The Solution to Pollution is No Longer Dilution

If you are reading this post on my blog, it is most likely that you have heard this notion before. Yet, however succinct and harmonized the phrase may be, it means nothing if one cannot truly internalize and learn from it.

I just finished watching a TEDtalk given by Kristina Gjerde where she lectures about 'Making Law on the High Seas." She discussed the long-standing issues of the Tragedy of the Commons, which was famously brought to attention by ecologist Garrett Harden in 1968. The oceans are considered the most prominent commons and, for centuries, humans have ravished the sea's natural resources with no immediately visible consequences.

Well... we definitely cannot hide behind ignorance any longer...

Though Gjerde eloquently incorporates the titled phrase into her speech, the concept of diluted pollution as NOT being a resolution has graced my mind before. The first time I came across this soundbite, was in a taxonomic seaweeds textbook written in the early 1960s. The full phrase from the textbook reads as follows, "The solution to pollution is no longer dilution, for the oceans are not infinite."

Yes, the 1960s... And I'm nearly positive that this was not the first time the slogan was vocalized nor published.

Next week is the beginning of the year 2014. Depending on the exact date of the publication (which escapes me at the moment), it is approximately forty or fifty-something years since the phrase became common among the scientific community. Then why in 2010, is Kristina still having difficulty discussing the options for regulating unlawful discharge and waste into the high seas?! (Let alone regulate commercial fishing issues...)

It remains a GREAT tragedy that humans have not managed to develop a more moral connection with the ocean: the provider for all life on Earth. Yes, we produce a heck of a lot of waste. Reduce is the first 'R' for a reason... yet I truly do believe that the elephant in the room of the pollution dilemma, where international environmental lawyers sit, is that the ocean commons will remain a tragedy until there is a global shift in the way humans interact with the world.

The majority of the TEDtalk revolves around law and developing bureaucratic partnerships to oversee the "64% of ocean beyond national jurisdiction." However, Gjerde does stress the importance of establishing laws in "an arena of global norms of precaution and respect."

Ohhhhh, Respect. Perhaps that should be added to the three 'R's (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). Personally, I would prefer that it be placed at the beginning. Or maybe we could add an 'A' for Appreciation. Then we could adopt the acronym ARRR!

Before I go slightly insane trying convey my deeply rooted frustration with humanity, let me end with this...

In forty years we have made leaping strides in environmental conservation and preservation. If you ever open a book on environmental policy you will be bombarded with legal terms and acronyms that we have already adopted: CWA, ESA, CAA, CZMA, MPRSA. If you are not familiar with these Acts then please do look them up! The underlying issue, however, is that humans still view the world and the oceans as a means to suit their personal needs and as something that we must 'conquer.' What I propose is that the only thing worth 'conquering' is the idea that humans can regulate pollution bureaucratically. Morality is a concept that cannot be set into law, people cannot be forced into a loving and appreciatively sustainable relationship with the oceans... it must be learned through education and personal experience.

Go DO SOMETHING to try to educate yourself and to improve your personal bond with the Earth and it's vital resources. Try to stimulate your senses into a passionate furry that can meet the wall of ambivalence built up by generations of tragic human-ocean relationships. Make choices that promote a future healthy connection and respect for oceanic resources; "...the ocean is NOT infinite." We've very clearly known that for half a century!

Thank you everyone,

Hillary


p.s. If you would like to watch the TEDtalk...

http://www.ted.com/talks/kristina_gjerde_making_law_on_the_high_seas.html

Dying Sea Stars and Climate Change?

Towards the end of this summer and into the fall, there were countless news articles published about the mysterious starfish (more accurately referred to as a sea star) die-offs on both the Western and Eastern coasts of the United States. Scientists are baffled by this strange phenomenon in which the sea stars seem to rapidly decay due to an unknown disease. Such tissue necrosis has become known as 'starfish wasting syndrome,' and it is unclear if it is caused by a bacterium, virus, or another type of infectious organism. The main point here is that although such disease has been documented over the past decade, the number and range of affected starfish populations has grown dramatically in 2013.

Why? This is exactly what marine biologists are hoping to figure out...

There have been a number of historical sea star disease outbreaks in American coastal waters, and it is clearly documented that the spreading and intensity of disease is exasperated by warmer water temperatures. You should all now be thinking two words..."climate change." Though there is not enough evidence to attribute the die-offs solely to climate changes, it is definitely plausible that increased coastal sea surface temperatures could have a strong connection to the mass starfish wasting syndrome observed this summer. 

The Ocean Portal has posted an interview with Dr. Chris Mah from the Smithsonian Institute in which a series of questions are briefly answered regarding the sea star disease. There are also links on this webpage that will lead you to further information about the distribution of disease in American waters and how to identify infected organisms. http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-news/sickly-starfish-qa-dr-chris-mah

Keep yourself updated on marine science in the news! Knowledge is power, and we need some powerful changes in the way humans interact with the oceans :)