The Ocean in Crisis - Term Paper Example

Full English 101 01 January The Ocean in Crisis Civilizations depend both directly and indirectly on the oceans that sustainlife. Oceans serve as the source of abundant food and minerals, provide highways of international trade, and a means of waste disposal. Food supplies, perhaps most importantly to human beings, depend in large part on the ability of the oceans to produce fish and other edible animal/plant life. In addition, ocean water produces a number of valuable minerals like salt, magnesium, and bromine, which all serve useful functions in society. In some places like arid desert where fresh water is not readily available, ocean water serves as a lifeline for societies who can decrease its salt content to a safe level. Humanity’s dependence on the oceans is not a recent development, but has existed for thousands of years, ever since man first realized that he could master the resources that the ocean has to offer. Humans are not beyond that basic dependence on regulation and equilibrium in how they interact with the vast oceans of earth. Unfortunately, much of this equilibrium between the health of oceans and the health of civilizations has disappeared in the last century, with the rise of grave threats to the world’s seas. Problems such as acidification, climate change, pollution, and overfishing have resulted in the need for civilizations to rethink how they exploit the oceans to support necessary institutions. Of course, the existence of these threats is not always clear, so the purpose of this paper is to elucidate some of the inevitable dangers humans pose to the oceans and how those dangers can be reversed. Acidification Acidification is a process of decreasing the pH level of some substance—in this case, earth’s oceans. The process of acidification is occurring at a faster rate because of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Because levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere remain relatively stable, the excess carbon dioxide is taken up by the oceans (Raven and Falkowski). Dissolved carbon dioxide produces acids such as carbonic acid and bicarbonate. A lower pH has the effect of making ocean waters more acidic, which means most importantly that oceanic calcifying organisms such as corals, crustaceans, echinoderms, mollusks, foraminifera, and others will be vulnerable to the negative effects of a more acidic ocean. Fundamental disruptions to the ecosystems of these organisms that lie at the bottom of the ocean’s food chain will have profound, and most likely irreversible, influences life in the ocean (Nienhuis, Palmer and Harley 10). Keith Sherwood and Craig Idso argue against those who claim ocean acidification poses a significant problem to earth’s largest ecosystem based on a review by Hendriks et al., published in 2010. According to the report, warnings that ocean acidification poses a significant long-term threat to marine biodiversity are based on theoretical models that do not account for numerous biological phenomena and are not supported by empirical observation. According to Sherwood and Idso, biological processes are capable of homeostasis against significant changes in pH levels within the range predicted during the 21st century. However, the essential contradiction here is that the conclusion being offered by Sherwood and Idso is based on the same theoretical models that they claim are not supported by empirical observation earlier; that is, “the range predicted during the 21st century” is a prediction based on a theoretical model of how acid levels in the bulk waters of the oceans will change. A major problem Sherwood and Idso do not address is whether predictions about acid level increases are actually reliable when by their own admission, Sherwood and Idso do not think so. Perhaps acid levels will rise much more than predicted, which would call into the question their conclusion that homeostasis can make up the difference. Climate Change Climate change and ocean acidification are two very large, planet-wide processes being driven by the same root problem—an anthropogenic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Excess carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean, causing higher levels of acidity; excess carbon dioxide also prevents sunlight and thermal energy from escaping the earth’s atmosphere, which causes global temperatures to rise and global weather patterns to become considerably less stable. Together, both problems pose a significant threat to the homeostasis of earth’s oceans, which depend on a health pH level and stable weather patterns to produce food and other resources necessary to sustain human civilization. One argument against the threat that global climate changes pose to oceans is that only human populations along coasts and on islands will be truly affected by higher sea levels. Nevertheless, this viewpoint is shortsighted. Sea level rises pose risks to developing coastal regions, particularly in developed countries like the United States and Japan. In Japan, for example, higher sea levels bring added risks to nuclear power plants (Kenward). Just because a potential natural disaster affects only one population or one community that does not indicate it is less of a problem. Since global climate change by definition affects the oceans, and the oceans plays a crucial role in the world’s biodiversity and food supply, the oceanic problem of climate change is by definition a global problem that all human beings share in finding a solution for. Some perspectives hold that climate change is actually neither a global problem nor any problem at all. NASA top official Michael Griffin remarked in a 2007 radio interview that scientists cannot say whether earth’s climate today is its optimal climate. Indeed, scientists cannot pinpoint the conditions that make certain climates ideal and others not; however, this escapes the primary issue that a warmer climate will have on the broad system of earth’s weather patterns, not the secondary issue of whether that set of changes will be desirable or not. From a purely descriptive point of view, climate change has deleterious effects on not only the climate but also the oceans. To attempt to undercut these effects by denying the significance of climate change on global weather is a grave mistake that underlies many policy disagreements among politicians within the developed world. Pollution If acidification and climate change pose global risks to oceanic sustainability that result indirectly from the actions of human civilization, then pollution is a direct result that has more local consequences for the oceans. Marine pollution is a problem that grows in scale proportionally with the growth in human societies, which require easy, cheap places to dispose of waste. The ocean, which is a constantly flowing and renewing environment, seems to be a logical choice for some disposal of waste. However, when the amount of waste being disposed grows too large for the ocean to handle—particularly in one specific location—pollution can have devastating effects not only on biodiversity and habitat, but also on human populations that necessarily depend on the oceans for their continued existence. In addition, as manufacturing of chemicals and toxins develops in emerging markets, we can expect to see greater levels of disposal into oceans. Although the effects of pollution are most clearly felt in local settings, risks posed to the ocean by anthropogenic pollution are systemic threats. There is no one central source of mercury dumping into the ocean, but oceanic fish from all over the world are reaching near-toxic levels (to humans) of mercury and toxins in their tissues. Predatory fish are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and small children because they feed on the lower links of the food chain, which accumulate mercury from ocean water. In addition to overfishing, mercury pollution poses a threat to marine populations that many civilizations depend on as a vital economic or food resource (Cone). An argument in favor of polluting the oceans is inconceivable; however, one might find a rationale for doing so. For instance, suppose the alternative to disposing one’s sewage in the ocean is to dispose of it on land, where it will decompose and perhaps cause illness by infiltrating into the water supply for towns. Disposing of waste into the ocean, in that case, seems to make sense. Nevertheless, this kind of rationale is nothing more than a classic case of sweeping one’s problems under the rug—eventually, the problem will come back to one’s doorstep. This can take the form of garbage once thought of as “gone” washing back onto shore and causing problems for the environment and for society (WWF Global). It represents a remarkably short-term view that does not account for the future. Instead of shifting focus from where garbage and sewage go, societies ought to be thinking about more responsible ways of disposing those things it no longer has use for. Overfishing Another direct and local effect of human intervention with the ocean is the case of overfishing, which has reached a critical level in terms of maintaining sustainable resources for future generations. The destruction of predatory fish is “bad news” for oceanic ecosystems that depend on large fish for the maintenance of proper levels between autotrophs and heterotrophs. In fact, predator fish populations have decreased nearly 90 percent in the past half-century, which is extraordinarily troubling not only for the ocean itself but also societies that depend economically and physically on the fish living off their coasts (Montgomery). In terms of how societies use fish, there is a constantly increasing demand for the consumption of predatory fish such as tuna, even while their consumption causes problems for future supply. Due to the necessity of capturing and using fish beyond levels considered sustainable, as dictated by market demand, human beings find themselves performing actions that go against their rational, long-term self-interest just to stay in business. Unfortunately, this project of staying in business will come at the cost of devastating the oceans. Like with pollution, there is no conceivable argument in favor of overfishing, since the very name “overfishing” implies that fishing is being done to an excess and undesirable degree. Instead, one can find rationale connected to overfishing tied to politics, jobs, and economics. Individuals who represent the interests of fishermen commonly complain about increasing regulations on the fishing industry (Olson). However, like with pollution, to complain against a solution that will preserve natural resources for a longer time is an incredibly shortsighted perspective to take on any issue. Human and environmental interests align on the decision to use fish reserves in a sustainable manner, even if the market responds poorly to the narrowed supply of predatory fish. Conclusions Regulations and bottlenecks on the amount of damage human beings can do legally to the oceans have been successful in turning around some of the injury the oceans feel as industrialization continues. Human beings must realize the vital role that oceans play in sustaining and making society possible. Instead, the ocean is used unsustainably as a catchall solution for both dumping sewage and securing food. Climate change and acidification are both examples of unintended consequences of industrialization coming back to reveal the weaknesses of our modern attitudes toward the environment. Pollution and overfishing are both examples of the intended consequences of capitalism and the need for short-term solutions that ultimately create far-larger long-term problems. Instead of focusing on ways to fulfill these short-term demands for predatory fish and cheap sewage disposal costs, societies should be looking into ways of solving problems that do not involve simply sweeping them under the rug for them to show up again and to a larger degree than when they were first dealt with. It is a start in the right direction to highlight the threats that oceans face in the 21st century and to make statements about what civilizations ought to do in response. In terms of specific steps to take from here, developed countries might consider setting meaningful goals toward restoring balance to oceanic ecosystems by growing the number of predators. If unwilling to grow positive balance, then governments might impose stricter penalties on those that profit from devastation to the oceans, such as those who mutilate sharks in order to take and sell their fins. Secondly, governments can impose stricter penalties on entities (individuals or corporations) who dispose of waste by dumping it into the ocean, and revising governmental policies that do the same. Only collective action, inspired by the brave sacrifices of individuals, can prevent the oceans from succumbing to anthropogenic destruction. Works Cited Cone, Marla. "Big increase in ocean mercury found; study predicts more human threat from fish." 2 May 2009. Environmental Health News. 24 January 2012 . Hendriks, I.E., Duarte, C.M. and M. Alvarez. "Vulnerability of marine biodiversity to ocean acidification: A meta-analysis." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, Vol. 86 (2010): 157-164. Kenward, Alyson. "Sea Level Rise Brings Added Risks to Coastal Nuclear Plants." 24 March 2011. On Earth. 23 January 2012 . Montgomery, Christina. "Overfishings wiping out critical BC marine predators." 5 December 2011. Vancouver Observer. 24 January 2012 . Nienhuis, S., A. Palmer and C. Harley. "Elevated CO2 affects shell dissolution rate but not calcification rate in a marine snail." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol. 277 (2010): 2553-2558. Olson, Erik. "No-Fishing Rule Roils Southern California." 12 January 2012. The New York Times. 24 January 2012 . Raven, J.A. and P.G. Falkowski. "Oceanic sinks for atmospheric CO2." Plant, Cell & Environment, Vol. 22 (1999): 741-755. Sherwood, K. and C. Idso. "The Real Ocean Acidification Story." March 2010. CO2 Science. 23 January 2012 . WWF Global. "Marine problems: Pollution." 2008. World Wildlife Foundation. 24 January 2012 . Read More