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 |
No comments:
Post a Comment