Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean

A new group of TED talks came out today...

"In this bracing talk, coral reef ecologist Jeremy Jackson lays out the shocking state of the ocean today: overfished, overheated, polluted, with indicators that things will get much worse. Astonishing photos and stats make the case."


Forum doesn't like the embed I guess you can watch it here:

Jeremy Jackson: How we wrecked the ocean | Video on TED.com

 

Excellent post

 

that guy is known as "Dr.Doom".. his blog at :: CENTER FOR MARINE BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION : SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY, UC SAN DIEGO :: = humans bad, mother earth good.. sport fishing bad etc.. one specific example is an article and how they use a picture from a charter for BEELINERS as an example of sport fishing trophy pics today vs the trophy pics from the past. All to further NMFS and NOAA agendas in the gulf. He is on the payroll.

 

I'd rather further the agendas of NOAA and NMFS than the agenda of a corporation. If you want to dismiss me offhand without considering the logic, you can stop reading right here.

Corporations have nothing to lose other than profits each quarter; they don't really care about what happens two years down the line, let alone 20 years. For an example, look at how less than a year ago BP ignored warning signs that there were serious problems with this rig; yet, "do it sooner" won out over "long term safety" because BP deemed it more profitable to move faster than to follow safety protocols. This happens with nearly every single decision made in the corporate world. In an even more applicable example, corporations are known to be overfishing the large, delicious (I eat them too, I know they taste good) species of fish (tuna and salmon come to mind) at rates that natural reproduction cannot sustain, despite the inevitable loss of future profits. Fishing in particular is a business that doesn't have rapid or drastic changes in methodology or technology, making it the most suitable example of a business model that can be short-sighted and still work in the mid term.

NOAA and NMFS, on the other hand, have nothing to lose in the short term. There will be some fish left 2 years down the line. They have to worry about the long term; you can't regulate fishing and tax it if there's no fish worth catching. They may exaggerate their point (people, as a society, generally don't act on a problem unless the truth is greatly exaggerated or the problem is at an extreme state), but it's in everyone's interest to not overfish in the long term.

Remember, corporations care only about profits, not what happens a year down the road, while NMFS has no short term agenda. Every year a corporation stalls any sort of regulation means more profit for the company. Since a corporation has literally no obligation to anyone other than profit, they fight tooth and nail for every inch at all times. NMFS is appointed as a watchdog, to prevent corporations from destroying the Earth (or ocean) where we stand (or boat). That is NMFS' only obligation, and it is something to be considered when you call someone a pawn of a governmental watchdog agency.

You should also consider who employs the people with the opposing viewpoints, as they are equally on the payroll for the other side.

I'm not even taking too much away from the companies. They were designed with the purpose of creating profits, and placed into a system where there are supposed to be rules to prevent them from going "mad with power". That's the essence of the free market system - a system of regulations designed to promote competition while keeping these gigantic entities with massive power and no moral compass from using that power in a manner than is detrimental to society as a whole. What I'm really emphasizing is the neccesity of viewing both sides of the structure of our society and balancing them so that one doesn't overtake the other.

/generalized explanation of theory behind specific case

 

great video, kinda depressing and its amazing how shielded we are from news like this in the media. it is a bit exaggerated i believe, nevertheless an outstanding piece

 

Man has been given "Dominion" (Supreme authority) over all the animals and creatures of the sea. The ocean replenishes very quickly. It, the ocean and all the food there-in is given for us, not the other way around.

 

really? Its like that huh?

 

really? Like the destruction of coastal economies? The removal of the recreational fisherman from the water? Lets take red snapper for instance. The gulf has a TAC, total allowable catch for red snapper. The TAC is divied up into recreational (49%) and commercial (51%) sectors. The for hire and recreational guys are lumped together. So, what is happening is .orgs (environmental groups who have no stakeholder position in the fishery) are proposing to have catch shares implemented in the recreational side of the fishery. As in you would have to buy your fish before you ever went fishing. Never mind this is a PUBLIC resource that you already own. And heres where things get jinky. NMFS does not count fish that are on rigs, wrecks, artificial reefs; only natural structure in their biomass assesment. Never mind that 40% of all red snapper caught in US waters are caught in Alabama state waters on their state artificial public reefeing sites. The science is flawed. The fish are there, we have the videos to prove it. They are jiggling the numbers to steer things in a certain direction. Anyone can see the game. If you cant see whats happening around you, your blind. Heres another example, the Jewfish. Was about to be delisted from the ESA list since they have exploded in the gulf and atlantic. The two populations are the same species. However, NMFS declared them two different species, which split the stock and put them back on the ESA list. Their is alot more to the story, like the 1/2 an amberjack limit and wanton waste! Its more about control than anything. Sound familiar??

 

Yea, I would have to disagree. The ocean was there before us, and will be after we are gone. It's our responsibility to care for it as we use the resources it provides, but we are not given "dominion" or "authority" over anything.

 

"wanton waste" isn't exactly specific. As for the 1/2 of an amberjack limit: if that sort of low limit existed on other big fish that are now nearly extinct or otherwise endangered, we wouldn't be in a situation where many of the larger fish are in serious population decline.