http://www.motherjones.com/
Coral reefs worldwide are in peril. Marine species, protected by ineffective regulations, are being fished to extinction. Ocean pollution has our seas nearing cataclysm. Fortunately, there's one group that's doing something about it.
The Bush Administration.
It's true. On Tuesday, President Bush, whose environmental policies have not exactly been the hallmark of his administration, designated three new marine monuments in the Pacific Ocean, an act that will protect some of the world's most pristine places and give ocean ecosystems a chance at recovery. Together, the Mariana Trench monument, the Central Pacific Islands monument, and the Rose Atoll monument in America Samoa (PDF map and images here), will encompass over 190,000 square miles, roughly the size of the states of Oregon and Washington combined. The protected areas include the habitats for several threatened species, rare underwater geological formations, and some of the oldest known life forms on the DNA tree.
"The amount of time federal officials put into managing any one section of water is basically nil," says Jay Nelson, Director of the Global Ocean Legacy, a project of the Pew Environment Group. "But it's like a national park. If you draw a line around it, all of a sudden it's somebody's responsibility to take care of it."
The Mariana Trench is particularly important to protect, says Nelson. "The Mariana area is a world phenomenon. If it had been on land, it would have been a national park a 100 years ago. The deepest trench in the world is in US waters, and no one in the United States government thought to make it a park until now. It's as if the government of Nepal hadn't done anything to protect Mount Everest."
This isn't President Bush's first foray into marine protections. In 2006, he created the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which, at 140,000 square miles, is the single largest protected marine area in the world. (I cited the creation of this monument in my list of the four things Bush got right in his presidency.) Today, that monument receives about $12 million dollars a year to fund research, education efforts, and clean-up and maintenance.
But that previous experience illustrates what can go wrong with the monuments created on Tuesday. Nelson admits that the funding for the 2006 monument is not adequate. Though it is cleaner than it was in 2002 or 2003, it is not clear it will be cleaner in 2009 than it was in 2008. Ocean currents bring thousands of pounds of garbage to the shores of the islands within the protected area every year, mostly dropped over the side of ships or brought to sea by polluted rivers. Serious questions exist about the clean-up efforts' ability to keep pace.
Requests for research permits in the monument shot up the year after it was approved, which defied the central purpose of designating it a protected area: decreasing human traffic. "It was because scientists heard about it. They read the newspapers like you and me," says Nelson. Likewise, the newly designated monuments, which currently see little human contact, may become sought after research destinations.
Another factor hampering the protection of marine habitat has been a lack of inter-agency coordination. "There were numerous indications and reports, all off the record, that the three principle agencies responsible for the northwest Hawaiian islands monument—NOAA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the state of Hawaii— had a great deal of trouble working together," says Dennis Heinemann of the Ocean Conservancy. In fact, the final management plan for the 2006 monument, delineating the division of responsibilities between the three agencies, was just released over the 2008 holidays.
Funding for the new sites will be key. "The funding that is provided for monuments of this size and that are this remote, which impacts issues like surveillance and enforcement of regulations, is very important," says Heinemann. He says the White House has suggested it wants to eliminate "destructive and extractive activities," but "the devil could be in the details."
As of yet, the particulars of what the Bush administration has in mind for the new monuments are unknown. But environmentalists remain enthusiastic. "Only four percent of the ocean can be called pristine, or untouched by human activities," says Heinemann. "If ocean ecosystems are going to be able to withstand and survive climate change, they need to be as healthy as possible. They can't do it if they are degraded by human influences like overfishing and pollution." Restoring the health and resiliency of damaged ocean ecosystems, and preserving the health and resiliency of pristine ones, means simply leaving them alone. "President Bush, for all of his other failings, has responded to the threat to the oceans," says Heinemann. "He hasn't done the whole job, but he's established momentum."
= = =
Comments:
Just out of collective reflexivity, I suspect anything Bush does. Let's see, 4% of the oceans protected..... 96% unprotected....Those numbers are not so beautiful. Wait a minute, that might be a perfect reason to exploit all unprotected waters, including the LAND underneath the surface, and keep protected "sanctuaries", like little museums of "how it used to be 100 years ago"? Would that keep the environmentalists at least temporarily mollified? Dividing up the greater Oceans has now officially begun. Not just around islands or land masses,....but vast areas. Prior to this century, those vast areas were UNclaimed, wild; "owned" by no one. Only waters surrounding the land was designated as territorial waters. Please check out a project called 2040. It is an international group trying to educate little kids, who will be, (in year 2040), the voting population of the Earth.(If there is still voting). That is the year when the present international "hands off
agreements" for Antarctica will end. Already there are countries ( the USA being one of them),"jockeying" for position to exploit the Antarctic. There are big oil concerns looking at the breakup of major ice flows with glee. There's oil down there; so you might invest on the possibility of getting more of it for your private militaries and corporate governments? It will be easier to exploit with less ice. That must be one upside of warming the planet with gas.(truly terrible)
Let's revert to evolutionary sensibilities! A sweeping change occurs when imminent disaster strikes (or huge indications of imminent disaster)..... someone may instinctively do things which matter most.(yes, of course, saving ones own *ss). Many humans have not learned, or refuse to learn, to extend themselves in forming relationships with Nature. It will be a shock for them to realize that no amount of money will buy back what is being squandered, lost.( They will be so angry). Our home,our ecosphere, our planet Earth is calling. Not just 4%. The Oceans are calling.Not just 4%. Do you still hear the Whales singing? They have been singing for about 45 million years longer than humankind has walked this planet. How did they do that without ipods? They have not overpopulated nor polluted their environment. I'm voting for the whales. Peacewhales.
Posted by: Mondragon Doc on 01/06/09 at 6:19 PM Respond
My idea of a Bush Inc fade-out was "Do No Harm". The Israelis had to put their foot in it, of course, but who expected anything less? Still, given that Bush is protecting marine areas instead of (so far) opening up the wilderness to his friends in Extraction Inc. is to me a plus. But, given how we're debating the merits of these protected areas I'm afraid that we are still blinded to the core problem: We're not seeing the problem as an interrelated whole. You can't save a part of the oceans, let alone the oceans, if you're still despoiling the land, and or the air. An effect on one affects the others. And, worse than that, I'm stlll meeting too many people (most people I meet or know) for whom all that matters is convenience, price, value (quantity for price, most often, but sometimes quality for price), status, or some combination of the above. Forced labor, inhumane conditions, bad slaughter practices, pollution, human rights violations, just don't
figure in. Of course, how are most people to know? We need a better method of certifying what is truly green, and or humane and sustainable, and to quickly alert people to flaws in the system, without undermining trust in that system. Nonetheless, while I'm glad Bush is at least saving something instead of destroying it, it concerns me that he got to do the damage he did because so many folks just don't care about what they can't see, if they can benefit by price, association, or convenience, or some vague feeling of security.
Posted by: gryphonisle on 01/06/09 at 10:36 PM Respond
"If you draw a line around it, all of a sudden it's somebody's responsibility to take care of it." Look up Johnston Atoll on Wikipedia. It's in one of the new monuments. The KNOWN envronmental s*** we do/did there makes Chernoybl look lightweight. Now we're "protecting" an area the size of two western states? My God. What did we do out there and why is Bush so anxious to control access?
Posted by: muzza on 01/07/09 at 11:43 AM Respond
I have to keep reminding myself. No one is all bad. But on the grand scale, his administration is still appalling. I kept a folder in my e-mail for the environmental travesties this administration has created. I kept it only for the first few years of his administration and it ranged in the 100s. A few good deeds do not offset the literal hundreds of misdeeds and the waste of energy it took to push back some of these abhorations.
Thanks for the article but I just get the feeling that he's only leaving some work for other ogres to tend to.
Posted by: nakis on 01/07/09 at 11:45 AM Respond
This b****** has earned no accolades. The destruction he has brought on the environment and to the people of the world drowns this miniscule effort. Put the b****** into the halls of shame where he belongs along with his entire disgraceful warmongering money grabbing party. This is one dirty ship that would disgrace and polute any landfill.
Posted by: Frank on 01/07/09 at 12:08 PM Respond
It all smells fishy. Bush doesn't do anything that might benefit anyone or anything, especially the environment, unless he's getting something for it. He's a selfish, greedy, thoughtless, useless tyrant. The best thing he and his cronies can do when this administration’s time is up is climb back under the rocks from which they climbed out of. If they’re lucky, those rocks will still be there, no thanks to his poor record on caring about the environment!!!
Posted by: Common Sense in Politics on 01/07/09
No comments:
Post a Comment