a
scale of 0 to 100. Among the world’s 133 countries with ocean coastlines,
scores ranged from 36 to 86; the United States scored slightly above average at
63.
The ocean health index measures 10
ways that people benefit from the oceans, including food, jobs, ability to
sequester carbon from the atmosphere and pure aesthetic value. It also gives
credit for clean waters and biodiversity, among other things.
The index score assigned to a
particular ocean region reflects the degree of sustainability for each of these
factors.
To come up with scores for each
country, a group of more than 30 scientists used data from dozens of sources.
They got economic data from the United Nations, for instance, and satellite
data on ocean temperature, sea ice extent and UV radiation from the U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 133 regions were defined
as exclusive economic zones that extend from a country’s shore to a boundary
200 nautical miles out to sea.
One way to think about the ocean
index score is to compare it to a hospital visit.
“When someone shows up at the ER,
there are things people look at: breathing, heartbeat, pulse,” said study
coauthor Larry Crowder, science director of the Center for Ocean Solutions at
Stanford. The criteria picked for this study are like vital signs for the
ocean, he said.
Previous ecosystem assessments
focused on ways humans have damaged nature, such as by polluting waterways or
driving species to the brink of extinction. For this index, researchers decided
to award points for the ways that oceans could sustainably benefit people, even
though such benefits might come at the expense of another goal.
For example, an increase in coastal
livelihoods and economies might decrease a region’s score for clean waters but
still boost the index score overall. By quantifying these trade-offs, the ocean
health index can help countries do their own cost-benefit analyses depending on
what they value most.
“The old model of trying to save
nature by keeping people out simply won’t work,” said study coauthor Steven
Katona, managing director of the Ocean Health Index for the nonprofit
environmental group Conservation International based in Arlington, Va. “People
and nature are not separate anymore.”
One of the biggest questions raised
by the study is what to make of a score like 60.
To some, that may sound like an
unsatisfactory grade, a D-minus. But project leader Benjamin Halpern, director
of the Center for Marine Assessment and Planning at UC Santa Barbara, said that
would be the wrong way to look at it.
“There is a lot of room for
improvement, but still a lot of success,” he said. “It wasn’t a 10 or 15.”
The index score for the United
States suggests, according to the Nature study, that the country could improve
its ocean health by supporting tourism businesses that are environmentally
friendly; encouraging sustainable fishing practices; and investing in aquaculture
to provide jobs and economic benefits to coastal communities.
No matter how I read these and future
articles the good news I take away from all of these trends is that our closed
system bio-secure sustainable aquaculture system is something the world needs
and needs now.
