Blog Questions

What are your primary concerns about the oceans? What, if anything, do you plan to do about it?

My primary concerns are mostly drawn from the impact of overfishing and the collapse of global fisheries. Seeing that a majority of people rely on the oceans as a source of food and nourishment, the destruction caused by the exploitation of natural resources seems to be of grave concern. Pollution in the oceans and the impact from rising global temperatures are also alarming as we do not currently know the extent and severity these factors have for life on Earth.

I am not sure what can be done to stop the destruction of the ocean that does not require dramatic changes to the practices we currently implement as a society. The least that can be done is to set up reserves for particularly vulnerable places in the oceans, and draft laws that regulate global fisheries. On an individual level, it might be necessary to raise these issues and have educated and rational discussions with people who might not be aware of the environmental degradation caused by overfishing and pollution. It might cause some people to evaluate what they are placing in themselves and the price paid to provide it to them.

Jeremy Jackson: “How we Wrecked the Ocean,” a TED Talk

Jeremy Jackson started out in Chesapeake Bay—diving in the winter which eventually led him to his calling as a coral reef ecologist. He made his way to Jamaica, where beautiful reefs adorned the coast of the West Indies. But something is peculiar when you look at pictures of those reefs from the 60s and 70s: there were no fish in the pictures.

            The reefs of Discovery Bay in Jamaica were the most studied reefs in the last twenty years. What scientists learn most about coral reefs “was based on these reefs without any fish.” Where it was generally accepted that hurricanes may destroy coral reefs, the prediction of Jackson and what would happen just happened to be wrong. Overfishing was the culprit. When natural disasters used to occur, coral ecosystems tend to eventually recover; however, overfishing, pollution, and climate change have now hindered these natural processes—interacting in ways that prevent recovery.

            Industrial fisheries use drag nets that scrape the sea floor to catch and endanger habitats—so it is not only fish which are disappearing. Corals are destroyed by this practice, like the “area of the ocean floor that has been transformed from forest to level mud.” Looking for a perspective, the destruction equates to as if “the entire area of all the forests that have been cut down on all of the earth in the history of humanity”—and we have managed to this in a relatively short time.

Pollution from oil spills and plastic waste also play a pivotal role to the destruction of marine life. Invasive species and nutrient loading exacerbate the destruction. Run-off from fertilizers find their way into waterways. Red tides or toxic blooms are becoming more commonplace.

            In regards to climate change, the warming of earth’s ocean systems will have a deleterious impact for marine life. The warming of polar ice caps and rising levels would not only have a consequence for life in the oceans but for the life on land as well. Coral bleaching is an effect of algae unable to produce sugars which the corals thrive on when ocean temperatures rise.

            The most frightening aspect of these scenarios is that “each thing doesn’t happen in a vacuum.” Instead, positive feedback loops exacerbate the situation at hand. How oceanic life can survive will depend on how humanity moves forward in these undertakings. Physical, chemical, and oceanographic changes are occurring, and unless we change the way we think, and set priorities that include all life on earth, we might see an end to the current ways of living. Jackson implores us to set aside our greed and need for growth—because it is not about the fish, or pollution, or even climate change, it is about how we see ourselves and the example we want to set for generations to come.

Reflections

Jeremy Jackson’s TED Talk incorporated many visuals that demonstrate the plight of marine ecosystems—in particular, the effect our practices have on coral reefs. The extent of humanity’s overfishing has severely depleted the functioning ability of once pristine places on earth such as Discovery Bay in Jamaica. The pollution incurred by mankind is nothing to scoff at, and the loss of biodiversity because of this pollution is weakening natural ecosystems around the world. Mankind has shaped the landscape of Earth on an unprecedented level. We may have a general idea of the consequences we face, but the severity seems unfathomable at times. It is through educating people on the destruction of our oceans that stands the hope we may be able to change our actions in a sustainable way. 

A Summary of Boris Worm’s “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services

The impact of marine ecosystems influenced by human nature has been severely crippled over the past years. Loss of species and their populations are visible evidence that this is occurring, yet there are plenty of unknown consequences as well. What Boris Worm set out to do was see how biodiversity is affected from the long-term practice of global fisheries: they found that “resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity.” On the other hand, restoring biodiversity seemed to increase productivity; therefore, Worm’s conclusion is that the loss of biodiversity in marine ecosystems is exacerbating the inability of the ocean to provide food, quality water, and recovery from ecological disasters. However, these trends can still prevented.

Research done on land animals tend to suggest the same thing: a richer biodiversity enhances the productivity and stability of ecosystems. The vast expanse of oceans makes it particularly difficult to forecast the scope of our impact on marine ecosystems. Because many people are dependent on water systems as a means of survival, changing the landscape can have deleterious effects on these communities. These effects stem from the practice of “exploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction, or indirectly through climate change and related perturbations of ocean biogeochemistry.” The loss of coral reefs, estuaries and ocean fish communities are a result of these practices.

Biodiversity enhances ecosystems in many ways: they provide stability, resistance to disturbances in habitats, and provide mixed diets to species that prolong survival such as growth and fecundity. The research on biodiversity reports “positive linkages between biodiversity, productivity, and stability across trophic levels in marine ecosystems.”

For coastal ecosystems, a decline of species strongly correlated with the onset of industrialization, and as predicted, ecosystems were able to survive with an increased richness in species and was conclusively more stable. When coastal ecosystems are unable to filter water and increase water quality, there were increases in pollution, algal blooms, and oxygen depletion; as a result, the survival of native species (and at times compromised by invasive ones) were declining.

In large marine ecosystems, the rate of global fisheries have collapsed by 29% since 2003 defined by the recorded maximum. As with current trends from the research above, collapses occurred more frequently in areas which were not rich in biodiversity. In areas where species richness was abundant, these ecosystems tend to be more robust and less susceptible to overexploitation.

The issue is whether these trends can be reversed. The implementation of reserves and closures have been used on regional and local scales. The question is whether it can be replicated on a larger scale. Reserves and closures have reversed some aspects of declining biodiversity and were associated with “large increases in fisheries productivity.” Ecosystems tend to stabilize although not significantly in many cases. Results vary from place to place, but some of the data suggests that it is still possible to recoup some losses in biodiversity from these areas. This trend towards a less biodiverse world has many implications: Worm’s findings demonstrate that “the elimination of local adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed a growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery potential in a rapidly changing marine environment.” Our efforts must prove prudent if we are to live in a sustainable world, and that begins by rethinking the life of marine ecosystems.

What can we do to prevent a catastrophic decline in ocean fisheries by the mid-21^st century?

In order to prevent a catastrophic decline of ocean fisheries, we must act now. Part of this action includes restoring the biodiversity in our oceans through sustainable practices in fisheries management. We must also be able to control the level of pollutants entering our ecosystems, and maintain the marine habitats necessary for life. The creation of marine reserves can also help curb and prevent a decline in ocean fisheries. If we are successful in our ventures in being sustainable when it comes to marine ecosystems, we might be able to address growing concerns of food security and water quality for habitats conducive to the proliferation of life.

Worm, Boris. “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services.” Sources: Selection in

                Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 92-95.

A Summary of Robert D. Bullard’s “Environmental Justice for All”

Environmental movements often reflect the idealist aspirations of upper middle class whites, but seldom are the poor represented. Sometimes they fail to take into account the needs of the poor and the scope of racial oppression when discussing environmental burdens. In this article, Bullard describes the history of the environmental movement, environmental racism, and call for the action of government to inflict change.

People frequently see media coverage of impoverished African American communities serving as dumping grounds for pollutants and other hazardous waste; and before, the people in these communities will watch helplessly as industry, manufacturers, and even the city throw waste in their backyards. But as early as 1968, the inception and concept of environmental justice provided a means for citizens to speak out and rally against corporations and demand government set forth laws. In 1991 environmental activists marched down Washington D.C. for a summit to “bring national attention to pollution problems threatening low-income and minority communities.”

The protest was simple: put forth the notion that working class and minority communities receive less environmental protection that white or affluent communities. It involved expanding the definition of “environment” to include a social aspect as well as the physical and natural ones. In essence, the “movement changed the way environmentalism is practiced in the United States and, ultimately, worldwide.” The cry for environmental justice lead to two dozen policy papers displaying “powerful environmental and health disparities between people of color and whites”–a movement that falls under the umbrella of civil rights.

The first lawsuit filed using civil rights law, in the vein of environmental justice, was Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management, Inc. in 1979. The issue regards Houston’s landfills and incinerators which were located in predominantly black neighborhoods, “even though Blacks made up only 25 percent of the city’s population.” Although they were ineffective to halt dumping in the landfill, the plaintiffs did manage to enforce waste regulations for the city and state. The environmental justice movement, however, shot into national attention when Warren County, N.C. was selected as a site to dispose of toxic waste. The decision brought forth many protests that lead to over 500 arrests, “marking the first time any Americans had been jailed protesting the placement of waste facility.”

Environmental racism was now front and center on the national stage. The landfill, ultimately, went through the political cycle, but the organization of churches, civil rights protestors, youth, and environmental activists melded the black community together. The efforts of Warren County led to studies produced by such groups. Statistical analysis confirmed that “three of every five Black live in communities with abandoned toxic waste sites.” These instances are only the tip of the iceberg in a long line of environmental atrocities borne by minority communities.

Since then there have been many successes led by the environmental justice movements; decisions in cases that resulted in relocation, government intervention, and million dollar court settlements. The Bush administration had curbed some of this progress. New rules governing air pollution have set back the strides made by the environmental justice movement. In these trying times where clean air is a luxury, it seems that standards have become more lenient when they should have become more stringent. Environment justice should be a right for all, and not just for the upper class of society.

What is environmental justice?

Environmental justice are inequitable environment burdens borne by racial minorities and communities and those of low socioeconomic status. These people and communities often are treated unfairly as their environment is compromised by decision makers who may designate their neighborhoods for disposal of waste and pollutants which prove harmful to those living within the area. 

Bullard, Robert D. “Environmental Justice for All.” Sources: Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed.                 Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 170-172.

A Summary of Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myer’s “Our Stolen Future”

Rachel Carson launched the environmental movement and her message is a “guiding belief among environmentalists, wildlife biologists, and others who recognize two fundamental realities—our shared evolutionary inheritance and our shared environment.” The natural processes that govern our biology, our endocrine system, has been relatively unchanged in our evolution as a species—nearly hundreds of millions of years. Variation among living organisms find ingenious solutions to carry on and pass genes, but the formula remains the same. What makes us unique is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

We share a common environment with all living things as well as a common ancestor. Although mankind has shaped the environments in ways unimaginable to those in the past, we still rely on natural systems when continuing down our trodden path. They may seem less familiar than the systems of wildlife for an eagle or an otter, but we are “no less deeply implicated in life’s web.”

The exposure in the last half century to persistent chemicals have conveyed this interconnectedness with all living things. All over the world, from the biggest species to the small, we have all, in some way, accumulated a buildup of POPs through our body fat. We partake in a shared contamination, and “there is little reason to expect that humans will in the long term have a separate fate.” There are, however, skeptics, that suggest that results of animal testing do not pose a threat to humans. Although our understanding of cancer is lacking when it comes to the basic mechanisms that induce the disease, we have conclusive data of the mechanisms and actions of hormones.

One example of this is the transferring of chemical substance called diethylstilbestrol (DES) in studies of pregnant women: laboratory experiments have confirmed the existence of DES in the children of women who had consumed the drug during the gestation period. The studies of endocrine disrupters are still in the infancy stage, and as a result, the “extent of the threat is far from complete.” The studies as a whole, however, suggests evidence that we are not immune to the potential harm caused from the persistent pollutants.

In 1991, Theo Colburn and Pete Myers formed a conference of scientists from varying fields ranging from anthropology to zoology, and convened together to present what they know about the effect of pollutants on hormones. Together, the evidence is compelling—and pose a harm to humanity and wildlife. We may very well be paying the consequences from our exposure to these pollutants; to what extent, time will tell. It will be difficult to assess, but the general consensus is that the contamination is evident. The animal studies provide a sort of blueprint to what might happen if we continue down this path of negligence. They act as the canary in the coal mine, risking their lives to alert us of the dangers these pollutants pose.

What effects are environmental hormone mimics known to have on humans?

Because environmental hormone mimics play a role in influencing the endocrine system and the mechanisms and actions of hormones, there is an increasing frequency of genetic abnormalities of children from mothers who may be exposed to these disruptors during the gestation period. Some abnormalities noted in Colburn’s articles are “undescended testicles, extremely small penises, and hypospadias, a defect in which the urethra that carries urine does not extend to the end of the penis.” These disruptors may produce adverse effects that range from developmental, neurological, and reproductive in humans as well as in wildlife. 

Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. “Our Stolen Future.” Sources:                            Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 158-160.

A Summary of Sandra Steingraber’s “Living Downstream”

Sandra Steingraber was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a young adult. People might shake their heads and think it is genetic if she had said it runs in her family, but what if she told you that she was adopted? Steingraber explores this fact and goes on to describe “a study of cancer among adoptees that found correlations within their adoptive families but not within their biological ones.” Most people who said it was genetic would draw a blank stare, and then—silence. These silences illuminate some hard facts, how some people are unaware that families not only share similar genetic traits but, more often than not, share the same environments as well.

What struck Steingraber was the volume of science research that focused on genetic mutations as a cause for cancer. For Steingraber, there had to be more than just genetics. Naturally intrigued, she began to research articles that document the genetic changes associated with bladder cancer. Even with all the information we have gathered about genetic mutations, we still fall short in finding an effective solution to prevent the disease. The rate of bladder cancer has risen 10% between the years 1973 and 1979, with significant prominence from the African American population. And while it is believed that cigarette smoking may account for a third of all cases, the most apt question is what is causing cancer in the rest of the population who do not smoke? Steingraber’s research evaluated the known and suspected carcinogens, “their sources, their possible interactions with each other, and our various routes of exposure to them.” What she lacked was conclusive evidence in how these substances interact with each other.

Most cancer research, at the moment, tends to deal with the heretical nature of the disease. The approach focuses on genetic testing which tries to identify genes that are most susceptible to cancer, and the individual’s risk of cancer. Steingraber, however, exclaims that hereditary cancers are not the norm, as “fewer than 10 percent of all malignancies are thought to involve inherited mutations.” When heredity is not deemed as the main cause, cancers are classified as “sporadic” to describe the rest. The evidence suggests that the location of a cancer gene will “not prevent the vast majority of cancers that develop.” What often occurs is that people who carry a cancer gene are more at risk as environmental factors exacerbate the potential risk for malignancy.

The crux of the issue when it comes to cancer genes is that we cannot change who our ancestors are, and focusing the issue on inheritance which we can do nothing about rather than external factors which could be in our control. We are carrying, from the past, carcinogens that are no longer in use but are still present in our bodies. It important that we find and explore the root cause that may stem from our previous use of chemicals in neighborhoods and the products we use. This, in essence, is a search for our ecological roots. The current system of regulation of carcinogenic substances is intolerable; rather, we must prevent the generation instead. Steingraber advises that we choose the least harmful way when solving problems which inexplicably correlates with the “least toxic alternative.”

Should there be more effort to study the links between cancer and environmental factors?

Yes, with Steingraber’s research and personal anecdotes, there does seem to be correlation with cancer and external factors that are not related to genetics or heredity. Everywhere around us, the use of chemicals in our food and water are prevalent. We still carry trace elements of pesticides in us since Rachel Carson exposed the world to the dangers of their use. What else can be affecting our health that may lead to malignancies causing death? By only focusing on genetic mutations of cancer cells, we are limiting the scope of possibilities that may be a root cause to our dilemmas.

Steingraber, Sandra. “Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the                                           Environment.” Sources: Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United                     States, 2014. 153-157.

A Summary of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment’s “Ecosystems and Human Well-being”

Everyone depends on earth's ecosystems and services: food water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment. But over the last 50 years, we have drastically changed these ecosystems more than in any period of history just to meet these demands. Although this change has been met with increasing economic and standards of living, it has also harmed many regions and groups of people in the process.

There are three problems which are associated with the management of the world’s ecosystems that affectively harm the livelihood of people—in particular, the poor. Firstly, 60% of ecosystem services examined are used unsustainably which include “fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests.” Although these losses are extremely hard to measure, the surrounding evidence suggests they are substantial and increasing. Secondly, “there is established but incomplete evidence” that changes in ecosystems are consequently affecting and influencing the state of other ecosystems that have ramifications for human well-being. Thirdly, the effects of a degraded ecosystem are being borne mostly be the poorest of peoples, and are “contributing to growing inequities and disparities across groups of people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing poverty and social conflict”

The goals set forth by the international community in achieving the Millenium Development Goals reached in September 2000 are already hindered by the degradation of ecosystem services, and the extent of this degradation can grow worse over the next 50 years. Many driving forces of ecosystem change are unlikely to diminish by 2050, especially climate change and nutrient loading which will be more pronounced in years to come. People most reliant on ecosystem services, particularly the rural poor, face the biggest challenge as it is unlikely that these goals are sustainable when these services are degraded.

The problems arise from the many challenges we face today and are exacerbated by the interconnected of the situation. Actions to curb or reverse the degradation has shown some results, but they inevitably have not kept up with current demands. There are preliminary discussions to stop degradation in the coming decades: changes in policies, institutions, and practices “can mitigate some but not all of the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems” but they are not implemented at the moment It will take a collected effort and an integration of ecosystem management goals in a wide range of sectors and a new way of thinking if we are to instill some change for a sustainable future.

There have been many benefits from the changes made to the world’s ecosystems, primarily when it comes to meeting the demands for food and water. Agricultural gains, which include fisheries and forestry, have provided a means to feed a world with an increasing population, but the destruction inflicted on the ecosystem is unsustainable and have been exhausted and are often borne by the people of impoverished nations. The necessary steps we must take to ensure a more sustainable world will ultimately depend on evaluating humanity’s connection with ecosystems.

In what ways does damage to ecosystems affect human well-being?

Humanity and Earth’s ecosystems are deeply connected on a symbiotic level. We rely on thriving ecosystems as a source of food, water, and materials. We depend on Earth’s biological processes to sustain life. When we take liberties and exploit ecosystems for personal gain, it often affects people in the lowest stratum of economic stability in the world. Oftentimes, the poor bear the brunt of this carelessness, as we destroy natural habitats which threaten the ecosystems they rely on. Because many peoples are located on coastal regions, overfishing is an example that takes food away and their ability to survive as marine ecosystems are slowly being depleted of fish. Resources are being harvested by more affluent societies, primarily at the consequence of the poor. When we damage ecosystems in the search for these resources, humanity as a whole feels the blight from these atrocities.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being.” Sources: Selection                  in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 53-59.