U.S. Not Doing Enough to Protect Coral Reefs

[archman]

From the latest SeaWeb update (www.seaweb.org). It's not saying anything new, but the article is a nice perspective piece.

U.S. Not Doing Enough to Protect Coral Reefs, Says Paper

"America's coral reefs are in trouble. From the disease-ridden dying reefs of the Florida Keys, to the over-fished and denuded refs of Hawaii and the Virgin Islands, this country's richest and most valued marine environment continues to decline in size, health, and productivity." So begins a paper in a recent issue of the journal Issues in Science and Technology.

Noting that, for example, "37 per cent of all corals in Florida have died since 1996," the paper observes that, whereas "in many parts of the world coral reefs are deliberately destroyed in the process of coastal development or to obtain construction materials, in the United States coral reefs suffer the classic death of a thousand cuts" – for example, as a result of eutrophication, sedimentation, removal of reef fish, and changes in the ambient environment. The paper identifies several reasons why, in the opinion of the author, the United States has responded inadequately to addressing the status of reefs under U.S. jurisdiction, among them:

- Incomplete understanding of the problem and communication failures. Writes the author: "Everyone is quick to lament the destruction of Southeast Asian and Indian Ocean reefs by dynamite fishers, or the use of cyanide in collecting coral reef fish in the Philippines, but the reefs under U.S. jurisdiction have hardly fared better. In the past decade, we have seen a slow awakening to the problems facing U.S. reefs, but the response has been to collect more data, slowly and painstakingly."

- Poor use of cutting edge science and the at-large scientific community. For example, the paper argues that, "Decisionmakers have not engaged the scientific community and have failed to heed what scientific advice has been put forward. For instance, the government did not fully mobilize nongovernmental academic institutions and conservation organizations to help draft its National Action Plan to Conserve Coral Reefs, and as a result the plan has been criticized as lacking in rigor and ambition."

In addition, the paper points to in-fighting and lack of coordination among government agencies, and the global nature of the threats to coral reefs, as further reasons for slow progress in addressing the problem to this point.

The author concludes: "The coral reef crisis is indeed our problem. It affects our natural heritage and the livelihoods of a great number of our citizens. Only when the people in power recognize the magnitude of the problem will effective steps be taken to engage the wider scientific and conservation community in safeguarding reefs. When future generations look back at the dawn of the millennium and the environmental choices that were made, they will either curse us for letting one of nature's most wondrous ecosystems be extinguished or praise us for recognizing the great value of reefs and moving to protect them."

Source: Agardy, T. 2004. America's coral reefs: awash with problems. Issues in Science and Technology XX (2): 35-42.

 

[Jonathan]

just in line with what they are doing to the rest of the world thinking about jobs now and not how their grandchildren will breath...

 

[archman]

just in line with what they are doing to the rest of the world thinking about jobs now and not how their grandchildren will breath...

Oh come now, is that really fair? I don't see a whole lot of aggressive environmental regulation in most countries, including industrialized ones. Singling out the U.S. appears to be a global obsession, whatever the topic. Probably related to our dominance in television and our vociferous media.

Oh well, reports like the SeaWeb one are meant to disseminate to folks that can implement change... hopefully some good will come of it. Our Congress is becoming increasingly pestered lately by voters to ramp up environmental regulation. Many view this as the executive branch's weakest point.

 

[chrisch]

The reason the US gets singled out is because it is the World's biggest/worse polluter and seems to be determined to attack Kyoto and because Bush does not accept his role in global warming. The US government deserves all it gets and more. That said there are plenty of environmentalists in the US and I don't see many other countries doing much to save their reefs or to protect future generations.
I have seen the change in the marine ecosystem here in Europe in the 15 years I have been diving and it is very significant. Most diving now is wrecks because there is little fish life.
Archman - I'll "bash" the US anytime, but no you are right I don't see anyone else doing much either.
Chris

 

[Kim]

Singling out the U.S. appears to be a global obsession, whatever the topic. Probably related to our dominance in television and our vociferous media.

Being singled out probably comes with the territory of 'world leader' status. I don't think the phenomena is new. Of course I also don't think that the present administrations policies on foreign affairs/trade/ecology to name a few are helping much. According to the news today neither do more than 50 senior US diplomats (ex).
Actually I quite like US TV show's (I admit it!!) I also have many good American friends - they'd probably agree with me, or go even farther.
I also agree that the problems are not all confined to - or caused by the US. We all live on the same planet - and we are all destroying the same ecology. It's a very great pity that we can't all agree on a JOINT plan of action. (a lot think I'm a dreamer - more's the pity)

 

[cdiver2]

Chrisch I think you are correct. In fact it would seem that the non industrialized countrys are doing more to protect the marine environment than the industrialized ones.
Probably because they depend on dive/tourism a great deal and are not developed enough in industry to compete with the world powers nor will they ever be.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Reef health is a problem but so are the envasive species that heve pretty much totalled the Great Lake ecosystem, the hundreds of freshwater fish species that have and are going ectinct and the very ground water that provides our drinking water in many places.

People (and all other organizisms) make wast. As far as I can tell there are 2 ways to reduce tha wast. One is to do less of what we do (live less) and the other is to advance and utilize science such that we cause les wast for the same amount of activity. Nobodies going to go for the first and the second cost money even if we did know how.

True the US didn't sign the koyoto treaty and I'm no expert on it but if I remember there were reasons for that.

Also is there a country that some one here would like to point out as a model for reef (or any other ecology) preservation or is the rest of the world just waiting around for the US to come up with the answer?

 

[diverbrian]

Reef health is a problem but so are the envasive species that heve pretty much totalled the Great Lake ecosystem, the hundreds of freshwater fish species that have and are going ectinct and the very ground water that provides our drinking water in many places.

People (and all other organizisms) make wast. As far as I can tell there are 2 ways to reduce tha wast. One is to do less of what we do (live less) and the other is to advance and utilize science such that we cause les wast for the same amount of activity. Nobodies going to go for the first and the second cost money even if we did know how.

True the US didn't sign the koyoto treaty and I'm no expert on it but if I remember there were reasons for that.

Also is there a country that some one here would like to point out as a model for reef (or any other ecology) preservation or is the rest of the world just waiting around for the US to come up with the answer?

Not to sound bitter, but it is also interesting how many factories in this state are closing because companies are finding areas with fewer environmental rules and labor costs and it is cheaper for them to build the factories there than to continue to run them in this state with the regulations designed to start protecting the groundwater and Great Lakes as Mike F. refers to. (It's not just labor costs. One company was offered incentives by the workers and the state to NOT move and is still moving their factory to another country.) And some of these are not U.S. based companies, either.

Having been overseas in the service, I understand the world image issue, but I really don't see too many other industrialized countries taking any kind of lead on these environmental issues. But that may be my perspective.

As an aside, the tourism doesn't help the reefs either. When I was in Provo, the reefs in Grace Bay where basically bleach due in a major part to the discharge from the high number of hotels, restaraunts, and other tourist facilities.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Not to sound bitter, but it is also interesting how many factories in this state are closing because companies are finding areas with fewer environmental rules and labor costs and it is cheaper for them to build the factories there than to continue to run them in this state with the regulations designed to start protecting the groundwater and Great Lakes as Mike F. refers to. (It's not just labor costs. One company was offered incentives by the workers and the state to NOT move and is still moving their factory to another country.) And some of these are not U.S. based companies, either.

Tell me about it. I've been in the middle of this for years. As a manufacturing engineer, every few years whatever company I work for closes and I have to find a new job. Manufacturing in this country is like an endangered species.

Even the "made in the US stuff comes in boxes from other countries. We do some light assembly, test, re-package and ship".

The last company I worked for (at least that devision) doesn't have any US based manufacturing left at all. Everything is manufactured in Mexico, Spain and Poland and a little left in Germany I think. Component parts come from all over the world with many comming from the far east.

The higher the wages, taxes and oporating costs the more likely business is to move out of the country. Environmental regulations effect both taxes and oporating costs. It can also require the integration or development of completely new technologies and the costs for that is through the roof making competative pricing impossible. Besides, who has any manufacturing related R&D. We sure don't.

And then there's the tourist industry itself. All those divers want to stay in a resort and ride on a boat.

 

[Boogie711]

The reason the US gets singled out is because it is the World's biggest/worse polluter and seems to be determined to attack Kyoto and because Bush does not accept his role in global warming. The US government deserves all it gets and more. That said there are plenty of environmentalists in the US and I don't see many other countries doing much to save their reefs or to protect future generations.
I have seen the change in the marine ecosystem here in Europe in the 15 years I have been diving and it is very significant. Most diving now is wrecks because there is little fish life.
Archman - I'll "bash" the US anytime, but no you are right I don't see anyone else doing much either.
Chris

Oh, come on - that statement is one of the worst examples of one sided, non-factual rhetoric I've seen in a long time.

The USA "is the World's biggest/worse polluter?" BS. Absolute BS.

Take a look around!

Does the USA have a broken nuclear reactor leaking radiation to the world? Does the USA have air you can barely breath over it's major cities? Does the USA have entire sea's that have been killed off from industrial pollution? Is the USA still testing nuclear weapons?

Is the USA curbing greenhouse gases exclusively due to Kyoto? No, it's not - but oh, wait a minute - neither is India, China or Russia. Oh well - ignore them, let's beat up on the USA. After all, that's far more fashionable, right?

Junk Science.