U.S. Not Doing Enough to Protect Coral Reefs

[gj62]

Ask the last couple of remaining Mountain Gorillas or better yet, the Dodo bird.

99% of all species that once existed in the world are extinct. I throw this out not as an excuse, but there are some things that are inevitable, that we do not control, and do not understand. Man's interaction with the environment is evolutionary in nature. True, man is the first animal we believe to have the cognizance to understand the results of actions beyond the immediate. However, we often do not understand the environmental dynamic well enough to know for sure how/why something is happening. From the tire reef to believing petrochemical use causes global warming.

As far as the U.S. setting an example - with the size and nature of the government, you can find hundreds of examples that show the U.S. is either supporting or opposed to just about any issue. We've simply got enough to deal with moving government along - to take the time to analyze our actions vis-a-vis impressions vs actual effect, well, hopefully some day we will be that efficient... Frankly, if what we were doing was paying lip-service to an idea, I would think that would be worse, and be used as fodder for the opposition.

 

[simbrooks]

I know this will be regarded as rhetoric, as i dont have actual numbers, nor would anyone in terms of percentage, but even so i will still say it.

We all know that humans in their quest to improve their lives have gone beyond the basics of life that used to exist, that all started in earnest about 150 years ago. We now have more than we need to survive, in fact most people have in their everyday life (in fact also replacing "old" stuff that isnt worn out with newer models) what a few decades ago was regarded as luxuries that only the richest people could afford. Whilst sometimes these updates of "old" stuff are more environmentally friendly in their everyday use (think cars, washing machines, refridgerators etc) - we are still throwing away huge amounts of stuff that is not worn out or has not reached its expected design life. Another part to this whole puzzle is that we humans are digging up, drilling, collecting all sorts of resources from this earth (this is the part where no-one knows how many resources there are - therefore cant make a claim as to how much we have used, or how much is less, only that it is decreasing) - from this collection of resources and production of beyond-basic items we are also producing by-products, be they gas, liquid or solid wastes that wouldnt have been there had nature run its own course and we hadnt interferred. I understand that some readings of effects are tainted by natural background events (like volcano eruptions), but no-one can say that we arent adding to the natural effects with our actions.

 

[archman]

Don't discount species extinction out of hand. Oh no, the preponderous bulk of that (within the last century) is most assuredly anthropogenic... almost always a result of habitat loss or direct consumption. There are a few very recent articles analyzing this quantitatively and referring to it as the (sixth?) mass extinction period in our geologic history. There should be a lot more of such articles coming out, and some of those "popular-type" books you get in the bookstore. I wish I had one of those articles here to quote... fascinating stuff.

 

[archman]

producing by-products, be they gas, liquid or solid wastes that wouldnt have been there had nature run its own course and we hadnt interferred. I understand that some readings of effects are tainted by natural background events (like volcano eruptions), but no-one can say that we arent adding to the natural effects with our actions.

Oh yeah, definitely! Many countries are are fairly well along now recognizing and maybe doing something about their big nasty pollution and waste... that trend will continue. Those nasties tend to kill ecosystems (or people) rather quickly, and are "easy fixes" on a relative scale.
It's only recently (within the last 8-9 years) that the impacts of low-level pollution are being realized.Two good examples are radioactive dust from coal-burning plants, and grey water discharges. Stuff like this doesn't do harm right away, but over time it's just as bad. No, actually it's far worse, as few people want to cough up the money for proper monitoring equipment, much less implement the much more difficult cleanup. Industry HATES it when you mention low-level contamination, and I don't blame them.
Comparatively little of this has made its way to the public eye, but that won't last. I'm sure many folks have heard of endocrine disruptors? They're now one of the EPA's top study priorities. All it takes is minute quantities of this junk (contained in stuff like shampoos and over-the-counter drugs) to alter all sorts of physiological functions in a human (or plant, animal, fungus) body.
Modern science has lately been increasing its attention to this hard-to-detect low level pollution. Funding has pretty much shifted there, telling you what NSF and NIH think. There are excerpts from the new Ocean Policy Commission that recognize the need for tighter water quality standards, mostly in response to eutrophication studies. All you need is a teensy bit 'o added nitrogen in a water system to often wreak havoc on a water body.
Long-term ecological monitoring studies are not as common as you might think they are. They are in fact very rare. Without such historical databases, it is difficult to make a cast-iron case linking ecological or human health concerns to low-level pollution. And without the cast-iron case, getting legislation passed is a real bear. The best we can hope for is the increased funding to set up monitoring sites, funding to MAINTAIN THEM, and a Rachel Carson equivalent. Enflaming the public is always so much FUN to watch... from a distance.